Journal of Environmental Management 159 (2015) 254e263

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman

Review

Transforming river basins: Post-livelihood transition agricultural landscapes and implications for natural resource governance K.G. Sreeja*, C.G. Madhusoodhanan, T.I. Eldho Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Powai, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400076, India

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 26 September 2014 Received in revised form 16 April 2015 Accepted 17 May 2015 Available online 27 May 2015

The agricultural and livelihood transitions post globalization are redefining resource relations and redrawing landscapes in the Global South and have major implications for nascent natural resource governance regimes such as Integrated River Basin Management (IRBM). A mosaic of divergent reciprocations in resource relations were noticed due to livelihood transitions in the rural areas where previous resource uses and relations had been primarily within agriculture. The reconstitution of rural spaces and the attendant changes in the resource equations are observed to be creating new sites of conformity, contestation and conflicts that often move beyond local spaces. This paper critically reviews studies across the Global South to explore the nature and extent of changes in resource relations and agricultural landscapes post livelihood diversification and the implication and challenges of these changes for natural resource governance. Though there is drastic reduction in agricultural livelihoods throughout the Global South, changes in agricultural area are found to be inconsistent and heterogeneous in the region. Agriculture continues in the countrysides but in widely differentiated capacities and redefined value systems. The transformed agrarian spaces are characterized by a mosaic of scenarios from persistence and sustainable subsistence to differentiation and exploitative commercial practices to abandonment and speculation. The reconfigured resource relations, emergent multiple and multi-scalar interest groups, institutional and policy changes and altered power differentials in these diversified landscapes are yet to be incorporated into natural resource governance frameworks such as IRBM. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Livelihoods Diversification Agricultural landscape Natural resources River basin management Governance

1. Introduction The major agricultural regions of the world, especially in the Global South are experiencing drastic realignments to livelihoods that feature on-farm diversifications, off-farm occupations, multiple occupational commitments and seasonal, circular or permanent migrations for livelihood security (Bryceson, 2009; Ellis and Freeman, 2004; Reardon, 2001; Rigg, 2006). These livelihood transitions embody complex and multiple influences that range from physical constraints such as resource closures and climate change to altered personal and societal aspirations to state interventions and national and international policy climates (Rigg, 2005). The shifts from agriculture as the livelihood mainstay are accompanied by extensive and reciprocal changes in natural resource relations, redrawing of the rural agricultural landscape and diverse emergent conflicts and struggles over resources and * Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (K.G. Sreeja), [email protected] (C.G. Madhusoodhanan), [email protected] (T.I. Eldho). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.05.021 0301-4797/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

ownership (Aide and Grau, 2004; Barbier, 2000; Chen et al., 2014; Chi et al., 2013). New forms of inequality and social differentiation are also part of such transformations (Batterbury, 2010). These reciprocal interactions of livelihoods and agrarian landscape have received scant focused attention in livelihoods literature to date (King, 2011). The diversified and modified agricultural landscape is of particular significance to sustainable Natural Resource Management (NRM) institutions and policies even though it has not critically informed Natural Resource (NR) governance discussions until now. The current resource governance regimes and nascent institutional mechanisms for NR governance such as Integrated River Basin Management (IRBM) therefore need to be examined in the changing context of these new livelihood landscapes and management spaces created in its wake (Kay, 2008; King, 2011; Woods, 2007). In river basins as management units, the dynamic relationship between rural landscapes and livelihood activities is of particular importance. It is also remarked that understanding the socio-economic motivations and multi-scale interactions governing the dominant land-use changes, especially in the tropical South, is

K.G. Sreeja et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 159 (2015) 254e263

highly significant for coming to terms with global warming and its impacts (Wohl et al., 2012). In the context of these pervasive changes to agricultural livelihoods, landscapes and their significance to sustainable resource governance and resilience in the various agro-ecological settings of the South, certain questions demand critical appraisal. 1. How has livelihood shifts and diversification affected resource relations, links and agricultural landscapes in the Global South? 2. Has livelihood oriented rural development research and policy post globalization made a difference to visualization of NRM spaces such as river basins? 3. What are the implications of these reconstituted landscapes for NR governance and policy especially in the context of river basin based NRM? These questions are answered through a critical and comprehensive review of academic and policy literature on livelihoods and river basin management studies across the Global South. The region under consideration, ‘the Global South’ includes all those countries previously designated as ‘developing countries’ since the 1970s. It includes the countries of Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean. A complete list is provided in UNDP (2004). Studies were selected from published literature available through electronic database, workshop proceedings, reports and book chapters on livelihoods and river basin management following the methodology for systematic review suggested by the Campbell collaboration guidelines (Hammerstrøm et al., 2010). Evidence is consolidated and interpreted from macroeconomic analyses and empirical micro-level case studies on rural occupational diversification using diverse disciplinary and methodological frameworks, both quantitative and qualitative, to capture the changes in resource relations and landscapes following livelihood transitions. The locations of the 80 case-studies and seminal macro-level analyses on livelihood transitions are indicated in Fig. 1. These 80 studies chosen for the present review is an attempt to represent all the prominent agricultural regions and diverse pathways of agricultural landscape change following livelihood shifts in the Global South. The 14 locations of river basin based case-studies explore the links of landscape-livelihood changes to NRM and related

255

governance. The past two decades of turbulent livelihood shifts post-liberalization (1990e2014) is the time period under consideration here during which sustainable livelihood studies progressed and matured in the Global South and river basin based NRM was introduced in several of these very same locations. The next section of the paper provides an analysis of the extent of change in agricultural employment in the Global South in relation to agricultural land area for the time period under study. It also examines the multiple strands of the livelihood studies literature, its scope, potentials and limitations within the purview of the present work. The third part critically reviews these livelihood studies across Asia, Africa and Latin America with specific attention focused on the links between changing livelihoods and rural space. The fourth section concentrates on how livelihoods and resource relations are conceptualized and operate within a river basin as an NRM unit. The fifth and the final section explores the governance implications of changed resource relations and the potentials and challenges of addressing these within a river basin management framework. 2. Agrarian change and livelihood transitions in the Global South The rural and agrarian spaces of the world have been going through a phase of accelerated transformation in the past 20 years variously theorized as a structural change, a transition and/or a crisis phase (Rigg et al., 2012). Assessment of the extent of livelihood transitions began as macroeconomic analyses of the rural nonfarm sector and its various policy implications (Haggblade et al., 2010; see Supplementary material). Although the decline in agricultural employment as a share of total employment in the past two decades is consistent across the South, the share of land dedicated to agriculture in these regions show varying tendencies (Fig. 2). While African and Latin American countries display an increase in agricultural area with decreasing agricultural occupations, South and East Asia including the Pacific exhibit marginal reductions in area under cultivation with steep declines in agricultural employment. The relationship between agricultural livelihoods and landuse therefore indicates a continued but differentiated resource engagement in agriculture, the nuances of which demand a more

Fig. 1. Locations of macro and micro-level livelihood studies reviewed across Global South.

256

K.G. Sreeja et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 159 (2015) 254e263

The global debates on diverse NR governance frameworks to meet the challenges to environmental sustainability were also largely bypassed by the livelihoods research (Scoones, 2009). Even though sustainable livelihood and integrated river basin approaches became operational in the Global South along the same time period in almost similar localities, both have moved along in exclusivity with insights from one approach not informing the other. Several scholars have thus expressed the urgent need to acknowledge the local realities of livelihoods in NR governance (Batterbury, 2001; Rigg et al., 2012; Runk et al., 2007; Zimmerer, 2014). 3. Changing resource relations; transforming agricultural landscapes

Fig. 2. Changes in agricultural area and employment across the Global South (1994e2010). Note: Colors black, blue, green and red indicate years 1994, 2000, 2005 and 2010 respectively; symbols represent each country grouping. (Data source: FAOSTAT, 2014). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

detailed appraisal on the basis of empirical evidence and substantiation through a review of the livelihood literature from these regions. Within the literature reviewed, the nexus of livelihoods and resources is studied in various capacities and extent by multiple and cross-disciplinary perspectives from both natural and social sciences (Scoones, 2009; Solesbury, 2003). Macroeconomic studies on the rural non-farm economy (Barrett et al., 2001; Haggblade et al., 2010; Lanjouw and Lanjouw, 2001; Reardon et al., 2007) and micro-level case studies using Sustainable Livelihoods Approach (SLA) (McLennan and Garvin, 2012; Turner, 2012), political economy (Braun and McLees, 2012) political ecology (Batterbury, 2001, 2010), rural sociology, agricultural economics (Barbier, 2000) human and cultural geography (King, 2011; Vadjunec et al., 2011; Zimmerer, 2014) frameworks are all employed in the analysis and interpretation of livelihood-landscape intersections. More recently, landuse change science literature dealing with drivers of Land Use Land Cover (LULC) change (Ribeiro Palacios et al., 2013) and transition studies (Wang et al., 2011), land grab and acquisition studies (Woodhouse, 2012) and to a limited extent climate change adaptation research (Wohl et al., 2012) have also contributed to livelihood writings. These studies were conducted at various scales of the household, village, community, farming system, agro-ecosystem and river basin by using a wide range of quantitative and qualitative methodologies from rapid and participatory rural appraisals, ethnographic participant observation, questionnaire surveys and interviews to use of modeling (Taylor, 1992) remote sensing and GIS tools (Chi et al., 2013). Despite the wide ambit of livelihood studies, it is argued that obsession with ‘driver-feedback’ analyses has greatly limited the investigation of reciprocal relationships between livelihoods and landscape (Carr and McCusker, 2009; McCusker and Carr, 2006). The livelihood scholarship is also being criticized for its failure to conceptualize changing livelihoods in the context of globalization (Kanji et al., 2005; Scoones, 2009). Even though these studies were systematic in their exploration of the minute aspects of livelihood strategies at the micro-level, they more or less failed to capture the macro-level significance of these changes or the micro-macro links.

Livelihood transitions and the changed resource interactions in the globalized South have led to conceptualizations of the rural agricultural landscape as a ‘new rurality’/‘global countryside’/ ‘remittance landscape’/‘hollowed countryside’ etc. (Batterbury, 2001; Liu et al., 2010; McKay, 2003; Woods, 2007; Yarnall and Price, 2010; Zimmerer, 2014). On a physical plane, agricultural landscapes are recognized to be fragmented, isolated and under constant fluctuation along with various emergent uses as diversification and off-farm incomes intensify (Ellis, 2000; Fabusoro et al., 2010; Liu et al., 2014; Su et al., 2011; Zoomers, 2002). The multiple uses of resources within both agricultural and non-agricultural realms have given rise to competitive tensions in resource consumption (Van der Ploeg and Jingzhong, 2010). The social spaces of multi-occupational livelihoods display intensified labor mobility, changed rural labor configurations through feminization and geriatrification, revised rural terms of trade and market, blurred ruralurban distinctions and dispersed peasant community cohesion and identity (Bryceson et al., 2000; Kay, 2008; Wang et al., 2011). Indeed, the increasingly delocalized livelihoods have changed the fundamental notions of fixed spatiality central to agrarian landscapes and life (Bouahom et al., 2004; Padoch et al., 2008). Cultural landscapes are another rapidly changing facet of agricultural livelihoods in transition (Zimmerer, 2014). In an interesting contradiction of these rapidly changing biophysical and socio-cultural agricultural landscapes, Braun and McLees (2012) call attention to the recent social construction of the rural spaces as ‘pristine’, ‘natural’ and ‘rustic’, in order to promote rural tourism ventures. The policy and institutional landscapes are also changing, albeit lackadaisically, to accommodate the multitude of transformed resource relations. For instance, the recent Land Acquisition Act of India (The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013) was revised after more than a century in the light of growing demands on rural lands for non-agricultural developments and ensuing conflicts (GoI, 2013). Even then, the traditional institutional spaces are found to be highly constrained in resource governance of these post-transition landscapes (Woods, 2007). Thus a mosaic of divergent reciprocations and ‘productive bricolage’ in resource relations was noticed due to livelihood transitions, creating a complex and changing landscape in the rural areas (Batterbury, 2001; Bouahom et al., 2004; Ribeiro Palacios et al., 2013; Zimmerer, 2014). A spectrum of agricultural scenarios that range from persistence and sustainable subsistence to differentiation and exploitative commercial practices to abandonment and speculation is a characteristic of these transformed landscapes. This has given rise to multiple perspectives and contentions regarding livelihood-landscape links which will be explored below. 3.1. Agricultural intensification/de-intensification/abandonment Livelihood diversification and the inflow of non-agricultural

K.G. Sreeja et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 159 (2015) 254e263

income especially remittances have mixed, differential and at times countervailing effects on the agricultural landscape (Gray, 2009; Yarnall and Price, 2010). Post-livelihood transition landscapes are noted to indicate both agricultural intensification and deintensification (Delgado-Wise and Guarnizo, 2007; Zimmerer, 2007). Many researchers have advanced interpretations based on ‘virtuous and vicious cycles’ to bring out these varied effects of nonfarm incomes on agricultural landscapes (Barrett et al., 2001; Bouahom et al., 2004; Delgado-Wise and Guarnizo, 2007; Yarnall and Price, 2010). However, there is consensus that countrysides have become more heterogeneous, differentiated and complex than before, changing the context and agency of agriculture (Zoomers, 2002). The ‘virtuous’ school advances that non-farm income, especially remittances, help in the continuation and enhancement of household agricultural practices and raising productivity through increase in on-farm investments and innovations, recruitment of hired labor, purchase of modern inputs and improved access to credit, input and output markets (Koczberski and Curry, 2005; Lanjouw and Lanjouw, 2001; Reardon et al., 2007). For example, evidence from field studies in various sub-Saharan African countries show that non-farm income afforded hired laborers for timely agronomic practices and allowed for purchase of sufficient farm inputs (Ellis and Freeman, 2004; Ellis, 2006). Agricultural productivity per hectare rose steeply across the various non-farm income ranges and non-farm activities did not result in neglect of farming activities. Hired labor replacing family labor following remittances and off-farm incomes, was also reported from various Latin American localities (Isakson, 2009; Steward, 2007). Off-farm income sponsored agricultural investments that include high yielding variety seeds, increased use of fertilizers and plant protection chemicals, irrigation infrastructure and agricultural mechanization resulting in increased cropping intensity and productivity are being reported from various regions in Africa and Latin America (DeFries and Rosenzweig, 2010; Yarnall and Price, 2010). Yield increase through agricultural intensification is also pointed out to result in ecosystem benefits through limiting land encroachments and marginal land cultivation (Chen et al., 2014; Rigg et al., 2012). It is further postulated that with intensive use of high-quality land, ecologically fragile and marginal land can be spared for ecosystem and biodiversity restoration (Aide and Grau, 2004; Chen et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2011). Contrary to these optimistic readings of the effect of off-farm incomes, several other case studies illustrate the deleterious impacts of diversification mainly due to shortage of labor and time to invest in agriculture, especially among the youth (Bouahom et al., 2004; Kay, 2008; Lambin and Meyfroidt, 2011; Rigg and Nattapoolwat, 2001). It is also remarked that even when agricultural production practices are intensified through increased application of inputs, these measures are short term and immediate rather than the long term labor intensive measures of the past (Bouahom et al., 2004; Crowley and Carter, 2000). The nature of farm activities and the type of crops grown changed when labor was shifted away from farming. The families that continued to farm shifted to less labor demanding perennial crops, aquaculture or agroforestry practices in several villages of Africa, Asia and Latin America (Akram-Lodhi, 2005; McLennan and Garvin, 2012; Rigg and Nattapoolwat, 2001; Snyder, 2009; Steward, 2007). The trajectory of pluriactive households were observed to be to gradually move out of agriculture altogether rather than invest the off-farm income in farm operations, as reported from Tamil Nadu, India (Djurfeldt et al., 2008). ‘Simplified farming’ which involves elimination of several steps in land preparation; desertion of double cropping and disappearance of labor intensive crops are noted in Chinese rural spaces with high incidence of circular migration

257

wherein a migrant worker temporarily and repetitively moves out of his/her home to host regions in search of gainful employment (Van der Ploeg and Jingzhong, 2010). The massive non-agricultural shifts in occupation in China that have left rural lands abandoned and population greatly reduced and weakened due to a predominance of elderly segment of population who are left behind has been dubbed ‘rural hollowing’ (Liu et al., 2010). Modeling for impact of remittances in Mexico revealed that reduced labor supply due to migration encouraged activities that were less labor intensive (Taylor, 1992). In rural south-western Niger, due to diversification and migration of people, several agronomic practices such as early-season field preparation were sacrificed leading to increased soil erosion rates (Batterbury, 2001). The consequent declines in soil quality further reduce primary dependence on agriculture. Terrace farming and various other practices that had both increased yield as well as conserved land were found to be abandoned in an agricultural community in Northern Tanzania as there was observed a general disinterest in farming among the new generation (Snyder, 2009). Labor shortages, decreased investments and general disinterest and resultant yield declines are reported to lead to further shrinkages and abandonment of productive farm holdings, decrease in multi-cropping indices, reduced agro-biodiversity and further reductions in agricultural outputs (Liu et al., 2014; Rigg et al., 2012; Zimmerer, 2010). Increased abandonment and idling of highly productive farmlands as a consequence are being reported from across the rural South (Batterbury, 2001; McLennan and Garvin, 2012; Rigg, 2006). The trajectories of intensification and de-intensification were found to be different for poorer households. These households dependent on casual, unskilled and temporary wage earnings had to give up on land management altogether due to labor paucity and lack of time and investment capital. Many subsistence households have had to sell their land to finance the migration related expenses so that they are left with no land to continue cultivation (Isakson, 2009). In the context of these small holder households especially, off-farm work can therefore never result in agricultural investments and increased productivity (Bouahom et al., 2004). A noteworthy contradiction is the leasing of neglected agricultural lands by landless agricultural laborers through a variety of tenancy arrangements, the details of which are presented in Section 3.5. 3.2. Persistence/disappearance of subsistence agriculture The type of agriculture that is being practiced in these intensified/de-intensified landscapes of transition has also been subject to much analysis and academic debate. Persistent engagement in subsistence-oriented agricultural practices despite prevalent off-farm incomes is seen as a powerful form of resilience of smallholder cultivators of the countries of the Global South (Fabusoro et al., 2010; Gray, 2009; Isakson, 2009; Jokisch, 2002; Steward, 2007; Van der Ploeg and Jingzhong, 2010). For instance, the African landscape of today is stated to be a crafting together of non-agricultural occupations with continued subsistence agriculture (Batterbury, 2001; Bouahom et al., 2004). Migrant workers especially regard continuation of agricultural subsistence activities at their rural roots as a vital fall-back option (Bryceson, 2009; Van der Ploeg and Jingzhong, 2010) creating novel forms of community values. In Guatemala for example, migrant remittances and returning migrants are involved with reinforcing and expanding the native subsistence agricultural base (Isakson, 2009). In a predominantly non-agricultural region in South India, family farms using an increased share of family labor were noted to have increased by buying up/leasing-in land from both big landowners as well as smallholders (Djurfeldt et al., 2008). More recently, the practice of subsistence agriculture is also adopted by the returning

258

K.G. Sreeja et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 159 (2015) 254e263

mine workers in many regions of Africa and also formed part of state policy to rehabilitate ex-mine workers (Maconachie, 2012; Mususa, 2012). In the Amazon basin, planting homegardens and the practice of subsistence agriculture are observed to be ways in which new and prospective migrants staked claim on property acquisitions (Steward, 2007). These emergent subsistence practices have given rise to the conception of re-agrarianization of countrysides (Maconachie, 2011). In several other regions, non-farm income was found to have no significant influence on subsistence farming (Jokisch, 2002). On the other hand, decline in subsistence agriculture, small-scale commercial cultivation and livestock rearing and an abandoning of traditional landuses were reported from non-agrarian livelihoods dominated rural landscapes of Costa Rica. Rigg (2001) had categorically stated that there were no more subsistence farmers left in Thailand. Earlier centers of subsistence production are postulated to be the new hubs of large-scale commercial agriculture, global commodity networks, labor export/import and non-agricultural investment in natural resources (Gray, 2009; Vadjunec et al., 2011; Yarnall and Price, 2010). Cultivation of new non-traditional commercial crops destined for biofuel markets was the feature of a diversified community in Northwest Costa Rica (McLennan and Garvin, 2012). In the Valle Alto in Bolivia, subsistence farming for the local market was substituted by more specialized commercial cultivation for the national market through agricultural mechanization and irrigation infrastructure development (Yarnall and Price, 2010). Thus, agriculture continues to persist in the countrysides of the Global South but in widely differentiated capacities and redefined value systems, even within subsistence agriculture systems. 3.3. Forest transition/degradation Rural out-migration and agricultural diversification are also hypothesized to curtail the deleterious impacts of cultivation on forest lands on the one hand and continue or exacerbate forest degradation on the other. The widely reported forest transitions in the Global South (Mather, 2007) is in a large measure attributed to the diminishing importance of agriculture and increased nonagricultural incomes in these regions (Hecht and Saatchi, 2007; Lambin and Meyfroidt, 2011; Rudel et al., 2005; Qin, 2010). Abandonment of pasture and regrowth of secondary forest following livelihood shift from cattle farming to tourism related service industries was witnessed in Costa Rica during the 1990s (McLennan and Garvin, 2012). A link between forest transition and diversification of livelihood strategies was also reported from upland Vietnam which showed an increase in closed canopy forests and enhanced diversity between 1999 and 2009 (Trincsi et al., 2014). Household out-migration in the Southeast China countryside is observed to promote ecological restoration of mountains, uplands, wetlands and marginal lands by decreasing rural population density and encroachments (Wang et al., 2011). In direct contradiction to these observations and interpretations, revival and recovery of forests in the humid tropical rural landscapes are argued to be unattainable even in the face of rapid de-agrarianization (DeFries and Rosenzweig, 2010; Fearnside, 2008; Gray, 2009). Urban expansion which is often complementary to rural diversification and the resultant increases in rural resource extraction are pointed out to subvert attempts to conserve forest resources. For example, increasing urbanization has created demand for construction materials along the Ucayali River in Peru (Padoch et al., 2008). The boom in construction activities in urban areas that had absorbed a fair share of rural agricultural labor in Asia is also seen to increase demand for natural resources of sand, stone and wood resulting in exploitation of the remaining woodlands, rivers and rock outcrops (Reardon et al., 2007).

3.4. Land grabs/acquisition e resource alienation and livelihood shifts In contrast to these gradual changes in landscapes and resource relations, extreme alterations are also underway through opening up of these regions to national and transnational capital, commodities and labor in various commercial ventures that range from aquaculture to biofuel cultivation, tourism and mines (Messerli et al., 2013; Turner, 2012). World over, these investments had led to loss and degradation of arable land and virtual exploitation of other rural natural and common property resources of forests and water (Rulli et al., 2013; Tortajada, 2013). Access and control over these natural resources are often ceded to the investors through diverse methods such as willing or coerced sale and long term lease arrangements on state as well as private lands (Rulli et al., 2013; Woodhouse, 2012). In a traditionally pastoral community of Costa Rica, tourism and residential development by predominantly absentee foreign investors were observed to be the new landuses (McLennan and Garvin, 2012). Foreign direct investments in extensive rural land area for export oriented biofuel cultivation was reported from Ghana (Boamah, 2014). Transnational gold-mines have modified land relations throughout the Cajamarca region of Peru by altering tenure institutions, land values and landuse patterns (Bury, 2005). Similar changes to NR relations are reported since the 1980s from many of the traditionally agricultural African economies such as Tanzania, Botswana and Nigeria due to expansion of artisanal and large-scale mining of gold, diamond and oil (Bryceson et al., 2012; Fabusoro et al., 2010; Gwebu, 2012). In addition to facilitating investments over land, the state also stakes claim on rural lands and resources for developmental projects that range from industrial development to infrastructure expansions (Braun and McLees, 2012). Such extensive alienation of rural landscapes has fostered competition and conflicts over resources between the local residents, outside investors and the state (Chen et al., 2014; Messerli et al., 2013). 3.5. New resource values, meanings and relationships In the aftermath of continued livelihood diversification, the societal perception on resource values has undergone considerable reassessment. While these changed value systems signal a gradual disconnect with land in some cases, in others newer forms of engagement are forged. Niehof (2004) comments that often, the resource base of diversified households are de-diversified through sale of landed assets. The gradual diminution in the role and relevance of land in previously agricultural spaces in South East Asia has been noted (Rigg, 2006). On the other hand, land is seen to have acquired worth anew as an object of speculation and investment (Zoomers, 2002). The rural areas are also fast becoming affordable and quiet residential sites away from the city bustle for an increasing number of commuter workers in the adjacent towns and urban ‘hobby’ farmers (Graziano da Silva and Eduardo Del Grossi, 2001; Tubtim, 2012). It is predicted that such changes in the rural resource relations would gradually lead to de-linking of rural population from land and land inheritance systems and ultimately to the erosion of the traditional land based power differentials (Bouahom et al., 2004; Wittman, 2009). Land has now become valuable as an investment, real estate and financial security, and barely for what it can produce agriculturally. For instance, a livelihood case study from the highlands of Ecuador indicates that cultivation is generally looked upon as unwise investment of remittance compared to housing and real estate outlays (Jokisch, 2002). As a matter of fact, remittances invested in housing is regarded as a stimulant to the new rural economy by creating jobs for local masons and carpenters through much of

K.G. Sreeja et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 159 (2015) 254e263

central Mexico and the southern Indian state of Kerala through the 1990s (Eakin and Appendini, 2008; Gopikuttan, 1990). Thus building large and ostentatious houses have come to be the new measure of remittance worth compared to agricultural investments in land (Isakson, 2009; Yarnall and Price, 2010). This status-seeking remittance strategy is actually found to be a continuation of the trends identified earlier in several European countries (Ruggiero, 2005). In addition to elaborate private homes, new public and community spaces such as shopping malls also reflect urban influences and remittance investments so that the new rural landscape has become a micro representation of the ‘urban’ (Rigg et al., 2012). Despite these deep-rooted changes that are coalescing rural and urban identities, the migrant workers away from home still persist in the idea of ‘native village’ as essentially bucolic though this notion does not essentially contribute to maintenance of former social orders (Padoch et al., 2008; Rigg et al., 2012). In this new landscape, an assortment of markets is developing that range from natural resource to external food markets. The food deficiency that had resulted out of major landuse and value shifts has led to greater dependence on external markets for meeting the subsistence needs of even cultivator households (Snyder, 2009). Shortage of labor, lack of enthusiasm for processing and postharvest operations due to a change in community values and greater access to outside markets have heightened this dependence. The development of land markets and increasing land prices have led to prevalent conceptions of land as a speculative commodity rather than for agricultural production (Zoomers, 2002). Due to willing, coerced or helpless involvement in these markets, a significant share of rural land in these regions is seen to belong to non-agricultural households and outside investors. In a telling example, most international migrant households were observed to increase their landholdings in south-central Ecuador compared to non-migrant households whose landed possessions remained stagnant (Jokisch, 2002). A threefold increase in land market participation through rentals or purchase was noticed in rural Vietnam post-globalization (Akram-Lodhi, 2005). The emergence of water markets is remarked to be a feature of non-agricultural rural landscape in the state of Gujarat in India (Moench et al., 2003). The constantly increasing prices and fluctuating resource market conditions due to agricultural transformations apparently perpetuate growing landlessness and rising inequalities in the rural regions of the South (Isakson, 2009; Kay, 2008; Zoomers, 2002). There is increased accumulation of land by the richer nonagricultural households leading to exacerbation of differentiation (Akram-Lodhi, 2005; Kay, 2008; Zoomers, 2002). The emergence of a land market due to non-farm occupations and migration led to gradual concentration of holdings and other resources by the wealthier class and a growing marginalization and landlessness on the other end of the social spectrum in the Mekong Delta (AkramLodhi et al., 2007). It was also noted that the quality of land held by the non-farming richer households was far better than those occupied by the cultivating poorer households (Akram-Lodhi, 2005; Bezu et al., 2012). Widened social stratification among those who remain engaged in agricultural production is also being reported (Yarnall and Price, 2010). In many instances, the ownership, tenure arrangements and access conditions of these resources have also undergone drastic realignments. Revival of tenancy markets and new forms of tenure relationships are an increasingly familiar characteristic of diversified agricultural landscapes. Tenancy relations, including sharecropping, had returned to rural Vietnam and Amazon Brazil due to operation of land markets during the period of agrarian transition from the 1990s (Akram-Lodhi, 2005; Rigg, 2006; Steward, 2007). This had led to land being leased-in for cultivation by households which had lower endowments but greater labor assets, from those

259

households that leased them out due to off-farm employment of the household (Djurfeldt et al., 2008). In China, significant land under agriculture was only observed in those villages which had a high prevalence of land leasing arrangements and where the share of agricultural laborers in the households were high (Wang et al., 2011; Zhang et al., 2014). Often, the rural landscape and NR relations in the era of globalization and livelihood diversification are a mosaic of such contradictory forces that vie for domination. These post-livelihood transition landscapes also involve various interest groups of landless peasants, migrant landowners, in-migrants laborers, women, old-aged farmers, urban investors, transnational corporations and lease holders within multiple tenure arrangements. The conventional rural management entities and local governance bodies are identified to be highly insufficient and constrained in dealing with the diverse impacts of non-agricultural livelihoods in resource use and governance (Batterbury, 2010; Liu et al., 2014; Woods, 2007). The diverse actors and the emergent relations of power operating between them demand alternative imaginings of NR governance regimes (Cleaver and Franks, 2005; Sneddon and Fox, 2006). Sustainable NRM and institutions oriented towards it therefore acquire new dimensions and require renewed deliberation in a globalized post-livelihood transition rural landscape (Batterbury and Bebbington, 1999; Zimmerer, 2007). In the following section, river basins as emergent NRM units are examined for conceptualization of its resource spaces, livelihood transformations within these and the changing contexts of governance. 4. Livelihood and resource use scenarios in river basins The changes to livelihoods and landscape in the rural regions described in the above sections acquire added relevance when considered within resource management spaces such as a river basin. River basins as units of NRM have found renewed acceptance since the early 1990s in the form of Integrated River Basin Management (IRBM) and Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) and presently form the foundation of water policies across the world (Hering et al., 2010; Mehta and Movik, 2014; Mollinga et al., 2009). Majority of the river basins across the Global South have substantial regions which are rural. Historically, the development of these rural basin spaces was primarily for agricultural expansion. However, previously agricultural rural river basins are in a state of high flux today due to a mosaic of livelihood strategies and landuses and are more vulnerable economically and socioecologically (Ribeiro Palacios et al., 2013). Natural resource consumption, conflicts and interest groups and consequently the NRM priorities of today's river basins differ markedly from those assumed in a conventional IRBM framework. Critical engagement with the concept of river basin as a management unit therefore demands integrating NRM to the lives and livelihoods of the people who inhabit these basin spaces (Runk et al., 2007; Vogel, 2012). The agrarian character of river basins has rarely been subjected to a critical review from the perspective of human livelihoods and resource links. Very few studies are seen to capture the dynamics of the engagement with the basin resources, or seriously attempt any analysis of the rapid changes to livelihood portfolios and the ensuing issues of resource access and ownership. Further, marginal resource users in a basin primarily dependent on non-agricultural ecosystem services are often excluded from decision-making processes (Nesheim et al., 2010). The lack of consideration of these non-agricultural resource users and marginal communities is decried as a strategic failure of IWRM (Waalewijn et al., 2009). Even when it is realized that past inequities in resource distribution need to be redressed, a more textured analysis of the current resource relations of the basin population is found to be largely missing.

260

K.G. Sreeja et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 159 (2015) 254e263

Fig. 3. Reciprocal livelihood-landscape links and governance relations in the rural spaces of the Global South.

In many basins across the South, over abstraction and closure of river basins have signaled an inevitable shift away from agriculture as a major livelihood activity and main user of basin resources (Moench et al., 2003; Molle, 2007). In the Sabarmati river basin in Gujarat, the severe decline in groundwater levels led to the movement of traditional landowning and agricultural laborer castes away from primary dependence on agriculture to other occupations and in many instances to permanent migration (Moench et al., 2003). In several other basins, rapid urbanization and industrialization are leading to these shifts despite resource abundance. For instance, in the water abundant and fertile southern and coastal regions of the Yellow river basin in China, capital is being reallocated away from agriculture into secondary and service sectors (Su et al., 2011; Webber et al., 2008). In the Red River Delta, Vietnam and Yangtze River Delta, China, numerous fertile agricultural fields were transformed into industrial zones (Dai et al., 2013; Su et al., 2011). Moreover, other NR based enterprises such as mines, commercial aquaculture, tourism etc. are on the increase in several of the river basins of the Global South (Little, 1999; Venot et al., 2008). Mineral mining booms are reported all along the African and Amazon river basins (Hinojosa, 2013; Kamete, 2008). Large-scale adoption of commercial aquaculture in the Krishna basin delta in South India resulted in small farmers and fishermen selling or leasing out their lands to outside investors (Venot et al., 2008). Remittances of migrant labor to the rural areas in several river basins have also reduced primary dependence on agricultural livelihoods (Swatuk and Motsholapheko, 2008; Turton et al., 2006). These livelihood and resource diversifications have thus realigned the resource relations of the basin population and redefined basin landscapes providing the changing context of basin management (Cuba et al., 2014; Franks et al., 2011). Moreover, the concerns and conflicts over the emergent resource uses are found to transcend local resource use spaces and have basin level impacts (Hinojosa, 2013). Therefore a spatially cognizant NRM framework such as a river basin becomes all the more relevant in a diversified rural landscape. 5. Transition landscapes and implications for natural resource governance Natural resource governance involves decision-making on the

use and distribution of natural resources through formal and informal institutions involving stakeholder participation. River basin based NR governance being institutionalized in many countries of the South is rooted in the principle of subsidiarity whereby resource management actions are taken at the lowest appropriate level (Molle, 2009; World Bank, 2004). The reconstitution of natural resource use in diversified livelihood landscapes of river basins links the local spaces of NR governance across multiple scales and institutional levels through resource and livelihood networks (Adger et al., 2005; Cleaver and Franks, 2005; Sreeja et al., 2012; Venot et al., 2011). Distinct interest group networks are formed in the wake of these new resource configurations that play a huge role in stakeholder based co-management of resources. In the heavily mined basins of the Peruvian Andes, interest groups of transnational mining corporations and the local communities were involved in land and water rights negotiations (Cuba et al., 2014; Hinojosa, 2013). New livelihood interest groups of women farmers, migrant workers, in-migrant laborers and field caretakers and their respective networks were identified in the central Bolivian Andes (Zimmerer, 2014). The highly marginalized and often invisible categories of lease farmers and in-migrant workforce who receive scant recognition in traditional policy and institutional circles were encountered in the Chalakudy river basin in the Western Ghats of India (Sreeja and Shetty, 2015). Beyond the conventional realm of stakeholders that mostly involve irrigators and large agriculturists, river basin based NR governance in a changed rural landscape would need to incorporate these highly differentiated and emergent social actors who juggle livelihood activities, processes, networks, resources and power at multiple scales (Batterbury, 2010; Cuba et al., 2014; Zimmerer, 2014). The recognition of changing resource use and user dynamics within river basins and multi-scalar governance efforts can also challenge the recent trend towards centralized management in IRBM frameworks €rg, 2007; Harris and Alatout, (Andersson and Ostrom, 2008; Go 2010; Lankford and Hepworth, 2010; Molle and Mamanpoush, 2012). The interlinks between livelihoods, resources and governance that is defining the rural landscape of the Global South is presented in Fig. 3. Even though it is believed that shifts out of agriculture would relieve the stress on basin resources (Molle, 2007; Phansalkar, 2005), others point out to the possibility of increased conflicts

K.G. Sreeja et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 159 (2015) 254e263

due to competition for resources between emergent livelihood activities and the traditional agricultural communities (Moench et al., 2003; Seto, 2011). The emergent livelihoods and resource relations are also reported to constrain investments in sustainable resource management initiatives (Moench et al., 2003; Swatuk and Motsholapheko, 2008). Further, increase in the non-agrarian uses of water is postulated to widen future divergences between the river basin and the area that uses a river's waters (Pani, 2009). Alternative livelihood strategies in river basins are also changing the livelihood value of resources to basin residents which are yet to be reflected in basin resource use policies (Eakin and Appendini, 2008). The ‘idealized version of rural life’ is still implicitly assumed by NRM institutions, ignoring the rapid and prevalent manifestations of livelihood changes in rural landscapes (Bryceson et al., 2000; Chase, 2010; Koczberski and Curry, 2005). In the absence of IRBM taking cognizance of these emergent resource relations, Hinojosa (2013) foresees a situation where inadequate governance mechanisms for diverse resource uses lead to resource depletion and environmental injustice. 6. Conclusion Changes in natural resource use and relations in the context of agricultural livelihood shifts in the Global South post-globalization lead to a highly diversified rural landscape which has been altered physically, socially, culturally and institutionally. A plethora of resource use situations were identified to qualify these agricultural landscapes that range from agricultural intensification to deintensification; deagrarianization to reagrarianization; persistence of sustainable agriculture to its disappearance and abandonment; forest transitions and degradations; resource grabs, acquisitions and alienation and above all changed and emergent resource values, meaning and power differentials. The changed livelihood commitments have also created 'non-traditional' interest groups and networks in resource relations which are giving rise to diverse struggles, contestations and compliances in resource use and relations. The social movements and conflicts in various corners of the Global South are a testimony to these redefinitions that are affecting the previously largely agrarian communities and landscapes and the pressing need for an institutional perspective that can address these issues over multiple scales. It is therefore disturbing to note that such prevalent shifts to resource user spaces in the rural areas have not seriously informed conceptualizations of nascent environmental governance regimes such as IRBM and IWRM. Even though river basins as NR governance units provide multiscalar participatory spaces for decentralized governance, acknowledgment of river basin relations and spaces as diversified is scarce in scholarship. The obsession with agricultural basins is still rife and the officially recognized stakeholders are found to be most often limited to the powerful classes of irrigators. The involvement of non-agricultural resource users and several other marginal users of basin resources that range from in-migrant laborers to the landless lease farmers on the one hand and the drastic nonagricultural uses of basin resources such as gold and oil mining, stone quarrying, foreign direct investments on land, virtual water trade etc. on the other are rarely part of basin resource governance discussions and negotiations. There is therefore an urgent need to visualize river basins of today as highly differentiated spaces due to widespread livelihood and resource use reconfigurations. The agrarian distress and livelihood transitions that the Global South is facing for over two decades which have led to considerable turbulence in the rural landscapes and social spaces cannot be wished away while dealing with river basin management in these very same spaces.

261

Acknowledgments The first and second authors are indebted to the Chalakudy river basin and its people for painstakingly taking us through the lifescapes of diversity. The first author acknowledges the doctoral support received at the National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bangalore and the post-doctoral fellowship at the Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, India. We thank the two anonymous reviewers for their insightful and creative comments on the manuscript. Appendix A. Supplementary data Supplementary data related to this article can be found at http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.05.021. References Adger, W.N., Brown, K., Tompkins, E.L., 2005. The political economy of cross-scale networks in resource co-management. Ecol. Soc. 10. http://www. ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss2/art9/. Aide, T.M., Grau, H.R., 2004. Ecology. Globalization, migration, and Latin American ecosystems. Science 305, 1915e1916. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1103179. Akram-Lodhi, A.H., 2005. Vietnam's agriculture: processes of rich peasant accumulation and mechanisms of social differentiation. J. Agrar. Chang. 5, 73e116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0366.2004.00095.x. Akram-Lodhi, A.H., Borras, S.M., Kay, C., 2007. Land, Poverty and Livelihoods in an Era of Globalization: Perspectives from Developing and Transition Countries. Routledge, London. Andersson, K.P., Ostrom, E., 2008. Analyzing decentralized resource regimes from a polycentric perspective. Policy Sci. 41, 71e93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11077007-9055-6. Barbier, E.B., 2000. Links between economic liberalization and rural resource degradation in the developing regions. Agric. Econ. 23, 299e310. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-0862.2000.tb00281.x. Barrett, C.B., Reardon, T., Webb, P., 2001. Nonfarm income diversification and livelihoods in rural Africa: concepts, dynamics, and policy implications. Food Policy 29, 315e331. Batterbury, S., 2001. Landscapes of diversity: a local political ecology of livelihood diversification in south-western Niger. Cult. Geogr. 8, 437e464. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1177/096746080100800404. Batterbury, S., 2010. Land, environmental management and the new governance in Burkina Faso. In: Godden, Lee, Tehan, M. (Eds.), Comparative Perspectives on Communal Lands and Individual Ownership: Sustainable Futures. Routledge, London, pp. 241e262. Batterbury, S., Bebbington, A.J., 1999. Environmental histories, access to resources and landscape change: an introduction. L. Degrad. Dev. 10, 279e289. Bezu, S., Barrett, C.B., Holden, S.T., 2012. Does the nonfarm economy offer pathways for upward mobility? Evidence from a panel data study in Ethiopia. World Dev. 40, 1634e1646. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.04.019. Boamah, F., 2014. Imageries of the contested concepts “Land Grabbing” and “Land Transactions”: implications for biofuels investments in Ghana. Geoforum 54, 324e334. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.10.009. Bouahom, B., Douangsavanh, L., Rigg, J., 2004. Building sustainable livelihoods in Laos: untangling farm from non-farm, progress from distress. Geoforum 35, 607e619. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2004.02.002. Braun, Y.A., McLees, L.A., 2012. Space, ownership and inequality: economic development and tourism in the highlands of Lesotho. Camb. J. Reg. Econ. Soc. 5, 435e449. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsr039. Bryceson, D.F., 2009. Sub-saharan Africa's vanishing peasantries and the specter of a global food crisis. Mon. Rev. 61, 48e62. Bryceson, D.F., Jønsson, J.B., Kinabo, C., Shand, M., 2012. Unearthing treasure and trouble: mining as an impetus to urbanisation in Tanzania. J. Contemp. Afr. Stud. 30, 631e649. Bryceson, D.F., Kay, C., Mooij, J., 2000. Disappearing Peasantries? Rural Labour in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Intermediate Technology Publications, London. Bury, J., 2005. Mining mountains: neoliberalism, land tenure, livelihoods, and the new peruvian mining industry in Cajamarca. Environ. Plan. 37, 221e239. Carr, E.R., McCusker, B., 2009. The co-production of land use and livelihoods change: implications for development interventions. Geoforum 40, 568e579. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2009.04.010. Chase, J., 2010. The place of pluriactivity in Brazil's agrarian reform institutions. J. Rural. Stud. 26, 85e93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2009.07.001. Chen, R., Ye, C., Cai, Y., Xing, X., Chen, Q., 2014. The impact of rural out-migration on land use transition in China: past, present and trend. Land Use Policy 40, 101e110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.10.003. Chi, V.K., Rompaey, A., Govers, G., Vanacker, V., Schmook, B., Hieu, N., 2013. Land transitions in northwest Vietnam: an integrated analysis of biophysical and socio-cultural factors. Hum. Ecol. 41, 37e50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10745-

262

K.G. Sreeja et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 159 (2015) 254e263

013-9569-9. Cleaver, F., Franks, T., 2005. How Institutions Elude Design: River Basin Management and Sustainable Livelihoods. Research Paper 12. Bradford Centre for International Development (BCID), Bradford. Crowley, E.L., Carter, S.E., 2000. Agrarian change and the changing relationships between toil and soil in Maragoli, western Kenya (1900e1994). Hum. Ecol. 28, 383e414. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1007005514841. Cuba, N., Bebbington, A., Rogan, J., Millones, M., 2014. Extractive industries, livelihoods and natural resource competition: mapping overlapping claims in Peru and Ghana. Appl. Geogr. 54, 250e261. Dai, D.D., Ngan, L.T., Dien, N.T., 2013. Difficulties in transition among livelihoods under agricultural land conversion for industrialization: perspective of human development. Mediterr. J. Soc. Sci. 4, 259e267. http://dx.doi.org/10.5901/ mjss.2013.v4n10p259. DeFries, R., Rosenzweig, C., 2010. Toward a whole-landscape approach for sustainable land use in the tropics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 107, 19627e19632. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1011163107. Delgado-Wise, R., Guarnizo, L.E., 2007. Migration and Development: Lessons from the Mexican Experience. Migration Policy Institute, Washington DC. Djurfeldt, G., Athreya, V., Jayakumar, N., Lindberg, S., Rajagopal, A., Vidyasagar, R., 2008. Agrarian change and social mobility in Tamil Nadu. Econ. Polit. Wkly. 43, 50e61. Eakin, H., Appendini, K., 2008. Livelihood change, farming, and managing flood risk in the Lerma Valley, Mexico. Agric. Hum. Values 25, 555e566. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/s10460-008-9140-2. Ellis, F., 2000. Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Developing Countries. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. Ellis, F., 2006. Agrarian change and rising vulnerability in rural sub-Saharan Africa. New. Polit. Econ. 11, 387e397. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13563460600841025. Ellis, F., Freeman, H.A., 2004. Rural livelihoods and poverty reduction strategies in four African countries. J. Dev. Stud. 40, 1e30. Fabusoro, E., Omotayo, A.M., Apantaku, S.O., Okuneye, P.A., 2010. Forms and determinants of rural livelihoods diversification in Ogun state, Nigeria. J. Sustain. Agric. 34, 417e438. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10440041003680296. FAOSTAT, 2014. Statistical Database. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. http://faostat.fao.org/site/377/default.aspx#ancor (Accessed 15.06.14.). Fearnside, P.M., 2008. The roles and movements of actors in the deforestation of Brazilian Amazonia. Ecol. Soc. 13. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss1/ art23/ES-2008-2451.pdf. Franks, T., Bdliya, H., Mbuya, L., 2011. Water governance and river basin management: comparative experiences from Nigeria and Tanzania. Int. J. River Basin Manag. 9, 93e101. GoI (Government of India), 2013. The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. India. Gopikuttan, G., 1990. House construction boom in Kerala: impact on economy and society. Econ. Polit. Wkly. 25, 2083e2088. €rg, C., 2007. Landscape governance. Geoforum 38, 954e966. http://dx.doi.org/ Go 10.1016/j.geoforum.2007.01.004. Gray, C.L., 2009. Rural out-migration and smallholder agriculture in the southern Ecuadorian Andes. Popul. Environ. 30, 193e217. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s11111-009-0081-5. Graziano da Silva, J., Eduardo Del Grossi, M., 2001. Rural nonfarm employment and incomes in Brazil: patterns and evolution. World Dev. 29, 443e453. Gwebu, T.D., 2012. Botswana's mining path to urbanisation and poverty alleviation. J. Contemp. Afr. Stud. 30, 611630. Haggblade, S., Hazell, P., Reardon, T., 2010. The rural non-farm economy: prospects for growth and poverty reduction. World Dev. 38, 1429e1441. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.worlddev.2009.06.008. Hammerstrøm, K., Wade, A., Jørgensen, A.M.K., 2010. Searching for Studies: a Guide to Information Retrieval for Campbell Systematic Reviews. The Campbell Collaboration, Norway. http://dx.doi.org/10.4073/csrs.2010.1. Harris, L.M., Alatout, S., 2010. Negotiating hydro-scales, forging states: comparison of the upper tigris/euphrates and Jordan River basins. Polit. Geogr. 29, 148e156. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2010.02.012. Hecht, S.B., Saatchi, S.S., 2007. Globalization and forest resurgence: changes in forest cover in El salvador. Bioscience 57, 663e672. http://dx.doi.org/10.1641/ B570806. Hering, D., Borja, A., Carstensen, J., Carvalho, L., Elliott, M., Feld, C., Heiskanen, A., Johnson, R., Moe, J., Pont, D., Solheim, A., de Bund, W., 2010. The European water framework directive at the age of 10: a critical review of the achievements with recommendations for the future. Sci. Total Environ. 408, 4007e4019. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.05.031. Hinojosa, L., 2013. Change in rural livelihoods in the Andes: do extractive industries make any difference? Community Dev. J. 48, 421e436. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1093/cdj/bst023. Isakson, S.R., 2009. No hay ganancia en la milpa: the agrarian question, food sovereignty, and the on-farm conservation of agrobiodiversity in the Guatemalan highlands. J. Peasant Stud. 36, 725e759. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 03066150903353876. Jokisch, B.D., 2002. Migration and agricultural change: the case of smallholder agriculture in Highland Ecuador. Hum. Ecol. 30, 523e550. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1023/A:1021198023769. Kamete, A.Y., 2008. When livelihoods take a battering…mapping the “New Gold Rush” in Zimbabwe's Angwa-Pote Basin. Transform. Crit. Perspect. South. Afr.

65, 36e67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/trn.2008.0009. Kanji, N., MacGregor, J., Tacoli, C., 2005. Understanding Market-based Livelihoods in a Globalising World: Combining Approaches and Methods. International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), London. Kay, C., 2008. Reflections on Latin American rural studies in the Neoliberal globalization period: a new rurality? Dev. Change 39, 915e943. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1467-7660.2008.00518.x. King, B., 2011. Spatialising livelihoods: resource access and livelihood spaces in South Africa. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 36, 297e313. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ j.1475-5661.2010.00423.x. Koczberski, G., Curry, G.N., 2005. Making a living: land pressures and changing livelihood strategies among oil palm settlers in Papua New Guinea. Agric. Syst. 85, 324e339. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2005.06.014. Lambin, E.F., Meyfroidt, P., 2011. Global land use change, economic globalization, and the looming land scarcity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 108, 3465e3472. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1100480108. Lanjouw, J.O., Lanjouw, P., 2001. The rural non-farm sector: issues and evidence from developing countries. Agric. Econ. 26, 1e23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ j.1574-0862.2001.tb00051.x. Lankford, B., Hepworth, N., 2010. The cathedral and the bazaar: monocentric and polycentric river basin management. Water Altern. 3, 82e101. Little, P.E., 1999. Political Ecology as Ethnography: the Case of Ecuador's Aguarico River Basin, vol. 258. Departamento de Antropologia, Universidade de Brasília, Brazil. Liu, Y., Chen, Y., Long, H., 2010. The process and driving forces of rural hollowing in China under rapid urbanization. J. Geogr. Sci. 20, 876e888. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/s11442-010-0817-2. Liu, Y., Fang, F., Li, Y., 2014. Key issues of land use in China and implications for policy making. Land Use Policy 40, 6e12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.landusepol.2013.03.013. Maconachie, R., 2011. Re-agrarianising livelihoods in post-conflict Sierra Leone? Mineral wealth and rural change in artisanal and small-scale mining communities. J. Int. Dev. 23, 1054e1067. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jid.1831. Maconachie, R., 2012. Diamond mining, urbanisation and social transformation in Sierra Leone. J. Contemp. Afr. Stud. 30, 705e723. Mather, A.S., 2007. Recent Asian forest transitions in relation to forest-transition theory. Int. For. Rev. 9, 491e502. McCusker, B., Carr, E.R., 2006. The co-production of livelihoods and land use change: case studies from South Africa and Ghana. Geoforum 37, 790e804. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2005.09.007. McKay, D., 2003. Cultivating new local futures: remittance economies and land-use patterns in Ifugao, Philippines. J. Southeast Asian Stud. 34, 285e306. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0022463403000262. McLennan, B., Garvin, T., 2012. Intra-regional variation in land use and livelihood change during a forest transition in Costa Rica's dry north west. Land Use Policy 29, 119e130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.05.011. Mehta, L., Movik, S., 2014. Flows and Practices: Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) in African Contexts. IDS Working Paper 438. Institute of Development Studies, London. € nweger, O., 2013. From “land Messerli, P., Heinimann, A., Giger, M., Breu, T., Scho grabbing” to sustainable investments in land: potential contributions by land change science. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain 5, 528e534. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.cosust.2013.03.004. Moench, M., Dixit, A., Janakarajan, S., Rathore, M.S., Mudrakartha, S., 2003. The Fluid Mosaic: Water Governance in the Context of Variability, Uncertainty and Change. Nepal Water Conservation Foundation and Institute for Social and Environmental Transition, Kathmandu and Boulder, CO. Molle, F., 2007. Scales and power in river basin management: the Chao Phraya River in Thailand. Geogr. J. 173, 358e373. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.14754959.2007.00255.x. Molle, F., 2009. Water, politics and river basin governance: repoliticizing approaches to river basin management. Water Int. 34, 62e70. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/02508060802677846. Molle, F., Mamanpoush, A., 2012. Scale, governance and the management of river basins: a case study from Central Iran. Geoforum 43, 285e294. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2011.08.004. Mollinga, P.P., Dixit, A., Athukorala, K. (Eds.), 2009. Integrated Water Resources Management: Global Theory, Emerging Practice, and Local Needs. SAGE Publications, India. Mususa, P., 2012. The wavering urban character of Zambia's Copperbelt. J. Contemp. Afr. Stud. 30, 571e587. Nesheim, I., McNeill, D., Joy, K.J., Manasi, S., Nhung, D.T., Portela, M.M., Paranjape, S., 2010. The challenge and status of IWRM in four river basins in Europe and Asia. Irrig. Drain. Syst. 24, 205e221. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10795-010-9103-9. Niehof, A., 2004. The significance of diversification for rural livelihood systems. Food Policy 29, 321e338. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2004.07.009. Padoch, C., Brondizio, E., Costa, S., Pinedo-Vasquez, M., Sears, R.R., Siqueira, A.D., 2008. Urban forest and rural cities: multi-sited households, consumption patterns, and forest resources in Amazonia. Ecol. Soc. 13. http://www. ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art2/. Pani, N., 2009. Institutions that cannot manage change: a Gandhian perspective on the Cauvery dispute in South India. Water Altern. 2, 315e327. Phansalkar, S.J., 2005. Contours of rural livelihoods in India in the coming halfcentury. Int. J. Rural. Manag. 1, 145e166. Qin, H., 2010. Rural-to-urban labor migration, household livelihoods, and the rural

K.G. Sreeja et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 159 (2015) 254e263 environment in Chongqing Municipality, Southwest China. Hum. Ecol. Interdiscip. J. 38, 675e690. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10745-010-9353-z. Reardon, T., 2001. Rural nonfarm employment and incomes in Latin America: overview and policy implications. World Dev. 29, 395e409. Reardon, T., Stamoulis, K., Pingali, P., 2007. Rural nonfarm employment in developing countries in an era of globalization. Agric. Econ. 37, 173e183. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-0862.2007.00243.x. ~ a de Paz, F., Carrera Ribeiro Palacios, M., Huber-Sannwald, E., García Barrios, L., Pen ndez, J., Galindo Mendoza, M. d. G., 2013. Landscape diversity in a rural Herna territory: emerging land use mosaics coupled to livelihood diversification. Land Use Policy 30, 814e824. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.06.007. Rigg, J., 2001. Embracing the global in Thailand: activism and pragmatism in an era of deagrarianization. World Dev. 29, 945e960. Rigg, J., 2005. Poverty and livelihoods after full-time farming: a south-east Asian view. Asia Pac. Viewp. 46, 173e184. Rigg, J., 2006. Land, farming, livelihoods, and poverty: rethinking the links in the rural south. World Dev. 34, 180e202. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.worlddev.2005.07.015. Rigg, J., Nattapoolwat, S., 2001. Embracing the global in Thailand: activism and pragmatism in an era of deagrarianization. World Dev. 29, 945e960. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(01)00021-3. Rigg, J., Salamanca, A., Parnwell, M., 2012. Joining the dots of agrarian change in Asia: a 25 year view from Thailand. World Dev. 40, 1469e1481. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.03.001. Rudel, T.K., Coomes, O.T., Moran, E., Achard, F., Angelsen, A., Xu, J., Lambin, E., 2005. Forest transitions: towards a global understanding of land use change. Glob. Environ. Chang. 15, 23e31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2004.11.001. Ruggiero, E., 2005. Migration and remittances. Problems Econ. Transition 48, 54e83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10611991.2005.11049980. Rulli, M.C., Saviori, A., D'Odorico, P., 2013. Global land and water grabbing. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 110, 892e897. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1213163110. z Ismare, C., 2007. Political Runk, J.V., Ortíz Negría, G., Quintero García, W., Quiro economic history, culture, and Wounaan livelihood diversity in eastern Panama. Agric. Hum. Values 24, 93e106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10460-006-9035-z. Scoones, I., 2009. Livelihoods perspectives and rural development. J. Peasant Stud. 36, 171e196. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03066150902820503. Seto, K.C., 2011. Exploring the dynamics of migration to mega-delta cities in Asia and Africa: contemporary drivers and future scenarios. Glob. Environ. Chang. 21, S94eS107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.08.005. Sneddon, C., Fox, C., 2006. Rethinking transboundary waters: a critical hydropolitics of the Mekong basin. Polit. Geogr. 25, 181e202. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.polgeo.2005.11.002. Snyder, K.A., 2009. Iraqw of Tanzania: Negotiating Rural Development. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. Solesbury, W., 2003. Sustainable Livelihoods: a Case Study of the Evolution of DFID Policy. Overseas Development Institute, London. Sreeja, K.G., Madhusoodhanan, C.G., Shetty, P.K., Eldho, T.I., 2012. Inclusive spaces in integrated river basin management: discerning multiple boundaries of resource relations. Int. J. River Basin Manag. 10, 351e367. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 15715124.2012.739172. Sreeja, K.G., Shetty, P.K., 2015. Invisible people: migrant labourers in the context of integrated river basin management. In: Mohan, S.N., Routray, S. (Eds.), Sharing Blue Gold: Locating Water Conflicts in India. National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bangalore, ISBN 978-93-83566-10-5. Steward, A., 2007. Nobody farms here anymore: livelihood diversification in the ~o, a historical perspective. Agric. Hum. Values Amazonian community of Carva 24, 75e92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10460-006-9032-2. Su, S., Jiang, Z., Zhang, Q., Zhang, Y., 2011. Transformation of agricultural landscapes under rapid urbanization: a threat to sustainability in Hang-Jia-Hu region, China. Appl. Geogr. 31, 439e449. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.apgeog.2010.10.008. Swatuk, L., Motsholapheko, M., 2008. Communicating integrated water resources management: from global discourse to local practice e chronicling an experience from the Boteti River sub-basin, Botswana. Phys. Chem. Earth Parts A/B/C 33, 881e888. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2008.06.037. Taylor, J.E., 1992. Remittances and inequality reconsidered: direct, indirect, and intertemporal effects. J. Policy Model 14, 187e208. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ 0161-8938(92)90008-Z. Tortajada, C., 2013. Corporate Land Grabs: Policy Implications on Water Management in the South. Third World Centre for Water Management, Mexico. Background Research Paper Submitted to the High Level Panel on the Post 2015 Development Agenda. Trincsi, K., Pham, T., Turner, S., 2014. Mapping mountain diversity: ethnic minorities

263

and land use land cover change in Vietnam's borderlands. Land Use Policy 41, 484e497. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.06.022. Tubtim, T., 2012. Migration to the countryside. Crit. Asian Stud. 44, 113e130. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1080/14672715.2012.644890. Turner, S., 2012. Making a living the Hmong way: an actor-oriented livelihoods approach to everyday politics and resistance in upland Vietnam. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 102, 403e422. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2011.596392. Turton, A.R., Schultz, C., Buckle, H., Kgomongoe, M., Malungani, T., Drackner, M., 2006. Gold, scorched Earth and water: the hydropolitics of Johannesburg. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 22, 313e335. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 07900620600649827. UNDP, 2004. Forging a Global South. United Nations Development Programme, New York. http://www.ctc-health.org.cn/file/2012060807.pdf. Vadjunec, J.M., Schmink, M., Gomes, C.V., 2011. Rubber tapper citizens: emerging places, policies, and shifting rural-urban identities in Acre, Brazil. J. Cult. Geogr. 28, 73e98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08873631.2011.548481. Van der Ploeg, J.D., Jingzhong, Y., 2010. Multiple job holding in rural villages and the Chinese road to development. J. Peasant Stud. 37, 513e530. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/03066150.2010.494373. Venot, J.P., Bharati, L., Giordano, M., Molle, F., 2011. Beyond water, beyond boundaries: spaces of water management in the Krishna river basin, South India. Geogr. J. 177, 160e170. Venot, J.P., Sharma, B.R., Rao, K.V., 2008. The Lower Krishna Basin Trajectory: Relationships between Basin Development and Downstream Environmental Degradation. IWMI Research Report 125. International Water Management Institute, Colombo. Vogel, E., 2012. Parcelling out the watershed: the recurring consequences of organising Columbia river management within a basin based territory. Water Altern. 5, 161e190. Waalewijn, P., Wester, P., Straaten, K.V., 2009. Transforming river basin management in South Africa: lessons from the lower Komati river. Water Int. 30, 184e196. Wang, C., Yang, Y., Zhang, Y., 2011. Economic development, rural livelihoods, and ecological restoration: evidence from China. Ambio 40, 78e87. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13280-010-0093-5. Webber, M., Barnett, J., Wang, M., Finlayson, B., Dickinson, D., 2008. The yellow river in transition. Environ. Sci. Policy 11, 422e429. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.envsci.2008.02.002. Wittman, H., 2009. Reframing agrarian citizenship: land, life and power in Brazil. J. Rural. Stud. 25, 120e130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2008.07.002. Wohl, E., Barros, A., Brunsell, N., Chappell, N., Coe, M., Giambelluca, T., Goldsmith, S., Harmon, R., Hendrickx, J.M.H., Juvik, J., McDonnell, J., Ogden, F., 2012. The hydrology of the humid tropics. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2, 655e662. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1038/nclimate1556. Woodhouse, P., 2012. New investment, old challenges. Land deals and the water constraint in African agriculture. J. Peasant Stud. 39, 777e794. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/03066150.2012.660481. Woods, M., 2007. Engaging the global countryside: globalization, hybridity and the reconstitution of rural place. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 31, 485e507. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1177/0309132507079503. World Bank, 2004. Water Resources Sector Strategy: Strategic Directions for World Bank Engagement. World Bank, Washington, DC. http://documents.worldbank. org/curated/en/2004/01/3030614/water-resources-sector-strategy-strategicdirections-world-bank-engagement. Yarnall, K., Price, M., 2010. Migration, development and a new rurality in the Valle Alto, Bolivia. J. Lat. Am. Geogr. 9, 107e124. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/lag.0.0083. Zhang, Y., Li, X., Song, W., 2014. Determinants of cropland abandonment at the parcel, household and village levels in mountain areas of China: a multi-level analysis. Land Use Policy 41, 186e192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.landusepol.2014.05.011. Zimmerer, K.S., 2007. Agriculture, livelihoods, and globalization: the analysis of new trajectories (and avoidance of just-so stories) of human-environment change and conservation. Agric. Hum. Values 24, 9e16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s10460-006-9028-y. Zimmerer, K.S., 2010. Biological diversity in agriculture and global change. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 35, 137e166. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ040309-113840. Zimmerer, K.S., 2014. Ecology and society: conserving agrobiodiversity amid global change, migration, and nontraditional livelihood networks: the dynamic uses of cultural landscape knowledge. Ecol. Soc. 19. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES06316-190201. Zoomers, A., 2002. Rural development policy in Latin America: the future of the countryside. Soc. Sci. 30, 61e84.