Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Grand theft water and the calculus of compliance

Nature Sustainability volume 3, pages 1012–1018 (2020)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Water crises constitute a challenge for humanity. Uncertain supply and growing demand are driving higher water theft, particularly by agricultural users who account for approximately 70% of global use. However, research into water theft is underexplored in all disciplines. This paper provides a conceptual framework and modelling approach designed to improve understanding of both individual and institutional barriers to water theft. The framework and model explore how effective detection, prosecution, conviction and penalties can be assessed. Three case studies test the validity of our framework. Our findings suggest that while individuals and companies may be responsible for the act of theft, the phenomenon reflects a systematic failure of arrangements (political, legal, institutional, and so on). In addition, when regulators fail to understand the value of water, inadequate prescribed penalties increase the risk of theft. We invite others to test our framework, apply our model and engage in a wider conversation about water theft.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Conceptual framework for calculating compliance costs and institutional investment needs.
Fig. 2: Fixed penalties versus dynamic market pricing of water.
Fig. 3: Perennial crop legal/illegal behaviour decision context in response to low water supply.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available in the Supplementary Information or by request from the authors.

References

  1. Strategic Report: Environment, Peace and Security: A Convergence of Threats (UNEP and INTERPOL, 2016).

  2. Felbab-Brown, V. Water Theft and Water Smuggling: Growing Problem or Tempest in a Teapot? (Brookings Institution, 2017).

  3. Kohlberg, L. Essays on Moral Development: The Psychology of Moral Development Vol. 2 (Harper & Row, 1984).

  4. Akers, R. L. Deviant Behavior: A Social Learning Approach (Wadsworth, 1973).

  5. Tyler, T. R. Why People Obey the Law: Procedural Justice (Yale Univ. Press, 1990).

  6. Becker, G. S. Crime and punishment: an economic approach. J. Polit. Econ. 76, 169–217 (1968).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Vandermeer, C. Water thievery in a rice irrigation system in Taiwan. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 61, 156–179 (1971).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Weissing, F. & Ostrom, E. in Game Equilibrium Models (ed. R. Selten) 188–262 (Springer, 1991).

  9. Holley, C. & Sinclair, D. A new water policy option for Australia? Collaborative water governance, compliance and enforcement and audited self-management. Australas. J. Nat. Resour. Law Policy 17, 189–216 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  10. European Report on Water Crimes (RECEE, 2017).

  11. Wade, R. Managing a drought with canal irrigation: a South Indian case. Agric. Adm. 17, 177–202 (1984).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Trawick, P. B. Successfully governing the commons: principles of social organization in an Andean irrigation system. Hum. Ecol. 29, 1–25 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Castilla-Rho, J. C., Rojas, R., Andersen, M. S., Holley, C. & Mariethoz, G. Social tipping points in global groundwater management. Nat. Hum. Behav. 1, 640–649 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Castilla-Rho, J., Rojas, R., Andersen, M., Holley, C. & Mariethoz, G. Sustainable groundwater management: how long and what will it take? Glob. Environ. Change 58, 101972 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Wade, R. The management of common property resources: finding a cooperative solution. World Bank Res. Obs. 2, 219–234 (1987).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. De Stefano, L. & Lopez-Gunn, E. Unauthorized groundwater use: institutional, social and ethical considerations. Water Policy 14, 147–160 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Greiner, R., Fernandes, L., McCartney, F. & Durante, J. Reasons why some irrigation water users fail to comply with water use regulations: a case study from Queensland, Australia. Land Use Policy 51, 26–40 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Keane, A., Jones, J. P. G., Edwards-Jones, G. & Milner-Gulland, E. J. The sleeping policeman: understanding issues of enforcement and compliance in conservation. Anim. Conserv. 11, 75–82 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Laffont, J.-J. The new economics of regulation ten years after. Econometrica 62, 507–507 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ray, I. & Williams, J. Locational asymmetry and the potential for cooperation on a canal. J. Dev. Econ. 67, 129–155 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Adamson, D., Loch, A. & Schwabe, K. Adaptation responses to increasing drought frequency. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 61, 385–403 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Steinfeld, A. Cannabis and water regulation: sorting through the weeds. Water Rep. 181, 1–11 (2019).

  23. DeBoe, G. & Jouanjean, M.-A. Digital Opportunities for Better Agricultural Policies: Insights from Agri-Environmental Policies (OECD, 2018).

  24. Ostrom, E. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1990).

  25. Galdón, C., Jara, Y., Leralta, J. M. & Vived, A. La Tierra Protegida: La Junta de Andalucía Otorgó Subvenciones Europeas a Fincas en Zona Protegida de Doñana (Universidad Rey Juan Carlos and Unidad Editorial, 2017).

  26. Criminal, Civil and Administrative Penalties for White Collar Crime: Final Report (Senate Standing Committees on Economics, 2018).

  27. O’Donnell, E. & Talbot-Jones, J. Creating legal rights for rivers: lessons from Australia, New Zealand, and India. Ecol. Soc. 23, 7 (2018).

  28. Meehan, K. Disciplining de facto development: water theft and hydrosocial order in Tijuana. Environ. Plan. D 31, 319–336 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Eckstein, H. in Case Study Method: Key Issues, Key Texts (eds Gomm, R. et al.) Ch. 6 (Sage, 2000).

  30. Noor, K. B. M. Case study: a strategic research methodology. Am. J. Appl. Sci. 5, 1602–1604 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Gomm, R., Hammersley, M. & Foster, P. Case Study Method: Key Issues, Key Texts (Sage, 2000).

  32. Khan, S. & VanWynsberghe, R. Cultivating the under-mined: cross-case analysis as knowledge mobilization. Forum Qual. Soc. Res. 9, 34 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Baland, J.-M. & Platteau, J.-P. Halting Degradation of Natural Resources: Is There a Role for Rural Communities? (FAO, 1996).

  34. Ragin, C. C. in The Comparative Political Economy of the Welfare State (eds Janoski, T. & Hicks, A.) 299–319 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1994).

  35. Marx, A., Rihoux, B. & Ragin, C. The origins, development, and application of qualitative comparative analysis: the first 25 years. Eur. Political Sci. Rev. 6, 115–142 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Velasquez, M. & Hester, P. An analysis of multi-criteria decision making methods. Int. J. Oper. Res. 10, 56–66 (2103).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Panthi, K. & Bhattarai, S. A framework to assess sustainability of community-based water projects using multi-criteria analysis. In Proc. First International Conference on Construction in Developing Countries (ICCIDC–I) (UET Taxila, 2008).

  38. Hasson, F., Keeney, S. & McKenna, H. Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. J. Adv. Nurs. 32, 1008–1015 (2000).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Strand, J., Carson, R. T., Navrud, S., Ortiz-Bobea, A. & Vincent, J. A. “Delphi Exercise” as a Tool in Amazon Rainforest Valuation (World Bank, 2014).

  40. Hajkowicz, S. & Collins, K. A review of multiple criteria analysis for water resource planning and management. Water Resour. Manag. 21, 1553–1566 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Uphoff, N. & Wijayaratna, C. M. Demonstrated benefits from social capital: the productivity of farmer organizations in Gal Oya, Sri Lanka. World Dev. 28, 1875–1890 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Adamson, D., Mallawaarachchi, T. & Quiggin, J. Water use and salinity in the Murray-Darling Basin: a state-contingent model. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 51, 263–281 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Chambers, R. & Quiggin, J. Uncertainty, Production, Choice and Agency: The State Contingent Approach (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2000).

  44. Götze, U., Northcott, D. & Schuster, P. Investment Appraisal: Methods and Models (Springer, 2008).

Download references

Acknowledgements

D.A. recognizes funding from the Australian Research Council via a DECRA grant (DE160100213) which assisted with some of his time. Advice from M. Shanahan for critical early insights into the theory, which informed early drafts of the paper, is also greatly appreciated.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Global Food and Resources, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia

    A. Loch, D. Adamson & C. Seidl

  2. Department of Economics, University of Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain

    C. D. Pérez-Blanco

  3. Environmental Defenders’ Office of New South Wales and University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

    E. Carmody

  4. The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, USA

    V. Felbab-Brown

Authors
  1. A. Loch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. C. D. Pérez-Blanco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. E. Carmody
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. V. Felbab-Brown
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. D. Adamson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. C. Seidl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to reviewing and discussing the literature and drafting initial versions of the article. A.L. and D.A. conceived the framework, and A.L., C.D.P.-B. and D.A. conceived and developed the model. C.D.P.-B., E.C. and V.F.-B. compiled the data for and drafted the case study materials. A.L. structured the paper and coordinated efforts between all authors. A.L., C.D.P.-B., E.C., D.A. and V.F.-B. all contributed to writing the final article text.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Loch.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Case-Study Data 1–3, Supplementary Figs. 1–4, Tables 1–4 and Box 1.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Loch, A., Pérez-Blanco, C.D., Carmody, E. et al. Grand theft water and the calculus of compliance. Nat Sustain 3, 1012–1018 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0589-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0589-3

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing