Water scarcity and adaptation in periurban Gurgaon, India: emerging sociotechnical regimes for sustainable water use
Vishal Narain, PhD
Associate Professor
School of Public Policy and Governance
MDI, Management Development Institute
Gurgaon, India 122001
Email: vishalnarain@mdi.ac.in
This paper describes the socio-technical regime – the technologies and their concomitant
social, operational and institutional characteristics – through which periurban residents
adapt to water scarcity. As land use changes in periurban settings, pressures on
groundwater multiply. Periurban residents respond through a mix of technologies that
enable them to dig deeper to extract groundwater on the one hand, and to use water more
judiciously on the other. In this context, sprinkler sets provide a mechanism that enables
them to economize on the use of land, water, electricity and labor – all of which gets
progressively scarce in periurban settings. The adoption of sprinkler sets constitutes a
sustainability innovation that needs further research, documentation and promotion.
The paper is organized thus: section 1 provides a conceptual review of what constitutes
periurban and places the current research in a larger context of the periurban literature.
Section 2 describes the research context, conceptual framework and methodology for the
study. Section 3 provides an overview of the city of Gurgaon in Northwest India, where
the current research is located. Section 4 describes the transition and process of land use
change in a periurban village called Sadhraana. Section 5 traces the impacts of these on
water use in the village and describes the growing stress on water and the socio-technical
regime through which water users adapt to it. Section 6 concludes the paper with its key
messages.
1. The growth and concept of periurban areas
Rapid urban expansion in many nations proceeds concomitantly with the growth of
periurban areas that have elements of ‘urban’ and ‘rural’ characteristics (Tacoli, 2006).
There is indeed no single satisfactory definition of the word ‘peri-urban’ and different
definitions are understood to apply in different circumstances (Mycoo, 2006; Brook and
Purushothaman et al., 2003; Simon and McGregor et al., 2006). Nevertheless, the word
‘periurban’ is used in three main different ways, namely, as a place, a process or a
concept (Narain and Nischal, 2007).
The notion of a periurban as ‘place’ is the most widely understood conceptualization of
the term. Shindhe (2006) notes that there are two main approaches to defining the
periurban interface: spatially, as a transitional zone around a city and second as a zone of
intense interactions, flows and linkages between urban and rural areas. When used in this
sense, ‘periurban’ refers to rural fringe areas surrounding cities that bear the spillover
effect of urban expansion. These areas provide the much needed land and water resources
for urban expansion and serve as receptacles of urban wastes. Their residents are often
portrayed as losers in the urbanization process and a case is made to involve them in
urbanization processes (Narain, 2009a). Often they come into conflict with residents of
the core city over the use and allocation of land and water resources (Janakarajan, 2009).
These may also be areas within the jurisdiction of the city or of urban authorities, but
located at the periphery. Their residents often suffer from inadequate access to basic
services and amenities and face exclusion from mainstream economic activity.
The terms used to describe such locations are periurban settlements, rural-urban fringe,
urban outgrowth or hinterland. Since they bear the spillover of urban expansion, they are
considered to be an extension of the main city. ‘... for many purposes, it is important to
consider the periurban zone as an extension of the city rather than as an entirely separate
area .. Conversely, the periurban zone should also be considered as part of the adjacent
rural area for purposes of a holistic approach to rural research and development since
there are two-way influences and interactions (Simon and Mc Gregor et al., 2006: 9-10)’.
Simon and McGregor et al. (2006) note that rapid urban population growth and expansion
of the built-up area, technological change, global economic restructuring and the impact
of externally driven macro-economic adjustment policies have combined to alter the
interface between ‘urban’ and ‘rural’ quite profoundly in many places. Though the
terms ‘rural’ and ‘urban’ are still used colloquially in traditional, mutually exclusive
terms, and most people have clear mental conceptions of some ideal-type landscape
corresponding to each, this simple dichotomy has long ceased to have much meaning in
practice or for policy-making purposes in many parts of the global south.
In this context, ‘periurban’ serves as a term to denote the intermediary zone between the
‘rural’ and the ‘urban’. In other words, this place-based definition of periurban is used to
denote a geographical space where the rural meets the urban. This is also echoed in terms
that are used to connote periurban in other languages. For instance, the nearest equivalent
to the term peri-urban in Dutch is halfstedig, meaning semi-urban; in German it is urban
landlichen zonen (urban rural zones); and in Afrikaans it is buitestedelik (outer city or
beyond the city). In East Asia the term often used is 'desakota' (city village) (Simon and
McGregor et al., 2006; McGee, 1991).
Towards process and concept-based definitions of periurban
However, there are several criticisms of place-based definitions of periurban. Iacquinta
and Drescher (2000) question the tendency to define periurban in terms of geographical
location of a place vis a vis urban centers, but rather underpin the importance of the
underlying institutional contexts. This means that proximity to the towns in itself does not
define periurban; rather it is the existence of both rural and urban characteristics, ruralurban linkages and the flows of goods and services between them.
This view is echoed by Bower-Bowyer (2006) who notes that a conceptual understanding
of what constitutes ‘periurban’ - in particular, that it is where rural and urban land uses
coexist, which may be in continuous or fragmented units in any one area - has greater
validity as a basis for periurban studies than identifying ‘periurban’ purely as an urban
periphery. This juxtaposition of the rural and urban land uses can geographically occur
anywhere - in the core of the city, at its periphery or in a village. In a similar vein, Brook
and Purushotthoman et al. (2003) caution against the tendency to treat periurban as a
place, and argue that it is better understood as a process. As a process, periurban is used
to describe a transition from rural to urban areas, as well as the accompanying flows of
goods, services and resources between urban and rural areas. This relationship manifests
itself in the two way flow of goods and services between rural areas and urban centresflows of labour, natural resources and agricultural products (Narain and Nischal, 2007).
Urban centres typically serve as markets for dairy and agricultural produce of the
villages; villages provide labour to factories located in urban centres. This gives rise to
different patterns and kinds of periurban interfaces.
An understanding and characterization of the periurban interface requires an
understanding of these linkages and flows of goods and services between towns and rural
areas. These linkages tend to be mutually supportive and cyclical. They also perform
important functions in terms of maintaining the social bonds between migrants and
residents. For instance, migrant networks have been reported to perform important
functions in facilitating migration and in channeling support to the wider home
community (Tacoli, 2002). For these reasons, we also sometimes use the word
‘periurban’ as a concept or analytic construct to study core - periphery relationships or as
an interface of rural and urban activities and institutions. As an analytic construct,
‘periurban’ allows us to study rural-urban relationships and the flows of goods, services
and resources between villages and urban centres. In this sense, we often speak of the
‘periurban interface (PUI)’.
There is in general growing consensus in the periurban literature that the definition of
periurban goes beyond the definition of a geographic location ‘….it appears that no
single definition will fit all circumstances and situations unless couched in broad and
functional terms, rather than attempting to set discrete spatial limits (Simon and
McGregor et al., 2006: 10)'. A focus on conceptual distinctions is more appropriate for
examining the continuum between the poles of urban and rural and understanding the
dynamics of change as they affect particular parts of the periurban zone.
2. Research context, analytic framework and methodology
This research is located in a periurban village called Sadhraana in Gurgaon district of the
North-Western Indian state of Haryana. The paper describes periurban residents’
adaptation to water scarcity following increasing pressures on water as a result of rapid
land-use change that urbanization processes bring in their wake.
The emergence of a new sociotechnical regime governing the use of water for irrigation
is described using the sociotechnical approach (Mollinga and Kloezen, 2002).1 There are
1
This approach sees irrigation management and development as a sociotechnical phenomenon, shaped by
the interface of technology and institutions. There are three premises, namely, that technology has social
requirements for use; technology is socially constructed and technology has social effects. This approach
has been applied to, among other subjects, situations of irrigation management transfer (Narain 2003;
three premises: technology has social requirements for use, technology is socially
constructed and technology has social effects. A ‘sociotechnical regime’ is thus
conceptualized in terms of a technology and its operational and social implications. The
focus is on the mix of the technologies and institutions through which periurban residents
adapt to water scarcity. It is argued that users adapt to increasing water scarcity using a
variety of technologies, each of which has certain social effects and operational
implications or ‘social requirements for use’. The case of the use of sprinkler irrigation
sets in particular is described in the light of the institutional and social conditions that
facilitate their adoption by periurban residents.
The research employs a qualitative research design, using a case study method of
research (Yin, 1984). An ethnographic approach is used, employing a mix of semistructured interviews with periurban residents, meetings with key informants, focus group
discussions and direct observation.
Semi-structured interviews were held with periurban residents to understand the
transition in their livelihoods with the onset of urbanization processes, emerging linkages
with adjacent towns and cities, changing access to natural resources like water, and their
responses and adaptation strategies. Interviews were held separately among the landowning elite such as well as with the landless households. Women were interviewed
separately to understand their perspective.
Land use change is a basic driver of change in periurban livelihoods; therefore, an
understanding of land use change is basic to understand periurban transitions. Key
informants such as the village patwaari - the village level record keeper – and property
dealers and real estate agents were interviewed to gauge information on crucial aspects of
the village profile, such as land transactions and land use change
Focus group meetings were held with groups of villagers to understand crucial aspects of
transition specific to them. For instance, interviews were held with groups of village
youth to understand their perspectives. Interviews were also held with groups of women.
This was done in order to better capture the gender dimensions of changing water use and
access. Data was also collected through direct observation of several activities – in
particular, interviews were held while farmers were irrigating or women were collecting
water.
3. The growth of Gurgaon city
Gurgaon is a district in the northwest Indian state of Haryana, one of India’s major food
baskets. Gurgaon city- the capital of the district - has expanded phenomenally in recent
years as a major outsourcing, residential and recreation hub of NorthWest India. It is the
sixth largest city of Haryana. According to the census of 2001, the population of
Gurgaon stood at 2, 28, 820.
Khanal 2003); analysis of market-oriented reforms in irrigation (Kloezen 2002); the social construction of
tank irrigation technologies (Shah 2003) and of canal irrigation technology (Mollinga 2003).
The growth potential of Gurgaon has been harnessed by the State Government of
Haryana, particularly since the 1990s, with the onset of the current phase of globalization
and liberalization of the Indian economy. Gurgaon has, in fact, now emerged as one of
India’s major outsourcing hub, housing major multinationals such as Alcatel, HCL
Technologies, IBM, General Electric, Ericsson, Hewitt, Hindustan Lever Limited, and
British Airways. Several companies such as Coca-Cola, Nestle, Pepsi, Citibank, Gillette,
Nokia, Xerox, General Motors, Trinity BPM, and Nestle have made Gurgaon their
headquarters. The biggest car and motorcycle manufacturers in India, namely, Maruti
Udyog and Hero Honda, respectively, also have set up plants in Gurgaon. About 80 per
cent of the foreign investment in Haryana is found to be concentrated in this district.
Following this industrial growth, thousands of professionals have made their home in
Gurgaon city. The fast growing population with an ever-increasing purchasing power has
created a huge demand for housing, and property prices have escalated steadily in recent
years. Real estate has emerged as a major economic activity. There are reported to be
about 17 private real estate companies in operation.
Gurgaon’s growth has been facilitated by several factors (Narain, 2007). The first is that
it is located very close to Delhi, the National Capital - just about 32 km away- and the
international airport, that is about 12 km away. Second, following the initiation of the
phase of economic reforms in 1991, the State Government of Haryana took several policy
initiatives to invite industries in Gurgaon. The most recent such initiative, that has
spawned considerable debate in the media, as well as in academic and policy circles, has
been the setting up of Special Economic Zones (SEZs). Third, Gurgaon’s growth has
been fuelled by a real estate boom. Since the 1990s, Gurgaon city has expanded primarily
through a process of land acquisition from the adjoining villages. This process of growth
and transition has been characterized by a steady process of land-use change, in which
lands have been acquired from the peripheral villages to meet the growing needs of
industrial and residential areas. This process in turn has created a dual economy: tall
skyscrapers, glitzy malls, and high rise residential buildings all co-existing with village
settlement areas.
The acquisition of agricultural lands, in turn, has brought in widespread transformation
in the peripheral villages. Former agriculturists now operate as traders, travel and tour
operators, or real estate agents. This process has also been associated with widespread
dissent against the manner in which policies for land acquisition have been implemented
(Narain, 2009a). It has affected in many ways the access of periruban residents to such
resources as land and water (Narain, 2009a, b).
4. Sadhraana Village
Sadhraana is located about 15 km from Gurgaon city. The settlement area is about 2 kms
away from the main road. The agricultural fields of the village are scattered on either side
of this road and share a boundary wall with the Sultanpur National Park. The landscape is
dotted with the agricultural fields of the village interspersed with the farm-houses of the
urban elite, that now comprise perhaps the most important land use in the region, and
shops of property dealers and real estate agents. Flowers of marigold and showers oozing
out from sprinkler irrigation sets on the fields and the sprawling lawns of the farm-houses
are an important aspect of the visual landscape of the region, that we may choose to call
the ‘periurbanscape’. As we drive into the village, it is common to be gazed by the
unassuming eye of a Nilgai – a blue bull- or enchanted by the sight of the stately Sarus
crane peering at you from behind the bushes in the Sultanpur National Park. This gives us
a very good impression of the many uses to which land has now been put in the region:
agricultural land use co-exists with land use for nature conservation, real estate
development and recreation purposes of the urban elite. This also gives us a sense of the
large number of competing interests and actors in periurban areas, each claiming the
same set of natural resource. In the following sections of this paper, we examine how this
process of change in the patterns of land and water resources has taken place in the
village, what its implications have been for the periurban residents and how they have
responded to the new pressures on their natural resources.
Social composition
Sadhraana has a population of about 3500 people comprising 425 households. A number
of social groups inhabit the village. Prominent among these are Ahir, Pandat, Rajput,
Lohaar, Nai, Harijan, and Balmeek. Pandats own the most land in the village, while
Rajputs used to be engaged in salt extraction at one time. 2
Ahir, Pandat and Rajput are the land-owners. Lohaar, Nai and Harijan do not have land
though some of them have bought land in recent years in the past. This is considered to
be a pandaton ka gaon, that is, a village dominated by the pandats. They are the
dominant group, socially, numerically and in terms of land ownership. They comprise
about 80 households. This is followed by Yadavs (60 households) and Sisodia (40
households). 3 These households own land and practice agriculture though members of
many of these households also work in the government or in the private sector.
The other groups in the village are the ahirs4 (60), lohaar (50), nai (20), harijan (70) and
balmeek (70). They are engaged mainly in forms of manual labour; though some of them
have bought lands, most of them have been forced to leave them fallow over a period of
time on account of the fall in water tables, as they are unable to afford the high costs of
extraction. This, as we shall see below, is a consequence of the growing pressures on the
village’s groundwater resources from the multiple claimants that now use the village’s
water resources.
The Saadhrana dhani – a settlement about 2kms away from the main village settlement
area - is located adjacent to the neighbouring village of Gadhi, that has a railway station.
The dhaani houses about 40 households. The dhaani comprises Yadav families whose
ancestors migrated to this village from the town of Manesar some time in the 1940s and
2
There used to be several salt farms in the vicinity of this village and the adjoining Sultanpur village.
However, these lands were acquired in the mid-1970s and the salt farming activity then came to a halt. The
existence of these salt farms was an important factor behind the introduction of a railway line that cut
through the neighboring village of Sultanpur.
3
The words Rao saab and Yadav are used inter-changeably in the local dialect to refer to the same group of
people, just as Rajput and Thakur. Likewise, Pandat refers to the Brahmans. Sisodia are the jaats.
4
Figures in parantheses indicate number of households.
bought agricultural lands here. They built their homes around the agricultural fields.
Later, in 1962, when chakbandi or land consolidation was carried out, this settlement was
recognised as part of the jurisdiction of the Sadhraana Panchayat and got incorporated
into the laldora of the village. The dhaani had a net cultivated area of about 75 acres, of
which about 50 acres remain now, as 25 acres have been sold off to farm-houses. There
have however been no forced acquisitions of land by the state either in the dhaani, or in
the rest of the village. As in the rest of the village, the water table level has fallen steadily
in the period following the 1980s.
The residents of Sadhraana earn their livelihoods from a mix of agricultural and nonagricultural activities. Wheat, mustard, peas and sorghum are the main rabi5 crops. Pearlmillet is a predominant kharif crop, along with bottle gourd, sponge gourd and some
lentils.
The village is not served by an irrigation canal. Groundwater is the main source of
irrigation. The water table level has steadily fallen over the last three decades; saline
groundwater is now being accessed. Sadhraana does not have access to sewage water –
common in neighboring villages - which is often a major source of irrigation in periurban
areas enabling farmers to overcome the constraints faced by the absence of alternative
sources.6
Changes in land use
The village has seen a gradual change in land use over recent decades; lands have moved
out of agriculture into other uses. Of the net cultivated area of 1280 acres7, 80 acres were
acquired for the adjoining Sultanpur National Park; 600 acres have been sold off for
farm-houses and 150 acres have been acquired for the Reliance SEZ. Besides, about 5
acres of land were recently sold off for an SEZ to be developed by the industrial giant
Raheja.
In the late 1960s, lands were acquired to develop the Sultanpur National Park. An area
covering 359 acres was declared as Bird Sanctuary in 1971 under the then Prime
Minister, Mrs. Indira Gandhi, and was upgraded to the status of a National Park in 1991
by the Government of Haryana. The Department of Wild Life Preservation, Haryana has
since carried out a number of development works like construction of mounds, and
widening of paths around the lake; four tube wells were dug to release water into the
National Park. These tubewells constituted a major source of competition for the
groundwater resources of this village, though the National Park now has access to water
from a canal.
Some farmers interviewed in the course of this research said that they lost as much as half
of their agricultural lands for the SNP. The rates offered to the residents of the village
were about Rs.1500 per acre in the 1960s. Many of the respondents expressed their
5
Northwest India has two main cropping seasons. Rabi is the winter cropping season, while Kharif is the
rainy or monsoon season.
6
See also Narain (2009a).
7
1 acre is equivalent to one-fourth of a hectare.
anguish at the low rates that were offered for the lands thus acquired. ‘Had I sold off my
lands now, I would have got much higher proceeds !” was a sentiment often expressed in
field interviews.
Many respondents also said that though most of the land for the Sultanpur National Park
was acquired from this village, and only a small fraction from the adjoining Sultanpur
village, the village sarpanch (headman) of the latter village used his influence to have the
National Park named after his village. ‘At least their village got some publicity… we did
not even get that’, was a sentiment often expressed in field interviews.
A second major land use change has occurred since the mid-1980s, when farmers, in need
of instant cash, started selling their lands to brokers and property dealers who sold them
to the urban elite for building farm-houses. These farm-houses basically serve as means
of recreation for urban residents, who invest in plots of land in the country side and use
them for weekend breaks or for organizing get-togethers and social functions.
Property prices have escalated over the current decade. In the year 2000, the price of land
was about Rs 6, 00, 000 to 7, 00, 000 per acre; at the time of this research, this had risen
to Rs 60, 00, 000 per acre.8 An important aspect of the land-water nexus in periurban
interface is that the quality of water is a key determinant of the price of land. Within the
village, lands underlain by ‘fresh water’ – called ‘meetha paan’ in the local parlance command as much as Rs 60, 00, 000 per acre, while those with saline groundwater or
khaara paani command about Rs. 40, 00, 0000 per acre.
Three factors explain the coming up of farm-houses within the village. First, is its central
location- it is equidistant from Gurgaon as well as from Farookhnagar - the
administrative headquarters of the adjoining Farookhnagar block. The second is the
availability of ‘good water’, or “meetha paani”. The third factor is the presence of the
Sultanpur National Park in the vicinity, which is a major attraction for nature and bird
lovers as well as for tourists.
These farm-houses are owned by such urban elite as the family members of cabinet
ministers, major industrial houses and senior civil servants. Their size varies from 5 to
110 acres. They are used mainly for recreation purposes. They are characterized by
orchards, plantations, green sprawling lawns and residential houses. Almost all farmhouses cultivate vegetables through the year. Fruit orchards are common; guava, lemon
and mangoes are grown using sprinkler and drip irrigation. They usually employ
attendants or care-takers to look after the farm-houses.
Some of these owners of farm-houses are now selling their lands further to benefit from
the real estate boom. For instance, one owner of a farm-house bought the land at a price
of about Rs 15000 per acre in the 1980s and sold off the land now to the corporate giant
Reliance at Rs 22 lakh per acre for an SEZ (Special Economic Zone). The discrepancy
between the low prices at which farmers sold their lands to property dealers for the
development of farm-houses in the 1980s and the prices that many of the farm-house
8
At the time of this research, 1 US dollar was equivalent to 50 Indian Rupees.
owners are now able to get by further selling off their lands is a subject of great envy
among many periurban residents.
Many of the residents interviewed spoke derogatorily of the farm-houses, saying that they
were used mainly for the 'aiyaashi' ( derogatory term to denote recreational activities of
an obscene nature) of the urban elite and brought no benefit to the local population. The
villagers also spoke of them accusingly that they were pre-empting the village's land and
water resources, as we shall see below. A strong sentiment expressed in many of the field
interviews is that these farm-houses have bought no benefit to the local residents. In
particular, they have not succeeded in generating any local employment. They employ
predominantly migrant labour from Bihar, that is available much cheaper and who live on
the farm-houses, while the local residents would not live there; that is, they would not
stay overnight at the farm-houses. Another issue is that though these farm-houses use the
large bulk of the village’s natural resources, they remain socially aloof from the village.
They are not part of the village’s governance activities; for instance, they do not
participate in the meetings of the Gram Sabha. This can be an important practical
constraint in mobilizing group effort for the management of natural resources.
5. Growing stress on groundwater resources
This process of changing land use has placed great stress on the village’s groundwater
resources. The large number of farm-houses competes for the village's groundwater as the
owners of these farm-houses are able to suck deep into the aquifers, using costly, high
powered submersible pump-sets that local residents can not afford. Most of these farmhouses have been built on tracks of land overlying ‘fresh’ groundwater. That is, the
owners of these farm-houses have acquired the ‘best land’. In cases where they are built
over saline groundwater, their owners have bought small tracts of land overlying ‘fresh’
groundwater, installed submersible pump-sets and transported water to their farm-houses
through underground pipes.9 The village’s groundwater – and land - resources have thus
been pre-empted by the urban elite. As noted earlier, tube wells were also dug to release
water into the Sultanpur National Park.
Some part of the soils of the village is clayey on which some crops can be grown in years
of good rainfall. However, the village has seen deficit rainfall since 1977. In the absence
of alternative sources of irrigation, this led to an effort to tap groundwater through the
large-scale digging of tube wells in the mid-1970s. With small parcels of land remaining,
pressures to pursue more intensive agriculture increased. Pressures on groundwater
further increased in the mid-1980s with the mushrooming of farm-houses. Not only did
the farm-houses pre-empt the village’s best agricultural land – that the locals associate
with ‘meetha paani’ or fresh water, as against ‘khara’ or saline water that underlies the
tract of lands now being cultivated by the periurban residents themselves – but also were
able to use submersible pump-sets with as much as 15 hp pumping capacity to dig deep
into the aquifers. This led to a competitive deepening of the water extraction
9
This could be seen as a consequence of a legal framework in which rights to groundwater are tied to rights
in land. To be interested in groundwater, you have to be interested in the land overlying it. See Narain
(1998).
technologies. The number of tube wells increased from 20 in the mid-1980s - to about
300 in 2009.
The water table level thus fell steeply. In parts of the village the water table level fell
from 25-30 feet a decade ago to 60 feet in 2009. In other places, it fell from 60 feet to
100 feet over the same period. The residents of the Sadhraana dhaani – a settlement area
located about 2kms from the main village - reported the following fall in the water table:
Table 1: Fall in water table, Sadhraana dhaani
Year: Water Table level
1980: 10 feet
1990: 15 feet
2000: 50 feet
2010: 80 feet
source: discussion with residents of the Sadhraana Dhaani
The periurban residents now access saline groundwater unfit for their crops or livestock.
‘Our animals are dying because of drinking this contaminated water’, was often said
during field interviews.
Responses to water scarcity
Farmers have adapted to this fall in water tables mainly through a switch in the water
extraction technology; a new sociotechnical regime has emerged comprising a set of
technologies and their concomitant social and institutional characteristics, wherein
submersible pump-sets and sprinkler irrigation sets are the predominant technology.
Submersible pump-sets are however only owned by the village elite, on account of the
high costs involved. Sprinkler irrigation sets enable farmers to adapt to the water scarcity,
while being less labor intensive as well. They economize on the use of water, land,
electricity and labor, all of which are scarce in periurban areas.
Switch to alternative technologies
The most prominent adaptive response has been a switch in water extraction
technologies. The technologies in use have evolved over a period of time, moving away
from lao chedas10, rainth11, and tubewells to submersible pump-sets. Lao chedas were
used till the 1950s, rainth during the 1960s, diesel operated tube wells were used starting
from the 1980s followed by bore wells over the next two decades and submersible pumpsets have been in use over the last 4-5 years, that is, since 2005 or so. The irrigators those who can afford to - have switched from tube wells of 3- 5hp in use for the last two
decades, to submersible pump-sets of 7.5 hp over the period 2005-2009.
10
The lao chedas is a manually operated pulley.
The rainth is an irrigation technology operated by a bullock. The bull drags a chain that operates a pulley
with a bucket tied to it, that lifts water and empties it into a hawdi, or circular embankment.
11
The use of sprinkler irrigation systems
Another technological response has been the use of sprinkler sets. Sprinkler sets have
been in use in the village since the mid 1980s. Three main reasons are given for this; first,
the undulating and sandy terrain in parts of the village make it difficult to flood the fields;
second, as the water table level has fallen and water has become scarcer, it has become
more important to apply water judiciously and to apply it closer to the crops. A third
reason very specific to the context of periurban areas - is that urbanization creates a
demand for less labor intensive irrigation technologies such as sprinklers whose use is
automated. Technology has social requirements for use (Kloezen and Mollinga, 1992).
As farmers diversify occupationally in periurban areas - by working in the cities and
engaging in non-farm employment, they have less time to spend on the fields12; this
calls for less labor-intensive irrigation technologies. The village youth have less time to
spend in the fields; they commute to the city for work as well as for higher education.
This creates a demand for less labour intensive irrigation technologies.
It is common for a farmer to set up his sprinkler irrigation set and connect it to the
submersible, even when electricity is off. Once electric supply resumes, the apparatus
operates automatically for the required period of time. For this time, the farmer need not
perform any operation on the irrigation activity and can engage in alternative activities
till the targeted plot of land is irrigated. Once that is done, the sprinkler apparatus is
shifted and placed on another tract.
Most farmers use sprinkler sets with ten or eleven nozzles. Water is sprayed to a distance
of 10-15 feet on either side when the sprinkler sets operate. Most farmers operate the
apparatus for 3-4 hours during the day and same for the night, depending on electricity
supply. The use of sprinkler sets thus minimizes the manual involvement of the farmers,
while at the same time optimizing the use of scarce water, land and electricity.
Sprinklers also enhance productivity of land. As farmers are left with small parcels of
land, the imperatives for enhancing productivity increase. One of the farmers interviewed
said that without sprinkler irrigation, he could get about 30-35 mann13 of wheat per acre,
while the use of sprinkler irrigaton sets enabled him to get 50-60 mann of wheat per acre.
Some times, this could go up to even 70 mann. The use of sprinklers in periurban settings
could be considered to be a sustainability innovation suited to periurban contexts, in
which land, water and labour increasingly get scarce.
Sprinkler irrigation is used almost by all farmers throughout the year for all crops. A
major constraint nevertheless is electricity supply, which is erratic. This situation has
worsened particularly in recent years, when electricity is diverted to meet the
requirements of the growing city.
12
Occupational diversification is a common livelihood strategy in periurban areas (Tacoli, 2006; Rigg,
2006).
13
1 mann is equivalent to 40kgs.
Equity implications: small and marginal farmers leave land fallow
Technology has social effects (Kloezen and Mollinga, 1992). The fall in the water tables
caused by deep extraction using submersible pump-sets has important equity
implications, as it places the resource out of the reach of the small and marginal farmers.
Installing a submersible pump-set costs anywhere between Rs 1, 00, 000 to Rs 1, 25,000.
The rising cost of extraction has placed the resource out of the reach of the smaller and
marginal farmers. The usual explanation of groundwater use and depletion in the Indian
irrigation management literature is its pre-emption by the rural elite (Shah, 1993; Narain
1998, Saleth, 1997); in periurban contexts, the phenomenon is somewhat different, with
the resource being used by the urban elite.
The small and marginal farmers are thus forced to rely mainly on rains. Most small and
marginal farmers have thus left their land fallow. One of the farmers interviewed had not
cultivated his land for as much as eight years and another for as much as twenty years.
Yet another of the farmers interviewed said that he had been able to irrigate till the water
table level was 150 feet; he irrigated with an electric motor of 5hp and later installed a
motor of 7hp. Farmers were now using submersible pump-sets to extract water from a
depth of 350 feet where his lands were located, and he was unable to afford such high
costs of extraction.
Another response is to cultivate a small fraction of land; for instance, one of the farmers
interviewed cultivated only about 2 acres of land of his total of about 12. Yet another
response is to take only one crop per year.
Switch to rained farming
Some farmers have ceased the operation of their tube wells completely and switched to
rainfed crops; that is, they grow only pearl millet in the kharif season. However, since
there has been a decline in rainfall since 1977, their harvest of rainfed crops has been
adversely hit.
Purchase of groundwater as supplemental irrigation
Another response to water scarcity – particularly among farmers who can not dig deep
into the aquifers - is to buy groundwater, though this is rather uncommon. There is wide
variation in the rate at which groundwater is sold - depending on social relations. The
practice then is to irrigate some part of the land through the farmers' own source and the
balance through the purchased groundwater. One of the farmers interviewed cultivated 12
acres of land; he irrigated 6 acres of land through his own groundwater and 6 from
groundwater purchased.
Domestic sewage as supplement
Some farmers also supplement the irrigation through domestic sewage from a drain that
carries the domestic waste to the village johad (village pond). Some of the farmers make
a cut in this drain, install a pipe and then take the water to their fields after mixing it with
some ‘fresh water’ from a submersible. However, this practice has been an important
cause of conflict in the village, since it disrupts the flow of water to the village johad.
The demise of social capital
Periurban areas are in constant transition. While social relationships play an important
role in shaping access to natural resources, these forms of social capital14 are often no
longer accessible in periurban areas. For instance, one of the farmers interviewed used to
depend upon the tube well of his uncle; he used to obtain groundwater without a
payment. However, his uncle sold off his land and so he lost access to water. For many
women interviewed, this meant an increase in the distance walked to collect water, as the
families from whose submersibles they obtained water have sold off their lands.
6. Conclusion
This paper shows the sociotechnical regimes – the mix of technologies and institutions
through which periurban residents access water amidst growing pressure from competing
uses. As land use changes and pressures on water multiply in periurban areas, a sociotechnical regime emerges characterized by the use of technologies that enable residents to
dig deeper on one hand and economize the use of scarce water, land and labor on the
other. The use of submersible pump-sets stays confined to a certain social group –
namely the urban and the rural elite, while the use of sprinklers is a low cost way of
economizing the use of land and water as well as of labor, since households seek
increasingly to diversify into non-agricultural activities. While social capital is often cited
as an important resource in enabling water users to cope with scarcity, it is increasingly
eroded in periurban settings can serve to undermine the efficacy of adaptation strategies
The study of the adoption of sprinkler irrigation sets as an adaptation strategy shows that
it is important to understand the wider social and agro-ecological context in which certain
adaptation responses to water scarcity take shape. In this context, governments can
14
Social capital is a term widely used in the development literature to denote the quality of an
individuals’ social relationships, networks and ties. The concept is explored in disciplines as diverse as
criminology, political science and international development (Mckenzie and Harpham, 2006). It is
widely used in studies of natural resource management and sustainable livelihoods to show how
individuals mobilize their networks, ties and social relationships to secure access to livelihoods.
Essentially, the term attempts to describe features of populations such as levels of civic participation,
social networks and trust (Mckenzie and Harpham, 2006); such forces shape the quality and quantity of
social interactions and the social institutions that underpin society. An individual's social relationships
allow differential access to resources; these relationships define social capital (Bourdieu, 1986).
Mckenzie and Harpham (2006) note that social capital is indeed a complex concept; it is difficult to
consider it a single continuous variable; areas and people can not be simply categorized as having
‘high’ or ‘low’ social capital. Some scholars see social capital as an ecological phenomenon embedded
between individuals, groups, and between groups and abstract bodies such as the state. Putnam (1993)
defines five characteristics of social capital:
1) community networks, voluntary, state, personal networks and density
2) civic engagement, participation and use of civic networks
3) local civic identity, sense of belonging, solidarity and equality with local community members
4) reciprocity and norms of cooperation, a sense of obligation to help others and confidence in return of
assistance and
5) trust in the community.
facilitate the adaptation of periurban residents to water scarcity by improving their access
to technologies like sprinklers that enable sustainable use of water in the face of growing
pressures from multiple claimants while limiting the expansion of urban assets like farmhouses in rural areas, that lead to patterns of water use that are unsustainable and
inequitable. In general, research needs to understand the mix of technologies and
institutions that shape access of periurban residents to water and influence their
adaptation strategies to water scarcity.
References
Allen, A. 2003. ‘Environmental planning and management of the periurban interface’.
Environment & Urbanization, 15(1): 135-147.
Bourdieu, P. 1986. Forms of social capital. New York: Free Press.
Bowyer- Bower, Tanya A.S. 2006. The inevitable Illusiveness of 'sustainability' in the
periurban interface: the case of Harare in D.McGregor, D.Simon and D.Thompson, eds.
The periurban interface: approaches to sustainable natural and human resource use.
Earthscan VA, USA., 151-164.
Brook, R., Purushothoman, S. and Hunshal, C (eds). 2003. Changing frontiers: The
periurban interface Hubli-Dharwad India, Bangalore. Bangalore: Books for change.
Iaquinta, D.L. and Drescher, A. W. 2000. ‘Defining periurban: understanding ruralurban linkages and their connection to institutional contexts’, Paper presented at the
Tenth World Congress of the International Rural Sociology Association, Rio de
Janeiro, August1, 2000.
Janakarajan, S. 2009. ‘Urbanization and periurbanization: aggressive competition and
unresolved conflicts - the case of Chennai city in India’, South Asian Water Studies, 1
(1): 51-76.
Khanal, P.R. 2003. Engineering participation. The processes and outcomes of Irrigation
Management Transfer in the Terai of Nepal. Hyderabad: Orient Longman.335 pp.
Kloezen, W. 2002. Accounting for water. Institutional viability and impacts of marketoriented irrigation interventions in central Mexico. Ph.d thesis. Wageningen:
Wageningen University
Kloezen, W & Mollinga, P.P. 1992. Opening closed gates: recognizing the social
nature of irrigation artifacts. In Irrigators and engineers: essays in honor of Lucas
Horst, eds. G. Diemer & J. Slabbers, pp. 53-63. Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers
MacKenzie, K and Harpham, T. 2006. Social capital and mental health. London:
Jessica Kingsley Publishers
Mackenzie, K. 2008. ‘Urbanization, social capital and mental health’, Global Social
Policy, 8(3): 359-377
McGee, T.G. 1991. ‘The emergence of 'Desakota' regions in Asia: expanding a
hypothesis’ in N Ginsburg, B Koppel and T G McGee eds. The extended metropolis:
settlement transition in Asia, University of Hawaii Press. HonoLulu, pp. 3-25.
Mycoo, M. 2006. sustainable livelihoods in the periurban interface: Anse La Raye,
St.Lucia in D.McGregor, D.Simon and D.Thompson, eds. The periurban interface:
approaches to sustainable natural and human resource use. Earthscan VA, USA., pp.
134-148
Mollinga, P.P. 2003. On the waterfront: Water Distribution, technology and agrarian
change in a south Indian Canal irrigation system. Hyderabad: Orient Longman. 441 pp.
Narain, V. 2007. Between rural and urban: policy in practice for the periurban
interface. Paper presented at the Second Annual Conference on Public Policy and
Management, Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore, April 12-14, 2007, 24 pp.
Narain, V. 1998. Towards a new groundwater institution for India. Water Policy 1(3):
357-366
Narain, V. 2000. India’s water crisis: the challenges of governance. Water Policy 2 (6):
433-444
Narain, V. 2003. Institutions, Technology and Water Control. Water Users’
Associations and Irrigation Management Reform in Two Large Scale Irrigation Systems
India. Hyderabad. Orient Longman. 244 pp.
Narain, V. 2009 a . ‘Growing city, shrinking hinterland: Land Acquisition, transition
and conflict in periruban Gurgaon, India,’ Environment and Urbanization, 27 (2), 501512.
Narain, V. 2009b. Gone land, gone water: crossing fluid boundaries in periurban
Gurgaon and Faridabad, India. South Asian Water Studies. 1(2): 143-158
Narain, V and Nischal, S. 2007. ‘The periurban interface in Shahpur Khurd and
Karnera., India’, Environment and Urbanization, 19(1): 261-273.
Rigg, J. 2006. Evolving rural-urban relations and livelihoods in South East Asia, in C.
Tacoli (ed.) The earthscan reader in rural-urban linkages, pp.68-90. International
Institute for Environment and Development, London: Earthscan
Shindhe, K.C. 2010. The National Highway bypass around Hubli-Dharwad and its
impact on peri-urban livelihoods In D.McGregor, D Simon and D. Thompson, eds. The
periurban interface: approaches to sustainable natural and human resource use.
Earthscan VA, USA, pp. 181-195
Simon, David, Duncan McGregor and Donald Thompson, 2006. 'Contemporary
perspectives on the periurban zones of cities in developing areas' in D.McGregor, D
Simon and D. Thompson, eds. The periurban interface: approaches to sustainable
natural and human resource use. Earthscan VA, USA, pp. 1-17
Tacoli, C. 2002. ‘Changing rural-urban interactions in sub-Saharan Africa and their
impact on livelihoods: a summary.’ Working Paper 7. London: International Institute
for Environment and Development. 40 pp.
Tacoli, C. 2003. ‘The links between urban and rural development’, Environment and
Urbanization, 15(1): 3-12.
Tacoli, C. 2006. ‘Editor's introduction’ in C. Tacoli ed. The earthscan reader in ruralurban linkages, London: Earthscan. International Institute for Environment and
Development.