Inspired by the proposal of political scientists and anthropologists to focus on “practice” as the smallest unit of analysis for understanding politics, as well as the renewed scholarly attention to materiality, this paper sets out to show that detailed ethnographic attention to processes and acts of sociotechnical tinkering provides a useful entry-point for understanding water governance. This is so methodologically, because infrastructural forms of tinkering are very visible, and therefore researchable, manifestations of agency and change in water governance. Attention to sociotechnical tinkering helps shift the basis for understanding water realities from official norms, designs and laws to everyday practices. This in turn allows questioning, rather than assuming, how expertise and agency are exercised and distributed in water governance, thereby also providing useful information for re-thinking water politics. In addition, by explicitly engaging with the contingency and capriciousness of actual water flows, a sociotechnical tinkering approach entails a much-needed re-appreciation of the materiality of water, infrastructure and other matter, a re-appreciation that extends to those who design, construct, operate and use water infrastructure.

Examining the suitability of landscape patches for endangered species enhances critical insights and indicators into the processes of population structure, community dynamics, and functioning in ecosystems particularly in protected areas (PAs). While PAs are the cornerstone in biodiversity conservation, there is debate on their efficacy to retain their conservation superiority over unprotected areas under climate change. In the present study, we examined the spatial and temporal effectiveness of PAs at maintaining suitable habitat for the “vulnerable” Southern Ground-hornbill (SGH), Bucorvus leadbeateri compared with the unprotected areas in Zimbabwe. We used a landscape-scale analysis of 182 PAs, their surrounding buffer zones, and unprotected areas coupled with three machine learning models (maximum entropy: MaxEnt, random forest, and support vector machines) to simulate SGH habitat suitability. Bioclimatic, vegetation seasonality and terrain variables were used as predictors against SGH “presence-only” observations and the models were projected for 2050 as future climatic scenarios (i.e. representative concentration pathways: RCP2.6 and RCP8.5). The true skill statistic (TSS) and area under the curve (AUC) were used to evaluate the performance of the modeling framework. Our results show that the PAs network in Zimbabwe is extremely relevant for the conservation of SGH, with 8% of the suitable habitat within PAs projected to become unsuitable by 2050. Higher levels of protection status resulted in higher levels of suitable habitat for the SGH while the suitability of eastern-based PAs showed a decrease and the western-based PAs will potentially increase in suitability. Thus, conservation strategies should take the eastern PAs range contraction and associated westward shift into account. The established potential increase in suitability outside the PAs network (23%–31%) might increase conflicts between agriculture and conservation. We, therefore, suggest an expanded cross-boundary institutional alliance and policy development with all stakeholders to implement a holistic conservation plan. Our work demonstrates the importance of combining multi-source remotely sensed data in predicting habitat suitability for endangered species such as the SGH as key indicators of biological conservation and PAs’ effectiveness.

Efforts to measure and regulate groundwaters and irrigators are notoriously ineffective. The starting point of this article, therefore, is to question the continued faith in techno-managerial solutions to groundwater depletion. We discuss the potential of the conceptual vocabulary of ‘care’ to complement, refresh and expand ways of talking about and doing groundwater governance. Mobilizing a diverse range of examples from places where pressures on aquifers are particularly acute, we do this by exploring what care entails in everyday practices of groundwater use and management. We show that foregrounding care nuances and sometimes challenges stories of users unavoidably depleting aquifers when given the chance and means to do so. Irrigators may display concern about the longer-term sustainability of the aquifers on which their livelihoods depend, even when their own pumping practices are unsustainable. In spite of pressures to intensify and individualize, farmers sometimes do hold on to or creatively develop collective rules to fairly share groundwater and use it sustainably, complementing strategies to make do with what is available with investments in conservation and recharge. Attention to care, moreover, highlights the ongoing processes of tinkering that governing groundwater always entails. The ability to tinker hinges on intimate and often embodied knowledge of a watery place. Accepting the care involved in governing groundwater, our analysis therefore concludes, prompts a re-consideration of what is and who has water expertise, with important implications for the role of ‘outside’ experts. More than a new theory, we propose embracing care as an analytical sensibility, with the study of practices of care serving as one promising way to widen the conceptual and political space for understanding and doing human-groundwater relations.

The assessment of the vulnerability to drought hazards in smallholder farming systems dependent on rain-fed agriculture has recently gained global popularity, given the need to identify and prioritize climate hotspots for climate adaptation. Over the past decade, numerous studies have focused on vulnerability assessments with respect to drought and other meteorological hazards. Nonetheless, less research has focused on applying common measurement frameworks to compare vulnerability in different communities and the sources of such vulnerability. Yet, the crucial question remains: who is more vulnerable and what contributes to this vulnerability? This article is a case study for assessing the vulnerability to drought of smallholder farmers in two wards in Chivi district, Masvingo Province, Zimbabwe. This study is timely, as climate change is increasingly affecting populations dependent on rainfed agriculture. This assessment has been conducted by calculating the Livelihood Vulnerability Index (LVI) and Livelihood Vulnerability Index of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (LVI-IPCC). This empirical study used data from 258 households from the two wards and triangulated it through Key Informant Interviews and Focus Group Discussions. To calculate the LVI, twenty-six subcomponents made up of seven major components, including socio-demographic variables; livelihood strategies; social capital; access to food, health, and water; and exposure to drought, were considered. To calculate the LVI-IPCC, we combined the three contributing factors of vulnerability (exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity). Our results indicate that the LVI forward 14 is statistically higher than for ward 19 (F = 21.960; p ≤ 0.01) due to high exposure to drought, food insecurity, and compromised social networks. Concerning the LVI-IPCC, ward 14 was significantly more vulnerable to the impacts of drought than ward 19 (F = 7.718; p ≤ 0.01). Thus, reducing exposure to drought through early warning systems, building diversified agricultural systems, and social networks are of high priority to reduce the vulnerability of the farmers.