Sustainable and resilient agriculture is essential for global food security, especially in the Majority World, where agriculture is vital not only for food security but also for income security, employing a large portion of the population. Given agriculture's dependence on water and its vulnerability to weather extremes, which are further exacerbated by climate change, climate adaptation has become increasingly important. With climate change primarily affecting agriculture through the intensification of the water cycle, agricultural water management (AWM) interventions hold significant potential....

The adoption of agricultural water interventions for climate change adaptation has been slow and limited despite their established efficacy and benefits. While several studies have identified socio-economic, biophysical, technological and institutional factors that influence adoption, psychological factors have often been overlooked. This study examines the socio-economic and psychological factors, using RANAS behavioral model, that influence the adoption of agricultural water interventions in the semi-arid region of Saurashtra in India. Two contrasting and dominating agricultural water interventions in the area: drip irrigation and borewells are evaluated. Despite subsidies being available for drip irrigation systems, the adoption rate remains low (~16% adopting rate) compared to borewells (~24.5% adoption) with no subsidies reflecting farmer’s preference for supply augmentation measures over demand management. Incorporating psychological factors in the analysis improved the explanatory power of the logistic model by almost threefold, underscoring the significance of psychological factors in explaining farmers’ adoption decisions. Based on the logistic model, major factors determining farmers adoption behaviour identified are farmer’s perceived ability, risk preference and positive beliefs about the technologies along with socio-economic (e.g., land size) and biophysical factors (e.g., proximity to water). The study recommends a multi-pronged approach to increase the adoption of interventions, including augmenting subsidies with efforts on extension services, post-adoption services, training, and awareness campaigns to build farmers’ capacity and raise awareness.

Given the increasing demand for high-quality food and protein, global food security remains a challenge, particularly in the face of global change. However, since agriculture, food and water security are inextricably linked, they need to be examined via an interdisciplinary lens. Sociohydrology was introduced from a post-positivist perspective to explore and describe the bidirectional feedbacks and dynamics between human and water systems. This review situates sociohydrology in the agricultural domain, highlighting its contributions in explaining the unintended consequences of water management interventions, addressing climate change impacts due to/on agriculture and incorporating human behaviour into the description of agricultural water systems. Sociohydrology has combined social and psychological insights with novel data sources and diverse multi-method approaches to model human behaviour. However, as agriculture and agriculturalists face global change, sociohydrology can better use concepts from resilience thinking more explicitly to identify gaps in terms of desirable properties in resilient agricultural water systems, potentially informing more holistic climate adaptation policy.

Increased variability of the water cycle manifested by climate change is a growing global threat to agriculture with strong implications for food and livelihood security. Thus, there is an urgent need for adaptation in agriculture. Agricultural water management (AWM) interventions, interventions for managing water supply and demand, are extensively promoted and implemented as adaptation measures in multiple development programs globally. Studies assessing these adaptation measures overwhelmingly focus on positive impacts, however, there is a concern that these studies may be biased towards well-managed and successful projects and often miss out on reporting negative externalities. These externalities result from coevolutionary dynamics of human-water systems as AWM interventions impact hydrological flows and their use and adoption is shaped by the societal response. We review the documented externalities of AWM interventions and present a conceptual framework classifying negative externalities linked to water and human systems into negative hydrological externalities and unexpected societal feedbacks. We show that these externalities can lead to long term unsustainable and inequitable outcomes. Understanding how the externalities lead to undesirable outcomes demands rigorous modeling of the feedbacks between human and water systems, for which we discuss the key criteria that such models should meet. Based on these criteria, we showcase that differentiated and limited inclusion of key feedbacks in current water modeling approaches (e.g. hydrological models, hydro-economic, and water resource models) is a critical limitation and bottleneck to understanding and predicting negative externalities of AWM interventions. To account for the key feedback, we find agent-based modeling (ABM) as the method that has the potential to meet the key criteria. Yet there are gaps that need to be addressed in the context of ABM as a tool to unravel the negative externalities of AWM interventions. We carry out a systemic review of ABM application to agricultural systems, capturing how it is currently being applied and identifying the knowledge gaps that need to be bridged to unravel the negative externalities of AWM interventions. We find that ABM has been extensively used to model agricultural systems and, in many cases, the resulting externalities with unsustainable and inequitable outcomes. However, gaps remain in terms of limited use of integrated surface-groundwater hydrological models, inadequate representation of farmers’ behavior with heavy reliance on rational choice or simple heuristics and ignoring heterogeneity of farmers’ characteristics within a population.

In a recent editorial in the journal Nature Sustainability, the editors raised the concern that journal submissions on water studies appear too similar. The gist of the editorial: “too many publications and not enough ideas.” In this response, we contest this notion, and point to the numerous new ideas that result from taking a broader view of the water science field. Drawing inspiration from a recently hosted conference geared at transcending traditional disciplinary silos and forging new paradigms for water research, we are, in fact, enthusiastic and optimistic about the ways scientists are investigating political, economic, historical, and cultural intersections toward more just and sustainable human-water relations and ways of knowing.

Study region: The study region is the Kamadhiya catchment (1150 km²), located in the Saurashtra region of the western state of Gujarat, India. The region has seen intensive development of check dams (CDs) for groundwater recharge with an estimated 27,000 CDs constructed up until 2018. Study focus: The impact of CDs on groundwater storage, food production and resilience are assessed for Kamadhiya catchment by estimating and comparing changes, across periods of low and high CD development, in potential recharge from CDs, rainfall trends, and irrigation demand. The analysis is carried out for the period from 1983 to 2015. New hydrological insights for the region: Groundwater storage gains observed following CD development can partly be attributed to an increase in high rainfall years after several drought years. Groundwater demand for irrigation has increased substantially, outweighing increase in groundwater recharge from CDs. This deficit in supply relative to demand is greatest in dry years, and when considered together with the low inter-annual carry-over storage of the region's hardrock aquifers, means that CDs capacity to enhance groundwater storage and mitigate the negative impacts of drought remains limited. Findings suggest that a standalone focus on MAR, unless complemented by greater emphasis on management of water demand and groundwater resources more broadly, may not be sufficient to achieve the long-term goals of sustainable groundwater and concurrently expanding agricultural crop production.