This paper offers a conceptual approach to explore the complex dynamics of floodplains as fully coupled human-water systems. A number of hydrologists have recently investigated the impact of human activities (such as flood control measures, land-use changes, and settlement patterns) on the frequency and severity of floods. Meanwhile, social scientists have shown how interactions between society and waters in deltas and floodplain areas, including the frequency and severity of floods, have an impact on the ways in which social relations unfold (in terms of governance processes, policies, and institutions) and societies are organised (spatially, politically, and socially). However, we argue that the interactions and associated feedback mechanisms between hydrological and social processes remain largely unexplored and poorly understood. Thus, there is a need to better understand how the institutions and governance processes interact with hydrological processes in deltas and floodplains to influence the frequency and severity of floods, while (in turn) hydrological processes co-constitute the social realm and make a difference for how social relations unfold to shape governance processes and institutions. Our research goal, therefore, is not in identifying one or the other side of the cycle (hydrological or social), but in explaining the relationship between them: how, when, where, and why they interact, and to what result for both social relations and hydrological processes? We argue that long time series of hydrological and social data, along with remote sensing data, can be used to observe floodplain dynamics from unconventional approaches, and understand the complex interactions between water and human systems taking place in floodplain areas, across scales and levels of human impacts, and within different hydro-climatic conditions, socio-cultural settings, and modes of governance.

In this study, we review the ways in which water has recently been conceptualized by both natural and social scientists as either hydro‐social or socio‐hydrological. We do this in order to discuss whether and how they can be compatible, in order to enable dialogue across disciplines that seek to address the ecological and social challenges related to the complex human/water interactions. Through our review, we document the emergence of these specific terminologies, identify how these terms—and the conceptualizations they represent—relate to each other, and suggest what opportunities there are for building further interdisciplinary approaches to understanding water and society. Specifically, we review the recent rise in socio‐hydrology amongst natural scientists/hydrologists to put this in discussion with a much longer tradition in social sciences of seeing water as both natural and social. We identify what the paradigms are in both conceptualizations in order to assess what their respective focus is, and what they omit. Our purpose is not to judge competing claims. Rather we want to assess the knowledge claims made in both paradigms: what can we learn when we employ these different approaches, what different rationales for action do they suggest, and what scope exists for collaboration. We conclude that there is scope in combining both approaches without a need to antagonistically question their respective fundamental assumptions, and playing to the strengths of each: the rich case study narratives produced by hydrosocial research can be the basis for the conceptual and quantitative modeling of socio‐hydrology.WIREs Water2017, 4:e1196. doi: 10.1002/wat2.1196This article is categorized under: Engineering Water > Planning Water Science of Water > Hydrological Processes Human Water > Water Governance

This article seeks to extend recent debates on urban infrastructure access by exploring the interrelationship between subjectivity, urban space and infrastructure. Specifically, it presents a case study of the development and differentiation of the urban water supply in Jakarta, Indonesia. Drawing on concepts of governmentality and materiality, it argues that the construction of difference through processes of segregation and exclusion enacted via colonial and contemporary ‘technologies of government’ has spatial, discursive and material dimensions. In particular, it seeks to ‘rematerialize’ discussions of (post‐)colonial urban governmentality through insisting upon the importance of the contested and iterative interrelationship between discursive strategies, socio‐economic agendas, identity formation and infrastructure creation. In exploring these claims with respect to Jakarta, the article draws on data derived from archival, interview and participant observation research to present a genealogy of the city's urban water supply system from its colonial origins to the present. We illustrate how discourses of modernity, hygiene and development are enrolled in the construction of urban subjects and the disposition of water supply infrastructure (and are also resisted), and document the relationship between the classification of urban residents, the differentiation of urban spaces and lack of access to services. The article closes with a discussion of the implications for analyses of the differentiation of urban services and urban space in cities in the global South.Résumé: Cet article tente d’élargir les récents débats sur l’accès aux infrastructures urbaines en explorant l’interrelation entre subjectivité, espace urbain et infrastructure. Plus précisément, il présente une étude de cas sur l’aménagement et la différenciation de l’approvisionnement en eau de Jakarta, en Indonésie. À partir des concepts de gouvernementalité et de matérialité, il fait valoir que la construction d’une différence par des processus de ségrégation et d’exclusion, mis en œuvre par des « technologies de gouvernement » coloniales et contemporaines, a des dimensions spatiales, discursives et physiques. Ce travail vise notamment à« rematérialiser » les discussions sur la gouvernementalité urbaine (post‐)coloniale en insistant sur l’importance de l’interrelation contestée et itérative entre stratégies discursives, programmes socio‐économiques, formation d’identité et création d’infrastructures. Tout en explorant ces idées dans le cadre de Jakarta, l’article exploite des données issues d’archives, d’entretiens et d’observations participantes afin de présenter une généalogie du réseau urbain de distribution d’eau, de ses origines coloniales jusqu’à nos jours. Il montre comment les discours sur la modernité, l’hygiène et l’aménagement s’inscrivent dans la représentation des sujets urbains et dans la disposition de l’infrastructure d’approvisionnement en eau (et comment s’exprime la résistance) ; de plus, il expose la relation entre la classification des résidents, la différenciation des espaces urbains et le manque d’accès aux services de la ville. La conclusion termine par les conséquences pour les analyses sur la différenciation des services urbains et de l’espace urbain dans les grandes villes des pays du Sud.

The goal of the study is to strengthen the analytical purchase of the term water governance and improve the utility of the concept for describing and analyzing actual water distribution processes. We argue this is necessary as most writing on water governance is more concerned with promoting particular politically inspired agendas of what water governance should be than with understanding what it actually is. We believe that water governance at heart is about political choices as to where water should flow; about the norms, rules and laws on which such choices should be based; about who is best able or qualified to decide about this; and about the kind of societal future such choices support. We identify distributions—of water, voice and authority, and expertise—as the empirical anchor and entry‐point of our conceptualization of water governance. This usefully allows foregrounding questions of equity in water governance discussions and provides the empirical foundation for a meaningful engagement with the politics of water governance. WIREs Water 2017, 4:e1245. doi: 10.1002/wat2.1245This article is categorized under: Engineering Water > Planning Water Human Water > Rights to Water Human Water > Water Governance