IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v9y2020i3p74-d328778.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Actors, Scales and Spaces Dynamics Linked to Groundwater Resources use for Agriculture Production in Haouaria Plain, Tunisia. A Territory Game Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Intissar Ferchichi

    (INRGREF, University of Carthage, Ariana 2080, Tunisia)

  • Insaf Mekki

    (INRGREF, University of Carthage, Ariana 2080, Tunisia)

  • Mohamed Elloumi

    (INRAT, University of Carthage, Ariana 2080, Tunisia)

  • Lamia Arfa

    (INAT, University of Carthage, Ariana 2080, Tunisia)

  • Sylvie Lardon

    (INRAE & AgroParisTech, UMR Territoires, 63178 Aubière CEDEX, France)

Abstract

Groundwater resources became a recognized enabler of important rural and socio-economic development in Mediterranean countries. However, the development of this groundwater economy is currently associated with an increased pressure on the available resource and negative implications on the socio-ecological system. Managing complex socio-ecological systems, such as those that occur in water resource management, is a multi-actor, multi-scale and dynamic decision-making process. This study aims to build a collective learning and collaborative construction tool through the territory game method. It was implemented in the Haouaria Plain, in Northern Tunisia, where farmers are currently dependent upon groundwater use for their livelihood and food security. After the diagnosis of the territorial issues, the drivers of change and a common spatial representation of the future trend of the territory, we dive into the dimensions that hinder or facilitate the implementation of scenarios and the pathways of actions. Thereafter, we analyzed these dimensions together again and reflect on the interactions among actors at different levels to transform the local territory. From the perspective of evolution scenarios for the Haouaria plain, the participants indicated the conditions that hinder or facilitate their implementation and they proposed twenty-three possible actions to be carried out in order to achieve the desired trends. They indicated how these propositions can be achieved, by whom, and where. The local stakeholders coordinate actors, activities and spaces on their territory. Spaces such as El Garâa basin, littoral forest or food processing companies are at stake to develop an integrated response to territorial issues.

Suggested Citation

  • Intissar Ferchichi & Insaf Mekki & Mohamed Elloumi & Lamia Arfa & Sylvie Lardon, 2020. "Actors, Scales and Spaces Dynamics Linked to Groundwater Resources use for Agriculture Production in Haouaria Plain, Tunisia. A Territory Game Approach," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-15, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:9:y:2020:i:3:p:74-:d:328778
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/9/3/74/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/9/3/74/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christophe-Toussaint Soulard & Sylvie Lardon, 2019. "Action-Research Helps Researchers Foster Smart Rural Development: Two Case Studies on Local Food Policy," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 155-166, April.
    2. Valerie Angeon & Sylvie Lardon, 2008. "Participation and governance in territorial development projects: the 'territory game' as a local project leadership system," International Journal of Sustainable Development, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 11(2/3/4), pages 262-281.
    3. Mónica de Castro-Pardo & Fernando Pérez-Rodríguez & José María Martín-Martín & João C. Azevedo, 2019. "Planning for Democracy in Protected Rural Areas: Application of a Voting Method in a Spanish-Portuguese Reserve," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-17, October.
    4. Meinzen-Dick, Ruth & Janssen, Marco A. & Kandikuppa, Sandeep & Chaturvedi, Rahul & Rao, Kaushalendra & Theis, Sophie, 2018. "Playing games to save water: Collective action games for groundwater management in Andhra Pradesh, India," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 40-53.
    5. Closas, Alvar & Molle, François & Hernández-Mora, Nuria, 2017. "Sticks and carrots to manage groundwater over-abstraction in La Mancha, Spain," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 194(C), pages 113-124.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bouali Guesmi & Ahmed Yangui & Ibtissem Taghouti & José Maria Gil, 2022. "Trade-Off between Land Use Pattern and Technical Efficiency Performance: Evidence from Arable Crop Farming in Tunisia," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-13, December.
    2. Sari, Rika Ratna & Tanika, Lisa & Speelman, Erika N. & Saputra, Danny Dwi & Hakim, Arief Lukman & Rozendaal, Danaë M.A. & Hairiah, Kurniatun & van Noordwijk, Meine, 2024. "Farmer Options and Risks in Complex Ecological-Social systems: The FORCES game designed for agroforestry management of upper watersheds," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rommel, Jens & Anggraini, Eva, 2018. "Spatially explicit framed field experiments on ecosystem services governance," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 201-205.
    2. Sylvain, Dernat & Bertrand, Dumont & Dominique, Vollet, 2023. "La Grange®: A generic game to reveal trade-offs and synergies among stakeholders in livestock farming areas," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    3. Anders Melander & Tomas Mullern & David Anderssson & Fredrik Elgh & Malin Löfving, 2022. "Bridging the Knowledge Gap in Collaborative Research—in Dialogues We Trust," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 35(5), pages 655-677, October.
    4. Catarina Esgalhado & Maria Helena Guimaraes, 2020. "Unveiling Contrasting Preferred Trajectories of Local Development in Southeast Portugal," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-15, March.
    5. Francisco J. Castellano-Álvarez & Ana Nieto Masot & José Castro-Serrano, 2020. "Intangibles of Rural Development. The Case Study of La Vera (Extremadura, Spain)," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-18, June.
    6. Mónica de Castro-Pardo & Pascual Fernández Martínez & Amelia Pérez Zabaleta & João C. Azevedo, 2021. "Dealing with Water Conflicts: A Comprehensive Review of MCDM Approaches to Manage Freshwater Ecosystem Services," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-32, April.
    7. Masuda, Yuta J. & Waterfield, Gina & Castilla, Carolina & Kang, Shiteng & Zhang, Wei, 2022. "Does balancing gender composition lead to more prosocial outcomes? Experimental evidence of equality in public goods and extraction games from rural Kenya," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    8. Courtney M. Regan & Jeffery D. Connor & Md Sayed Iftekhar, 2023. "An economic assessment of options for operating within plantation forestry water entitlements and tightening cap and trade policy," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 67(2), pages 303-322, April.
    9. Simon West & Caroline Schill, 2022. "Negotiating the ethical-political dimensions of research methods: a key competency in mixed methods, inter- and transdisciplinary, and co-production research," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-13, December.
    10. Jean-Daniel Rinaudo & Guillermo Donoso, 2019. "State, market or community failure? Untangling the determinants of groundwater depletion in Copiapó (Chile)," International Journal of Water Resources Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(2), pages 283-304, March.
    11. Robert-Jan Den Haan & Mascha C. Van der Voort, 2018. "On Evaluating Social Learning Outcomes of Serious Games to Collaboratively Address Sustainability Problems: A Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-26, December.
    12. Christophe-Toussaint Soulard & Sylvie Lardon, 2019. "Action-Research Helps Researchers Foster Smart Rural Development: Two Case Studies on Local Food Policy," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 155-166, April.
    13. Nicolas Gratiot & Jérémie Klein & Marceau Challet & Olivier Dangles & Serge Janicot & Miriam Candelas & Géraldine Sarret & Géremy Panthou & Benoît Hingray & Nicolas Champollion & Julien Montillaud & P, 2023. "A transition support system to build decarbonization scenarios in the academic community," Post-Print hal-04126329, HAL.
    14. Wegmann, Johannes & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2019. "Groundwater management institutions in the face of rapid urbanization – Results of a framed field experiment in Bengaluru, India," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 1-1.
    15. Johnson, N., 2021. "Measuring the impact of integrated systems research: promising approaches and why CGIAR needs to care," IWMI Books, Reports H050911, International Water Management Institute.
    16. Eric C. Edwards & Todd Guilfoos, 2021. "The Economics of Groundwater Governance Institutions across the Globe," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(4), pages 1571-1594, December.
    17. Falk, Thomas & Kumar, Shalander & Srigiri, Srinivasa, 2019. "Experimental games for developing institutional capacity to manage common water infrastructure in India," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 221(C), pages 260-269.
    18. Aditi Mukherji, 2022. "Sustainable Groundwater Management in India Needs a Water‐Energy‐Food Nexus Approach," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 44(1), pages 394-410, March.
    19. Michalscheck, Mirja & Groot, Jeroen C.J. & Fischer, Gundula & Tittonell, Pablo, 2020. "Land use decisions: By whom and to whose benefit? A serious game to uncover dynamics in farm land allocation at household level in Northern Ghana," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    20. Achiransu Acharyya & Madhusudan Ghosh & Rabindra N. Bhattacharya, 2018. "Groundwater Market in West Bengal, India: Does it Display Monopoly Power?," Studies in Microeconomics, , vol. 6(1-2), pages 105-129, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:9:y:2020:i:3:p:74-:d:328778. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.