Reflections from Latin America on the hydrosocial approach: its use, abuse, and a possible way through the maze

Abstract

During the last two decades, there has been an increase in critical research on water-related issues. They have focused on the role of water in society?nature interactions as well as the power relations involved in water management. Most of the literature uses the hydrosocial approach. Following Rogers and Crow-Miller [2017], we use the term hydrosocial approach for the set of interconnected and overlapping concepts such as water circulation, waterscapes, hydrosocial cycles, hydrosocial territories, hydrolectics and hydrosocial basins. These concepts are under constant debate and have the notable feature of being considerably open and incomplete in their formulation [Larsimont and Grosso, 2014]. Many scholars have contributed to trace the genealogy of the hydrosocial approach with calibrated synthesis works [Swyngedouw, 2009; 2015; Budds, 2011; Linton, 2014; Linton and Budds, 2014; Banister, 2014; Wesselink, Kooy, and Warner, 2017; Karpouzoglou and Vij, 2017; Rogers and Crow-Miller, 2017]. Some works introduce the conceptual landscape for non-English-speakers [Blanchon and Graefe, 2012; Larsimont and Grosso, 2014; Molle, 2012; Rodríguez Sánchez and Sandoval Moreno, 2017]. In Latin America, the hydrosocial approach has gained momentum within the burgeoning research field of political ecology of water. The proliferation of related concepts has proved to be useful for many social and environmental scholars in the region. This framework has raised the visibility of the processes that regulate access to and control of water, since it considers the many and diverse agents who are involved at different spatial and temporal scales. In this sense, the hydrosocial approach provides a valuable heuristic tool that reconsiders power relations that have been historically shaped by the use and appropriation of water.