Socio-Hydrology with Hydrosocial Theory: Two Sides of the Same Coin?
Heejun Chang was supported by the Social Science Research Council (SSRC)’s Abe Fellowship Program within the project ‘Coupled Dynamics of Human and Flood Risks in Six Cities Across the Pacific’.
Hydrological Sciences Journal
This paper reviews socio-hydrology and hydrosocial research, finding a sophisticated relationship with emergent syntheses. We examined 419 papers by topic, region of study, theories implemented, journal, and year published to ascertain trends in both subfields. We found important overlap and considerable difference between subfields. Whereas hydrosocial research took years to develop, socio-hydrology commenced with an inaugural paper in 2012. While the former focuses on power and scale in studying water demand, the latter concentrates on practical responses to climate extremes. Hydrosocial research usually relies on qualitative methods, and socio-hydrology research the quantitative. In the geographic regions where the former does not focus, the latter does. The former often relies on post-structuralist theory, whereas the latter uses positivist approaches. Our review concludes that socio-hydrology and hydrosocial research exist in a complex epistemological relationship, offering fertile grounds for lively discussions from which both will continue to benefit.
Locate the Document
Ross, A., & Chang, H. (2020). Socio-hydrology with hydrosocial theory: Two sides of the same coin? Hydrological Sciences Journal, Ahead-of-print(Ahead-of-print), 1-15.