Letter

Social tipping points in global groundwater management

Received:
Accepted:
Published online:

Abstract

Groundwater is critical to global food security, environmental flows, and millions of rural livelihoods in the face of climate change1. Although a third of Earth’s largest groundwater basins are being depleted by irrigated agriculture2, little is known about the conditions that lead resource users to comply with conservation policies. Here we developed an agent-based model3,4 of irrigated agriculture rooted in principles of cooperation5,6 and collective action7 and grounded on the World Values Survey Wave 6 (n = 90,350). Simulations of three major aquifer systems facing unsustainable demands reveal tipping points where social norms towards groundwater conservation shift abruptly with small changes in cultural values and monitoring and enforcement provisions. These tipping points are amplified by group size and best invoked by engaging a minority of rule followers. Overall, we present a powerful tool for evaluating the contingency of regulatory compliance upon cultural, socioeconomic, institutional and physical conditions, and its susceptibility to change beyond thresholds. Managing these thresholds may help to avoid unsustainable groundwater development, reduce enforcement costs, better account for cultural diversity in transboundary aquifer management and increase community resilience to changes in regional climate. Although we focus on groundwater, our methods and findings apply broadly to other resource management issues.

Additional access options:

Already a subscriber?  Log in  now or  Register  for online access.

References

  1. 1.

    Aeschbach-Hertig, W. & Gleeson, T. Regional strategies for the accelerating global problem of groundwater depletion. Nat. Geosci. 5, 853–861 (2012).

  2. 2.

    Richey, A. S. et al. Quantifying renewable groundwater stress with GRACE. Wat. Resour. Res. 51, 5217–5238 (2015).

  3. 3.

    Farmer, J. D. & Foley, D. The economy needs agent-based modelling. Nature 460, 685–686 (2009).

  4. 4.

    Epstein, J. M. & Axtell, R. Growing Artificial Societies (MIT Press, Cambridge, 1996).

  5. 5.

    Nowak, M. A. Five rules for the evolution of cooperation. Science 314, 1560–1563 (2006).

  6. 6.

    Axelrod, R. An evolutionary approach to norms. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 80, 1095–1111 (1986).

  7. 7.

    Ostrom, E. Governing the Commons (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1990).

  8. 8.

    Gleeson, T., Wada, Y., Bierkens, M. F. P. & van Beek, L. P. H. Water balance of global aquifers revealed by groundwater footprint. Nature 488, 197–200 (2012).

  9. 9.

    Margat, J. & Van der Gun, J. Groundwater around the World (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2013).

  10. 10.

    Theesfeld, I. Institutional challenges for national groundwater governance: policies and issues. Ground Water 48, 131–142 (2010).

  11. 11.

    Ostrom, E. Collective action and the evolution of social norms. J. Econ. Perspect. 14, 137–158 (2000).

  12. 12.

    Mitchell, M., Curtis, A., Sharp, E. & Mendham, E. Directions for social research to underpin improved groundwater management. J. Hydrol. (Amst.) 448–449, 223–231 (2012).

  13. 13.

    van Steenbergen, F. Promoting local management in groundwater. Hydrogeol. J. 14, 380–391 (2006).

  14. 14.

    Epstein, J. M. Generative Social Science: Studies in Agent-based Computational Modeling (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, 2006).

  15. 15.

    Smith, J. M. Evolution and the Theory of Games (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1982).

  16. 16.

    Nowak, M. A. Why we help: far from being a nagging exception to the rule of evolution, cooperation has been one of its primary architects. Sci. Am. 307, 34–39 (2012).

  17. 17.

    Axelrod, R. M. The Complexity of Cooperation: Agent-based Models of Competition and Collaboration (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, 1997).

  18. 18.

    Ostrom, E. Revisiting the commons: local lessons, global challenges. Science 284, 278–282 (1999).

  19. 19.

    Dietz, T., Ostrom, E. & Stern, P. C. The struggle to govern the commons. Science 302, 1907–1912 (2003).

  20. 20.

    Nowak, M. A. & Sigmund, K. Evolution of indirect reciprocity. Nature 437, 1291–1298 (2005).

  21. 21.

    Gigerenzer, G. & Selten, R. Bounded Rationality (MIT Press, Cambridge, 2002).

  22. 22.

    Epstein, J. M. Agent_Zero: Toward Neurocognitive Foundations for Generative Social Science (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, 2014).

  23. 23.

    Larsen, L., Thomas, C., Eppinga, M. & Coulthard, T. Exploratory modeling: extracting causality from complexity. Eos (Washington DC) 95, 285–286 (2014).

  24. 24.

    Agrawal, A. Forests, governance, and sustainability: common property theory and its contributions. Int. J. Commons 1, 111–136 (2007).

  25. 25.

    Castilla-Rho, J. C., Mariethoz, G., Rojas, R., Andersen, M. S. & Kelly, B. F. J. An agent-based platform for simulating complex human–aquifer interactions in managed groundwater systems. Environ. Model. Softw. 73, 305–323 (2015).

  26. 26.

    Todd, P. M. & Gigerenzer, G. Ecological Rationality (Oxford Univ. Press, 2012).

  27. 27.

    Alm, J., McClelland, G. H. & Schulze, W. D. Changing the social norm of tax compliance by voting. Kyklos 52, 141–171 (1999).

  28. 28.

    Davis, J. S., Hecht, G. & Perkins, J. D. Social behaviors, enforcement, and tax compliance dynamics. Account. Rev. 78, 39–69 (2003).

  29. 29.

    Bobek, D. D., Hageman, A. M. & Kelliher, C. F. Analyzing the role of social norms in tax compliance behavior. J. Bus. Ethics 115, 451–468 (2013).

  30. 30.

    Thomas, A. S., Milfont, T. L. & Gavin, M. C. A new approach to identifying the drivers of regulation compliance using multivariate behavioural models. PLoS ONE 11, e0163868 (2016).

  31. 31.

    Hønneland, G. A model of compliance in fisheries: theoretical foundations and practical application. Ocean Coast. Manage. 42, 699–716 (1999).

  32. 32.

    Douglas, M. Natural Symbols: Explorations in Cosmology (Routledge, Abingdon, 2004).

  33. 33.

    Verweij, M., Senior, T. J., Domínguez D., J. F. & Turner, R. Emotion, rationality, and decision-making: how to link affective and social neuroscience with social theory. Front. Neurosci. 9, 332 (2015).

  34. 34.

    Chai, S.-K., Liu, M. & Kim, M.-S. Cultural comparisons of beliefs and values: applying the grid–group approach to the World Values Survey. Beliefs Values 1, 193–208 (2009).

  35. 35.

    Holley, C. & Sinclair, D. Water Extraction in NSW: Stakeholder Views and Experience of Compliance and Enforcement (National Centre for Groundwater Research and Training Connected Waters Initiative Research Centre UNSW, Australia, 2015).

  36. 36.

    Pahl-Wostl, C. A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes. Glob. Environ. Change 19, 354–365 (2009).

  37. 37.

    Kidd, M., Feris, L., Murombo, T. & Iza, A. Water and the Law (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2014).

  38. 38.

    Holland, J. H. Genetic algorithms. Sci. Am. 267, 66–72 (1992).

  39. 39.

    Walker, B. & Salt, D. Resilience Practice: Building Capacity to Absorb Disturbance and Maintain Function (Island Press, Washington, 2012).

  40. 40.

    Ostrom, E. & Walker, J. Trust and Reciprocity (Russell Sage, New York, 2005).

  41. 41.

    Moran, T. & Wendell, D. The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014: Challenges and Opportunities for Implementation. (Water in the West, Stanford Univ., 2014).

  42. 42.

    Fehr, E. & Falk, A. Psychological foundations of incentives. Eur. Econ. Rev. 46, 687–724 (2002).

  43. 43.

    Gutiérrez, N. L., Hilborn, R. & Defeo, O. Leadership, social capital and incentives promote successful fisheries. Nature 470, 386–389 (2011).

  44. 44.

    Holley, C. & Sinclair, D. Compliance and enforcement of water licences in NSW: limitations in law, policy and institutions. Australasian J. Natural Resources Law Policy 15, 149–190 (2012).

  45. 45.

    Scheffer, M. et al. Anticipating critical transitions. Science 338, 344–348 (2012).

  46. 46.

    Asch, S. E. Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychol. Monogr. 70, 1–70 (1956).

  47. 47.

    Park, I.-U., Peacey, M. W. & Munafò, M. R. Modelling the effects of subjective and objective decision making in scientific peer review. Nature 506, 93–96 (2014).

  48. 48.

    Diamond, J. Collapse (Penguin, London, 2011).

  49. 49.

    Haden, V. R., Niles, M. T., Lubell, M., Perlman, J. & Jackson, L. E. Global and local concerns: what attitudes and beliefs motivate farmers to mitigate and adapt to climate change? PLoS ONE 7, e52882 (2012).

  50. 50.

    Fehr, E. & Rockenbach, B. Detrimental effects of sanctions on human altruism. Nature 422, 137–140 (2003).

  51. 51.

    Dalin, C., Wada, Y., Kastner, T. & Puma, M. J. Groundwater depletion embedded in international food trade. Nature 543, 700–704 (2017).

  52. 52.

    Poncela-Casasnovas, J. et al. Humans display a reduced set of consistent behavioral phenotypes in dyadic games. Sci. Adv. 2, e1600451 (2016).

  53. 53.

    Schwartz, S. H. A theory of cultural values and some implications for work. Appl. Psychol. 48, 23–47 (1999).

  54. 54.

    Hofstede, G. Culture’s Consequences (Sage, Thousand Oaks, 2003).

  55. 55.

    Henrich, J. et al. Costly punishment across human societies. Science 312, 1767–1770 (2006).

  56. 56.

    Grendstad, G. A political cultural map of Europe. A survey approach. GeoJournal 47, 463–475 (1999).

  57. 57.

    FAO. Global Diagnostic of Groundwater Governance—Thematic Papers http://www.fao.org/home/en/ (2016).

  58. 58.

    Gotts, N. M. & Polhill, J. G. When and how to imitate your neighbours: lessons from and for FEARLUS. J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul. 12, 2 (2009).

  59. 59.

    Babbie, R. The Basics of Social Research (Cengage Learning, Belmont, 2010).

  60. 60.

    Jalota, S. K., Sood, A., Vitale, J. D. & Srinivasan, R. Simulated crop yields response to irrigation water and economic analysis. Agron. J. 99, 1073–1084 (2007).

  61. 61.

    Singh, K. B., Jalota, S. K. & Sharma, B. D. Effect of continuous rice–wheat rotation on soil properties from four agro‐ecosystems of Indian Punjab. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 40, 2945–2958 (2009).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge support from CSIRO Land & Water, and D. Sinclair for his role in the design of empirical studies in the Murray–Darling Basin. We also acknowledge the participation of 672 anonymous Australian farmers, and the WVS interviewees who made this research possible. The Australian Research Council and the National Water Commission (through the NCGRT) funded part of this research through an ARC Linkage Grant with DPI Water (LP130100967) and an ARC DECRA (DE140101216). DPI Water provided institutional support, provision of mailing databases, testing of research questions with relevant DPI Water divisions (monitoring, regulation, education), and assistance with consultation with Members of the NSW Irrigators’ Council and other industry associations (for example, NSW farmers) who were also consulted in the development of the survey questions. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. CSIRO Land & Water, Perth, Western Australia, 6014, Australia

    • Juan Carlos Castilla-Rho
    •  & Rodrigo Rojas
  2. UNSW School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, 2052, Australia

    • Juan Carlos Castilla-Rho
    •  & Martin S. Andersen
  3. Connected Waters Initiative Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, 2052, Australia

    • Martin S. Andersen
    •  & Cameron Holley
  4. UNSW Faculty of Law, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, 2052, Australia

    • Cameron Holley
  5. Institute of Earth Surface Dynamics, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, 1015, Switzerland

    • Gregoire Mariethoz

Authors

  1. Search for Juan Carlos Castilla-Rho in:

  2. Search for Rodrigo Rojas in:

  3. Search for Martin S. Andersen in:

  4. Search for Cameron Holley in:

  5. Search for Gregoire Mariethoz in:

Contributions

J.C.C.-R., R.R. and G.M. conceived the research ideas and designed the study; C.H. conducted and analysed the Murray–Darling Basin water license surveys; J.C.C.-R. implemented the model, performed the computational experiments, designed figures and analysed the World Values Survey data. J.C.C.-R. and R.R. wrote the manuscript. All authors contributed to the analysis, interpretation, and editing of the manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Juan Carlos Castilla-Rho or Rodrigo Rojas.

Electronic supplementary material

  1. Supplementary Information

    Supplementary Figures 1–10, Supplementary Tables 1–3, Supplementary Discussion, Supplementary Methods, Supplementary References 1–42.

  2. Life Sciences Reporting Summary