By Yolette Jerome
Executive summary
Hydrosocial theory proposes a relational-dialectic approach that conceptualizes water and society as co-constituted entities that are made and reshaped in time and space. This theoretical approach offers a particularly relevant framework for analysis to understand the complex dynamics of water management in precarious Haitian neighbourhoods. Based on case studies in Port-au-Prince, including the Canaan neighbourhood, this article demonstrates that the hydro-social cycle allows us to grasp the interactions between formal and informal water infrastructure, power relations, community practices and structural vulnerabilities that characterize access to water in these marginalized urban spaces. The analysis reveals how hydrosocial arrangements in Haitian slums reflect deep inequalities while generating forms of resilience and community adaptation.
Keywords : Hydrosocial cycle, water management, precarious neighbourhoods, Haiti, Port-au-Prince
Introduction
The issue of water in the precarious neighbourhoods of southern cities represents a major challenge for urban development and social justice. In Haiti, where more than 64% of the population is urban and 35% lives in the metropolitan area of Port-au-Prince, access to safe drinking water and sanitation remains seriously inadequate (Jérôme et al., 2021). The 2010 earthquake worsened this situation, causing the disjointing of water networks and the creation of new slums such as Canaan, which today houses more than 200,000 inhabitants without basic services (Jérôme et al., 2021).
In view of this reality, the traditional techno-managerial approaches to water management are insufficient. Hydrosocial theory, developed by Linton and Budds (2014), offers an innovative analytical framework that goes beyond the purely hydrological view of water to conceptualize it as a socio-natural process. Unlike the conventional hydrological cycle that separates water from its social context, the hydrosocial cycle highlights the intrinsically political and social nature of water (Boelens et al., 2016).
This article examines the relevance of hydrosocial theory to understand and analyze water management dynamics in precarious Haitian neighbourhoods. We argue that this approach reveals the power relationships, institutional arrangements and community practices that shape access to water in these marginalized urban areas. Based on empirical work in Port-au-Prince (Jérôme, 2018; Jerome et al., 2017, 2021; Emmanuel, 2009), we find out how the hydrosocial framework illuminates the complex interactions between formal and informal systems, structural vulnerabilities and adaptation strategies.
It should be noted that the empirical reflections and data on Canaan presented in this article are mainly based on research conducted between 2016 and 2020. Since then, the drastic deterioration of the security situation in the metropolitan area of Port-au-Prince, where almost 80% of the territory is now controlled by armed groups, makes it impossible to update these data by field surveys. This methodological constraint, far from invalidating the relevance of our analyses, stresses on the contrary the urgent need to rethink approaches to water management in contexts of extreme fragility.
The hydrosocial cycle: theoretical foundations
From hydrological to hydrosocial
The concept of hydrosocial cycle emerged as a critique of the naturalistic vision of the hydrological cycle. Linton and Budds (2014) define the hydrosocial cycle as « a socio-natural process by which water and society make and remake each other in time and space » (p. 170). This definition marks a fundamental epistemological rupture with the modernist conception that presents water (H2O), a chemically pure substance circulating in an immutable natural cycle, independent of human action.
The traditional hydrological cycle, although useful for understanding physical flows, obscures the social, political and economic dimensions that deeply structure water circulation and distribution. As Linton and Budds (2014) point out, this vision helps depoliticize water issues by presenting them as purely technical problems requiring engineering solutions. Water never exists in a « natural state » It is still social, shaped by infrastructure, institutions, knowledge and practices (Swyngedouw, 2004).
Bakker (2012)'s work supports this approach by showing that water governance is influenced by the dynamics of commercialization and privatization, leading to water being seen as an economic good rather than a fundamental right. Similarly, Boelens et al. (2016) insists on the notion of « Hydrosocial territories », where water control struggles reveal unequal power ratios. Finally, Loftus (2009) recalls that urban water is a field of political challenge, where the daily practices of marginalized populations participate in redefining governance regimes.
Hydrosocial territories
The concept of hydrosocial territory, developed by Boelens et al. (2016), completes the hydrosocial cycle by conceptualizing « spatial configurations of people, institutions, water flows, hydraulic technologies and biophysical environment around water control » (p. 2) Hydrosocial territories are not mere physical spaces, but socio-political constructions that are constantly recomposed by the struggles, negotiations and practices of the actors.
This territorial perspective is particularly fruitful in analysing precarious neighbourhoods, where the boundaries between formal and informal, legal and illegal, public and private are continually negotiated. As Men et al. (2020) show, water government in the urban contexts of the South mobilize rationalities, technologies and discourses that produce specific subjectivities and unequal power relations between rural and urban areas, rich and poor.
This approach is also reinforced by the work of Budds & Hinojosa (2012), which highlights conflicts related to water transfers and territorial inequalities in Latin America. Similarly, Sultana & Loftus (2012) emphasize the political and emotional dimension of water, showing how water struggles are also struggles for dignity and recognition. Finally, Meehan (2014) points out that informal water infrastructure in southern cities produces alternative forms of citizenship and governance, revealing the creativity of marginalized populations in the face of state failures.
Relationship-dialectic approach
The relational-dialectic approach of the hydrosocial cycle is based on three analytical pillars (Linton and Budds, 2014). First, it questions ontologically what water is, recognizing that it has multiple identities according to the socio-technical assemblages in which it fits. Secondly, it examines how water is produced, i.e. the material and symbolic processes by which certain forms of water emerge. Third, it analyses how water is known, questioning regimes of knowledge and power that define what counts as legitimate knowledge of water.
This three-fold approach of analysis allows us to overcome the dualisms nature-society, material-social, to grasp the processes of co-constitution. As Swyngedouw (1999), « the dialectic between nature and society becomes an internal dialectic » (p. 446), making nature inseparable from social production.
This perspective is reinforced by Bakker (2010)'s work, which shows that water is both a material resource and an object of governance that is crossed by power logics. Similarly, Budds (2009) stresses that inequalities in access to water are produced by specific political and economic regimes, not by mere natural scarcity. And Sultana (2011) for its part highlights the emotional and lived dimension of water, recalling that the daily experiences of marginalized populations are involved in redefining the regimes of knowledge and power around water.
Water in precarious Haitian neighbourhoods: a hydrosocial terrain
Structural vulnerabilities and infrastructure deficit
The precarious neighbourhoods of Port-au-Prince, particularly Canaan, clearly illustrate the hydrosocial challenges of marginalized urban spaces in the global South. Created by presidential decree after the 2010 earthquake to accommodate environmental displaced persons, Canaan has a major infrastructure deficit: lack of a drinking water system, lack of sanitation system, waterproofing of soils disrupting groundwater recharge (Jérôme et al., 2021).
The observations and analyses presented here are based on field surveys conducted between 2016 and 2020. Since that time, the worsening of insecurity in the metropolitan area of Port-au-Prince, where about 80% of the territory is now beyond the control of the State, has made it impossible to update the data by new empirical investigations. Nevertheless, the hydro-sidentified dynamics retain their analytical relevance and allow us to understand the structural mechanisms at work in these spaces of precariousness.
This situation is not simply the result of a lack of resources or insufficient technical development. It reflects historical processes of exclusion, structural inequalities and political choices that have shaped Haitian urbanization (Emmanuel, 2009). The disorganisation of urban planning has led to the proliferation of slums without basic services, creating what Jerome (2018) calls « hydrosocial territories of precariousness ».
In this context, 42% of the Haitian population does not have access to safe drinking water and only 28% have improved sanitation facilities (WHO/UNICEF, 2015). In Canaan, residents are required to purchase an average of 121.8 litres of water per day, representing 15 to 20% of the household consumption basket (Jérôme et al., 2017). This water commodification exposes hydrosocial dynamics where water becomes not only a scarce resource but also a vector of accumulation and inequality.
These findings are consistent with Castro (2007)'s analysis, which points out that unequal access to water in southern cities is the product of political choices and power relations. Similarly, Allen et al. (2017) show that informal water and sanitation services in precarious neighbourhoods are hybrid forms of urban governance. Finally, Satterthwaite (2003) recalls that the vulnerability of urban poor to infrastructure deficits is inextricably linked to historical processes of exclusion and marginalization.
Formal and informal systems: conflictual coexistence
The hydro-social approach allows understanding the complex interactions between formal and informal water supply systems. In Port-au-Prince, the public water supply service is struggling to provide services to the entire population. Faced with this state failure, informal systems have developed: water committees for water management within communities, street vendors, private tankers (Jérôme et al., 2017).
These hybrid arrangements, which Boelens (2009) describes as « forced marriage » between state and customary modes of territorial organization, constitute the hydrosocial reality of slums. The state, unable to provide water access to the population, is paradoxically based on the infrastructure and informal organizations that have the capacity to provide water to the population. The water committees of Port-au-Prince, which appeared in the 1990s, sell water to slum dwellers with a small margin of benefit, which is reinvested in community infrastructure (Bras et al., 2016).
However, this coexistence is not harmonious. It generates tensions around legitimacy, resource control and service quality. The hydro-social territories of precarious neighbourhoods are thus marked by an institutional plurality where different systems of water rights, knowledge and practices are confronted and accommodated.
These dynamics are consistent with the observations of Cleaver & Toner (2006), which show that hybrid water management institutions in African contexts rely on often conflicting informal arrangements. Similarly, Allen et al. (2017) point out that informal water and sanitation services in cities in the global South are hybrid forms of urban governance, revealing both resilience and inequality. Finally, Albuquerque (2012) recalls that access to water in slums must be analysed as a human rights issue, where informal systems bridge state failures but do not guarantee equity.
Water rights and hydrosocial justice
The hydro-social perspective highlights the political dimension of access to water. Jérôme et al. (2021) demonstrate that the situation of Haitian slums is not only a material deprivation but a violation of the human right to water and sanitation. The analysis in terms of hydro-social territories reveals how inequalities in access to water form part of broader power relationships structuring urban space.
Global changes, including climate change, exacerbate water scarcity and further complicate the effective management of water resources. In this context, the proliferation of slums has an adverse effect on the hydrological cycle by reducing permeable surfaces and disrupting groundwater recharge (Jérôme et al., 2021). These hydrological disturbances are inseparable from the social processes of precarious urbanization and exclusion.
The struggle for access to water in slums is thus a struggle for recognition, dignity and citizenship. As Boelens et al. (2016) points out, hydro-social territories are sites of protest where claims of fairness and justice are expressed. Water is not just H2O but a constituent element of identity, belonging and right to the city. In addition, the United Nations (2010) has enshrined the right to water and sanitation as fundamental to human dignity. Similarly, Sultana & Loftus (2012) emphasize the political and emotional dimension of water struggles, showing that access to water is inseparable from social justice claims. Finally, Mehta (2014) recalls that inequalities in access to water are produced by political and economic choices, and must be analysed as structural injustices rather than technical deficits.
The analytical relevance of the hydrosocial framework
Moving beyond techno-managerial approaches
The first contribution of hydrosocial theory to the analysis of Haitian precarious neighbourhoods lies in its ability to overcome dominant techno-managerial approaches. The latter, inherited from the state hydraulic paradigm, tend to reduce water problems to issues of infrastructure, technical efficiency and good governance (Linton and Budds, 2014).
However, as the case of Canaan shows, the water challenges of slums cannot be solved simply by the extension of networks. They require a transformation of social relations, power structures and imaginations that produce and reproduce inequalities (Emmanuel, 2009). The hydrosocial framework calls for the politicization of water issues by revealing how choices presented as techniques are in reality deeply political. In this sense, the work of Swyngedouw(2004) demonstrates that water urbanization is inseparable from power relations and social logics. Similarly, Bakker (2010) points out that water deprivation and commercialization turn a technical problem into a political and social issue. In conclusion, Castro (2007) recalls that water governance must be understood as a field of struggle in which technocratic visions and citizen demands are confronted.
Visibility of local knowledge and practices
Hydrosocial theory pays particular attention to local knowledge, practices and organisations often marginalized by expert discourses (Boelens, 2015). In the Haitian slums, the inhabitants have developed sophisticated strategies of access and water management: negotiation with sellers, setting up committees, creation of redistribution systems, mobilization of neighbourhood solidarity (Jérôme, 2018).
These arrangements, although born of necessity, are forms of hydro-social knowledge and innovation that conventional approaches ignore. Analysis in terms of hydrosocial cycle allows to recognize their legitimacy and to consider their articulation with formal systems. It calls for thinking of institutional plurality not as a problem to be solved but as a potential resource for more inclusive and local-based governance. In this sense, Cleaver (2012) stresses the importance of « Institutional DIY » in community water management, revealing the creativity of the populations faced with constraints. Similarly, Ostrom (1990) shows that local communities develop sustainable rules and practices for managing common resources, often more effective than state systems. Finally, Sultana (2011) recalls that local knowledge is not only technical but also emotional and relational, involved in building collective identities around water.
Understanding power dynamics
Enfin, le cadre hydrosocial offre des outils pour analyser les relations de pouvoir qui structurent l’accès à l’eau. Il révèle comment certains acteurs parviennent à définir ce qui compte comme eau légitime, connaissance valide, droit acceptable (Hommes et al., 2020). Dans le contexte haïtien, cela éclaire les processus par lesquels les populations des bidonvilles sont exclues des circuits formels d’approvisionnement, tout en étant rendues responsables de leur propre situation, une dynamique que Swyngedouw(2004) qualifie de « dépolitisation technocratique» des enjeux hydriques.
La perspective hydrosociale permet également de comprendre les mécanismes de résistance et de réappropriation. Les comités d’eau, par exemple, ne sont pas de simples palliatifs à la défaillance étatique mais des espaces de construction d’une citoyenneté hydraulique alternative (Jérôme et al., 2017). Ils incarnent des territoires hydrosociaux contre-hégémoniques qui contestent les logiques dominantes de marchandisation et d’exclusion. Elles rejoignent les observations de Cleaver(2012) sur les « bricolages institutionnels », qui montrent comment les communautés marginalisées inventent des règles et des arrangements hydrides pour gérer l’eau de manière autonome.
De plus, les luttes pour l’eau dans les quartiers précaireshaïtiens s’inscrivent dans une dynamique plus large de justice hydrosociale. Comme le rappellent Sultana et Loftus (2012), l’eau est à la fois une ressource matérielle et un objet politique et émotionnel, où les revendications d’accès se confondent avec des luttes pour la dignité et la reconnaissance. Dans ce sens, les comités d’eau ne sont pas seulement des structures de gestion mais des espaces de résistance symbolique, où se redéfinissent les droits et les identités collectives.
Conclusion : vers une gouvernance hydrosociale inclusive
L’application de la théorie hydrosociale à l’analyse de la gestion de l’eau dans les quartiers précaires haïtiens démontre sa pertinence et sa puissance heuristique. En conceptualisant l’eau et la société comme mutuellement constitutives, cette approche permet de saisir les dimensions matérielles, symboliques et politiques des enjeux hydriques dans les bidonvilles.
Les cas de Port-au-Prince et de Canaan révèlent comment les territoires hydrosociaux de la précarité sont produits par des processus historiques d’exclusion, des choix politiques et des rapports de pouvoir inégaux. Ils montrent également comment les populations développent des arrangements hydrosociauxinnovants face aux défaillances étatiques, créant des formes hybrides de gouvernance qui méritent reconnaissance et soutien.
Pour relever les défis hydriques des quartiers précaires, il est nécessaire de dépasser les solutions purement techniques pour adopter des approches attentives aux dimensions sociales, politiques et culturelles de l’eau. Cela implique de reconnaître la légitimité des savoirs et pratiques locaux, de démocratiser la gouvernance hydrique et de questionner les inégalités structurelles qui produisent la précarité.
La théorie hydrosociale offre ainsi non seulement un cadre analytique mais aussi une orientation normative vers plus de justice et d’équité hydrosociales. Elle invite à repenser les politiques de l’eau dans les villes du Sud non comme des questions de déficit infrastructurel à combler mais comme des enjeux de transformation sociale visant à garantir le droit à l’eau pour tous, dans le respect de la dignité et de la citoyenneté de chacun. De ce fait, Metha (2014) dans ses travaux insiste sur la nécessité d’intégrer les dimensions sociales et culturelles dans les politiques de l’eau. De mêmeMolinga (2008) souligne que la gouvernance hydrique doit être comprise comme un processus politique traversé par des rapports de pouvoirs et des conflits. Enfin, United Nations (2010) rappelle que le droit à l’eau et à l’assainissement est un droit fondamental, et que sa réalisation implique des approches inclusives et participatives.
References
Allen, A., Hofmann, P., & Griffiths, H. (2017). Informal urban water and sanitation services: Provision, governance and sustainability. Water Alternatives, 10(1), 1–40.
Bakker, K. (2012). Water: Political, biopolitical, material.Social Studies of Science, 42(4), 616–623.
Bakker, K. (2010). Privatizing Water: Governance Failure and the World’s Urban Water Crisis. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Boelens, R. (2009). The politics of disciplining water rights. Development and Change, 40(2), 307-331.
Boelens, R. (2015). Water, Power and Identity: The Cultural Politics of Water in the Andes. London: Routledge.
Boelens, R., Hoogesteger, J., Swyngedouw, E., Vos, J., & Wester, P. (2016). Hydrosocial territories: A political ecology perspective. Water International, 41(1), 1-14.
Bras, A., Verret, A.-L., & Joseph, O. (2016). Access of the local residents of Carrefour-feuilles (Port-au-Prince) to water and sanitation services: Crossing Viewpoints on the formal and informal systems. In E. Emmanuel & R. Bayard (Eds.), Apport de la recherche universitaire à la compréhension du stress qualitatif et quantitatif de l’eau en Haïti (pp. 64-66). Port-au-Prince, Haïti: Les Éditions Pédagogie Nouvelle S.A.
Budds, J., & Hinojosa, L. (2012). Restructuring and rescaling water governance in mining contexts: The co-production of waterscapes in Peru. Water Alternatives, 5(1), 119–137.
Budds, J. (2009). Contested H2O: Science, policy and politics in water resources management in Chile. Geoforum, 40(3), 418–430.
Castro, J. E. (2007). Water governance in the twentieth-first century. Ambiente & Sociedade, 10(2), 97–118.
Cleaver, F. (2012). Development through Bricolage: Rethinking Institutions for Natural Resource Management.London: Routledge.
Cleaver, F., & Toner, A. (2006). The evolution of community water governance in Uchira, Tanzania: The implications for equality of access, sustainability and effectiveness. Natural Resources Forum, 30(3), 207–218.
De Albuquerque, C. (2012). On the right track: Good practices in realising the rights to water and sanitation.United Nations Special Rapporteur on the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation.
Emmanuel, E. (2009). Groundwater contamination by microbiological and chemical substances released from hospital wastewater: Health risk assessment for drinking water consumers. Environment International, 35(4), 718-726.
Jérôme, Y., Alexis, M., Telcy, D., Saffache, P., Emmanuel, E. (2021). The challenge ofwater in the sanitary conditions of the populations living in the slums of Port-au-Prince: The case of Canaan. Environmental Health, 2021, f10.5772/intechopen.96321ff. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03207174/document
Hommes, L., Boelens, R., Bleeker, S., Duarte-Abadía, B., Stoltenborg, D., & Vos, J. (2020). Water governmentalities: The shaping of hydrosocial territories, water transfers and rural-urban subjects in Latin America. Geoforum, 110, 193-203.
Jérôme, Y. (2018). Cycle hydrosocial et la gestion de l’eau dans les bidonvilles du sud : étude de cas de Canaan. Communication orale, 20e rencontre internationale d’APERAU, 19-22 juin 2018, Lille, France.
Jérôme, Y., Emmanuel, E., Roy, P.-M., & Bodson, P. (2017). The issue of water in slums development in Haiti: The case study of Canaan. Aqua-LAC, 9(1), 87-97.
Jérôme, Y., Emmanuel, E., & Saffache, P. (2021). Global water governance and water rights through the prism of Canaan, a slum apart in Haiti. Aqua-LAC, 13(1), 34-44.
Linton, J., & Budds, J. (2014). The hydrosocial cycle: Defining and mobilizing a relational-dialectical approach to water. Geoforum, 57, 170-180.
Loftus, A. (2009). Rethinking political ecologies of water.Third World Quarterly, 30(5), 953–968.
Meehan, K. (2014). Tool-power: Water infrastructure as strategic action in Mexico City. Geoforum, 55, 215–224.
Mehta, L. (2014). Water and Human Development. World Development, 61, 1–9.
Mollinga, P. P. (2008). Water, politics and development: Framing a political sociology of water resources management. Water Alternatives, 1(1), 7–23.
OMS/UNICEF (2015). Progress on Sanitation and Drinking Water: 2015 Update and MDG Assessment. Geneva: World Health Organization.
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Satterthwaite, D. (2003). The links between poverty and the environment in urban areas of Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 590(1), 73–92.
Sultana, F., & Loftus, A. (2012). The Right to Water: Politics, Governance and Social Struggles. London: Routledge.
Sultana, F. (2011). Suffering for water, suffering from water: Emotional geographies of resource access in Bangladesh.Geoforum, 42(2), 163–172.
Swyngedouw, E. (1999). Modernity and hybridity: Nature, regeneracionismo, and the production of the Spanish waterscape, 1890-1930. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 89(3), 443-465.
Swyngedouw, E. (2004). Social Power and the Urbanization of Water: Flows of Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
United Nations (2010). Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 28 July 2010: The human right to water and sanitation (A/RES/64/292). New York: UN.
Yolette JEROME
Centre de Recherche et d’Appui aux Politiques Urbaines (CRAPU)
Quisqueya University
UR 6-1 AIHP-GEODE Caraïbe
Universite des Antilles
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1153-357X yojero25@yahoo.fr
