Review of Agricultural Water Management Intervention Impacts at the Watershed Scale: a Synthesis Using the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework

Report an error

Summary

AI-generated

This summary is written by a language model reading the source document. It is not the publisher's words and is not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment

The review finds that AWM interventions generally produce positive impacts across five capitals—financial, natural, social, physical, and human—with projects employing multiple interventions yielding more positive results. However, it highlights a critical lack of systematic monitoring and evaluation, particularly regarding negative externalities and long-term sustainability.

Key insights

AI-generated

These insights are written by a language model reading the source document. They are not the publisher's words and are not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment
  • AWM interventions frequently result in positive changes across five livelihood capitals: financial (increased income), natural (increased on-farm yield), social (strengthened governance/user groups), physical (improved water infrastructure), and human (increased skills and knowledge).
  • Projects that implement a holistic approach with five or more AWM interventions tend to achieve more positive and diverse impacts than those with only one or two interventions, showing on average 20 per cent more positive changes.
  • The most common AWM interventions identified were changes in crop patterns, species, or varieties (25 per cent of cases), followed by in-situ water management (20 per cent) and the adoption of irrigation practices (15 per cent).
  • Negative impacts of AWM interventions are poorly assessed and documented, but reported issues include increased production costs, higher labour requirements, gender inequity, and the depletion of natural resources for other users.
  • Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) in AWM projects is generally insufficient, often focusing narrowly on physical and financial metrics while neglecting ecological regeneration, gender parity, and long-term sustainability.

Cite the original document

APA
Barron, J., Noel, S., & Mikhail, M. (2009). Review of Agricultural Water Management Intervention Impacts at the Watershed Scale: a Synthesis Using the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework. Stockholm Environment Institute. https://www.sei.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/Air-land-water-resources/agwater/review-of-awm.pdf
Chicago
Barron, Jennie, Stacey Noel, and Monique Mikhail. Review of Agricultural Water Management Intervention Impacts at the Watershed Scale: a Synthesis Using the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework. Stockholm Environment Institute, 2009. https://www.sei.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/Air-land-water-resources/agwater/review-of-awm.pdf.
Wikipedia
{{cite report |last1=Barron |first1=Jennie |last2=Noel |first2=Stacey |last3=Mikhail |first3=Monique |title=Review of Agricultural Water Management Intervention Impacts at the Watershed Scale: a Synthesis Using the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework |publisher=Stockholm Environment Institute |date=2009 |url=https://www.sei.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/Air-land-water-resources/agwater/review-of-awm.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}
BibTeX
@techreport{barron2009review, author = {Barron, Jennie and Noel, Stacey and Mikhail, Monique}, title = {{Review of Agricultural Water Management Intervention Impacts at the Watershed Scale: a Synthesis Using the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework}}, institution = {Stockholm Environment Institute}, year = {2009}, url = {https://www.sei.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/Air-land-water-resources/agwater/review-of-awm.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }

Full text

Collected · Record updated