Rural Environmental Governance: A Communal Irrigation System in Greece through the Social–Ecological System Framework

Abstract

This article delves into the enduring self-governing nature of a traditional irrigation system in a rural community in Greece through the lens of the social–ecological system (SES) framework. The aim is to analyze the variables and interactions that have sustained this community-based governance structure over a century. This study underscores the critical role of social capital, where social networks and effective communication facilitate self-governance in the management of this common pool resource. The findings reveal how actors coordinate social and physical capital when performing daily activities, enabling them to collectively solve common dilemmas. By examining the institutional arrangements and operational dynamics of the irrigation system, the study illuminates the community-led social processes that drive its sustainability. This analysis enhances the understanding of the importance of integrating social and physical capital in governance through collective action to achieve resilience. This study provides insights into alternative pathways for building resilience and discusses an irrigation system as a communal autonomous space that prioritizes social equity, democratic decision-making, and social–ecological contacts.

1. Introduction

Water, with its unique ability to connect, serves as both an object and a generative component within social and cultural contexts. It embodies social relations and cultural systems enriched with patterns of social meanings. Simultaneously, water acts as an energy, forming relationships, values, societal perceptions [1,2,3], economic practices, and political praxis. In the intertwined social–ecological interactions, local communities often emerge as custodians of their surrounding aquatic ecosystems, exhibiting resilience through a longstanding net of relationships and accumulated knowledge of socio-ecological systems [4,5]. This resilience is enhanced by collective action and self-governance, fundamental principles at the core of the theory of the commons. Commons, historically or in modern contexts, reflect forms of self-organization within communities where resources or goods are held or collectively produced.

The concept of commons entails community organization through collective action and cooperation, ensuring equitable access (institutions) to a resource beyond individual property and self-interest drives. Commons transcend hierarchical organization, fostering social cohesion, to communal norms and values, and political structures, rights, and self-regulation as communal articulations across various spheres. Commons is the performance by which the community gathers and assesses information, deliberates upon its options, and renders conscious decisions crucial to its functioning as a self-governing entity. This involves the community’s ability to engage in critical reflection, establish institutions, and formulate ethical frameworks—a common set of values and expectations to guide its day-to-day patterns and long-term sustainability. Community’s access to information collection and its evaluation is a key component of its functional process. The community weighs the available data (ecological, social, and political), considers multiple perspectives, and draws well-reasoned conclusions that inform its choices. Through ongoing dialogue and introspection, the community can navigate complex issues, refine its understanding, and develop the institutional structures and ethical codes necessary for its survival and development. The commons could be defined not only as the co-evolvement and interconnection between nature and community but also as a pact between the local community and nature [6], symbolizing the whole (social–ecological) potentiality.

A significant body of literature on the theory of commons has emerged from the study of self-governing irrigation systems [7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14], emphasizing the crucial role of local communities in instituting participatory conditions that foster equality, trust, and reciprocity. Two common pool resources are engaged in an irrigation system: the canals pose a provision problem as they require adequate maintenance, the costs of which are imposed on the users. The water allocation also constitutes a common pool resource, and its pattern is constructed in accordance with prevailing values and priorities. In this light, we examine how a local community has self-organized and managed an irrigation system for more than a century. Despite radical political, social, and economic transformations over the past century, the traditional management of irrigation water remains largely unaffected, demonstrating the enduring resilience and effectiveness of the commons. The ability of communities to self-organize and mobilize collective action is decisive in creating efficient governance structures [9,14,15,16,17,18]. The effectiveness of community governance structures relies on formulating and implementing collective rules [19]. These rules are context-specific and depend on the characteristics of both the user community and the ecosystem [20]. Trust, reciprocity, and communication are key factors for enabling self-organization, collective action, and solving social dilemmas [21]. Ostrom [15] proposed a set of eight design principles (Appendix A) as conditions that build trust, reciprocity, and communication to maintain and sustain collective action [16]. These factors were further elaborated in the social–ecological system (SES) framework that can be used to describe community governance structures [17] (Appendix B). The SES framework is characterized by a holistic, contextual approach that elucidates the complex interplay between the various actors, decision-making processes, norms, ecological attributes, and broader contacts. This approach facilitates a comprehensive examination and understanding of the interactions among the social, ecological, and political spheres that form community governance.

We use Ostrom’s SES framework [17] to describe a local governance structure for a small-scale irrigation system. Our aim was to detect and analyze the social, political, and ecological variables and their interactions that sustain the governance structure over time. The present study examines the local institutional arrangements involved in the governance of an irrigation system situated within a rural community located in southern Greece, specifically in the Peloponnese region. This research investigates the grid of variables that govern the community’s irrigation infrastructure and water allocation. It aims to elucidate the critical factors underpinning the resilience of this system within both social and ecological contexts.

The research is grounded in an examination of the relevant literature and engagement with the historical local context, drawing on qualitative data sources to capture the principles of the governance arrangements. Through this strategy, the study endeavors to generate insights that can inform theoretical advancements both in the fields of common governance and sustainable environmental governance.

This local irrigation system has persisted across generations. Although establishing its exact age presents challenges, some written resources trace its origins back to the end of the 19th century to the early 20th century, when the cultivation of fruit-bearing trees and grapes was the primary source of living in the area. The enduring operation of this system holds particular significance for the study of commons and local governance, as its sustained provision of services suggests a structured organization that mitigates the risks of misuse of the water and fosters community sustainability, avoiding conflicts and providing water as a “share gift” and exchange (reciprocity), making the community resilient.

As Aubriot [18] notes, irrigation infrastructures are usually gravity-based systems that distribute water through a network of channels extending across the irrigated area. This case study employs a gravity-based system, and its maintenance over an extended period requires immediate contributions of labor or expenses from the community, while the benefits are often difficult to measure and dispersed across time and space. In these situations, there is an inherent temptation for individuals to cheat the system—by taking more water than authorized, taking water at unauthorized times, or contributing fewer inputs than required for their allocated water share [7]. This is because access to water for the irrigation of crops not only ensures individuals’ livelihoods but also underpins their basic well-being. This social dilemma entails both ethical and political implications, as it constitutes a foundation for both individual and collective autonomy and wellbeing.

The irrigation infrastructure under investigation serves as a tangible manifestation of the cohesion of communal existence. In this work, the focus is on understanding ‘reciprocity in perpetuity’ [22,23], emphasizing that the commons are maintained not only through collective responsibility but also by the trust and cooperation that have enabled the social praxis of irrigation for at least one century.

In the following, we first discuss communal irrigation systems (Section 2), which embody the ingenuity, resourcefulness, and collective action of local communities, challenging traditional dichotomies between “tradition” and “modernity.” This contextual background sets the stage for the subsequent case study. Section 3 identifies the specific study area, followed by a review of the SES framework adapted for the research in Section 4. Section 5 describes the data collection methods that informed the variables of the SES framework, which are then applied to analyze the SES dynamics in the case study in Section 6. The results section (Section 7) presents a comprehensive and insightful analysis of community governance, highlighting the importance of collaboration, transparency, and adaptability in fostering resilience and sustainability. Building on this, the discussion section (Section 8) delves deeper into the concept of community governance and local knowledge in supporting resilience and sustainability, offering valuable insights into the dynamics of socio-social–ecological systems and their implications for sustainable development. Finally, the conclusion (Section 9) argues that hydrosocial formations like communal irrigation systems challenge dominant paradigms and advocate for alternative methods of organizing and managing water resources based on solidarity, reciprocity, trust, and interdependence. This paper also suggests future research directions in this area.

2. Communal Irrigation System

Some irrigation systems are built by communities—certain rural communities agree to organize themselves and the water use, and in this scenario, the irrigation system, characterized as communal, serves as a component of local everydayness and functions as evidence of the ingenuity and resourcefulness of communities. The irrigation system shapes both landscape and community and is defined by spatial and political boundaries. It integrates the physical characteristics of the landscape with the socio-political attributes of the community, ultimately forming a socio-ecological system. Rural areas where humans and nature are interconnected, as van der Ploeg [19] notes, provide the context in which an irrigation system is developed, encapsulating the interdependence between the community and nature. Furthermore, the irrigation system embodies the intertwined relationship between the built infrastructure (canals, waterways) and the social organization that governs it. By encompassing both the physical and social dimensions, the irrigation system becomes a tangible representation of the symbiotic bond between the community and the landscape they inhabit.

An irrigation system could constitute a simple or sophisticated infrastructure concerning the collection of water, its directed flow through a central canal, and subsequent distribution into smaller canals and/or ditches for crop irrigation. The development of this kind of infrastructure involves careful calculations, estimations, aspirations, and anticipations, encompassing water volume, the prevention of soil erosion, and the construction of terraces. However, beyond engineering considerations, the most challenging part lies in defining the allocation of water—agreement on the quantity, the irrigated land, the timing, and even the duration of water flow—and the development of a framework outlining the rights and duties of those seeking to utilize the infrastructure.

In response to these challenges, institutions, formal and informal, have been established to govern the irrigation systems, both material and immaterial, infrastructure and organizational framework. Institutions are informed and adjusted by spatial land records containing details of property and rights, water sources, crops, yields, plants and patterns of provision, customs and interactions, political and social context. Institutions are also involved in the task—beyond the construction—of maintaining the canals, keeping them in a functional, practical, and usable state, and organizing all forms of repeated and structured interactions, such as voting rights, decision-making processes, monitoring, and enforcement of penalties for violations, and so on.

Typically, when the method of supplying water to crops or fields using age-old techniques that predate modern technology, the irrigation system is referred to as traditional irrigation. Technology, or the absence of it, defines the term “traditional.” However, the concept of tradition in the context of the social–ecological system has more than one dimension, that of technology. It refers to the status in which irrigation is not only a technique to control the water flow on land but also a praxis in which local communities, water, and a network of relationships evolve. Additionally, many researchers have expressed their enthusiasm for the ingenious technology of traditional irrigation systems [18,20,21,24,25]. They have recognized and appreciated the inherent worth of these traditional endeavors, interrogating the over-reliance on modern, large-scale irrigation methods. When the community has the substantial capability to craft rules according to local priorities, imaginary, without any external force or restrictions, the irrigation system possesses properties beyond mere land watering. These properties outline the social, political, and economic system coupled with the ecological system and topographic relief in which a traditional irrigation system defines the land, the water, and the community. Central to traditional irrigation systems frequently resides communal involvement, implying that the classification as either traditional or communal carries equal significance.

While communal involvement is a common feature in traditional irrigation, it is not the only defining characteristic. The communal irrigation system is an integral part of a community, playing a crucial role in ensuring the efficient allocation and management of water resources for rural livelihood. It is important to note that the classification of an irrigation system as “traditional” holds substantial relevance, as it signifies a system that has been in place for a rather large period and is deeply rooted in the cultural and historical context of the community. Similarly, the identification of an irrigation system as “communal” underscores the collective and collaborative actions of the users.

Traditional irrigation systems that are also communal are prevalent in South Asia, South-East Asia, Central Asia, North Africa, the Middle East, Latin America, and Sub-Saharan Africa. In South Asia, examples include the Kuhls in the Himalayas of India and Nepal [22,23,26], as well as the Tanks and Eri systems in southern India [27]. The Subak system in Bali [28,29] and the Ili-ili institution [30,31,32,33] for the irrigation of rice fields during the dry seasons are met in South-East Asia. Central Asia is home to Qanats in Iran, Afghanistan, and other parts [34,35], as well as Suyi systems in Kyrgyzstan [36], Aflaj irrigation systems in Oman [37,38,39,40], and the Meskat and Tabia systems in Tunisia [41]. Latin America has the Acequias in New Mexico, the USA [42,43], the Ayllus in the Andes region of South America [11,44], and in Northwest China [45]. In Sub-Saharan Africa, examples include the Fadama systems in Nigeria [46] and the Spate irrigation systems in Eritrea and Ethiopia [39,47,48]. Similar examples are also found in Spain [49,50], Switzerland [51,52,53,54], Norway [55], and Greece [56]. In these case studies, local communities actively engage in inventing and implementing rules, norms, institutions, actions, and practices on water for their survival. Long-established irrigation systems display enduring persistence, remarkable efficiency, and noteworthy resilience. The collective action and self-governance inherent in these systems exemplify their adaptability and sustainability, regardless of their specific organizational structure.

Aubriot [18] underscores that communal irrigation systems are characterized by their collective management, intertwined with the community’s autonomy. The local community assumes responsibility for the infrastructure and subsequent water allocation. This communal endeavor is structured around collective action and social capital, including reciprocity, trust, communication, and accountability. Through the self-regulation of irrigation communities, the concept of hydraulic ownership emerges. The establishment of ‘hydraulic property,’ as delineated by Coward [57,58], defines the nexus between water rights and involvement in irrigation systems. Hydraulic property serves as a mechanism for community organization whereby rights are vested in those contributing to system operation, entitling them to water usage. These hydraulic property rights are inheritable, passing to descendants contingent upon continued active engagement in community affairs, including infrastructure maintenance.

The concept of ‘communal irrigation’ embodies a dynamic conceptualization reflective of the evolving nature of irrigation systems, challenging historical dichotomies between tradition and modernity as well as notions of scale [59]. The scale of communal irrigation systems can vary significantly, ranging from smaller systems that cater to a specific part of a village to larger systems that extend across vast areas, covering hundreds or even thousands of square meters. The diversity in scale reflects the adaptability of communal irrigation systems to meet the unique needs and realities of communities. Scientific knowledge and local knowledge are not juxtaposed, and irrigation practices span both small-scale and large-scale contexts, while techniques have been modified and may not be linked to either tradition or modernity, just like their governance scheme. Communal irrigation systems could be a compilation of traditional knowledge and new knowledge that a community acquires by interacting with their local and broader political, economic, social, and natural environment. The irrigation community, on the other hand, includes the individuals and their actions, the social structures, the social roles and behaviors, and the social capital that is inherently linked to the operation and governance of the irrigation system. Community irrigation systems are vital for locals, providing tailored solutions that evolve practices and resources. However, hydraulic projects often necessitate external contributions and advanced engineering capabilities, reflecting the complexity and resource intensity of such endeavors. The need for a synergistic approach that integrates local expertise with state-of-the-art technological interventions to optimize irrigation efficiency and sustainability is crucial for addressing the challenges of water governance in diverse rural landscapes.

Some scholars define the irrigation community as the group of people who use, relate to, and identify with a particular irrigation system [60,61]. However, the term ‘community’ is characterized by polysemy and is a source of different interpretations. In Latin America, for example, where irrigation communities are officially recognized [62], they are usually referred to as villages. In India, however, they are associated with caste and, therefore, denote something else. In the Philippines, the term “irrigation community” is used where this type of irrigation is institutionalized [63], and these systems are called “communals” [57]. Aubrio [18] underscores that the term “community irrigation” encapsulates multifaceted concepts pertaining to temporal dimensions, farmers’ initiatives, local organization schemes and technological efficacy, and local practices and knowledge (materials, governance scheme, social imaginary).

By focusing the interest on irrigation communities rather than just the technical system, the emphasis shifts to the social interactions and shared identity of the community. Therefore, users of an irrigation system may be interconnected through bonds and interdependencies ranging from village or local ties to shared political party, nationality, kinship, or origin. On the one hand, the users share a sense of communal unity through the irrigation system. On the other hand, the system can also serve as a catalyst for disagreements and potential conflicts within the community. This paradox of unity, with underlying internal conflicts and disagreements, has been defined as “agonistic unity” by Colloredo-Mansfeld [58]. Agonistic unity conceptualizes the process of managing differences and negotiating them in the construction of a common identity that enables communities to maintain and mobilize the necessary resources for the reproduction of common goods [58,61,64]. A plain differentiation between communal irrigation and ‘farmer-led irrigation’ should be considered, as Aubrio [18] states. Communal irrigation typically involves shared infrastructure and resources managed collectively by a community or group of users/farmers. In contrast, “farmer-led irrigation” commonly refers to individual technologies that are owned and operated by a single farmer. This distinction is essential in capturing the multifaceted metaphorical depictions of water. Communal irrigation systems require cooperation, solidarity, trust, and communication among actors and users. Community and institutions co-produce outcomes that are evaluated by the community, while “farmer-led irrigation” places emphasis on individual farmer autonomy, decision-making, and investment.

The governance structure of a communal irrigation system encompasses two distinct levels of organization. Firstly, there is a territorial unit within the community, typically represented by a village or a similar administrative entity. Secondly, there is an overarching organization comprised of all water users, exemplified in the form of an irrigation community. This bifurcation underscores the complexity inherent in the governance of water resources at the grassroots level, necessitating coordinated efforts across both local and political spheres to ensure effective governance and sustainable utilization of irrigation systems. The praxis of water allocation is not characterized by unfettered free performance but rather by structured environmental governance through regulatory mechanisms driven by community values and norms.

Communal governance addresses the challenges, opportunities, and threats associated with its hydraulic imprint. One of the fundamental pillars of effective governance for communal irrigation systems is the tacit knowledge of the social facet of water [1,65,66,67,68]. Communities stir up their knowledge, patterns, and routine tasks to anticipate ecological phenomena, govern irrigation systems, adjust to fluctuations, and integrate available technological solutions. This encompasses the equitable and comprehensive distribution of water while considering the claims and rights accompanied by the obligations of every member within the community. The efficiency of this governance pattern hinges upon the smooth rule establishment and enforcement process, which takes into account the characteristics of the community and ecosystems [69] and promotes fairness and equity. The capacity of communities to self-organize and engage in coordinated action is essential to the emergence of commons.

Social networks, communication, solidarity, mutual trust, reciprocity, engagement, and contribution structure in this case study exemplify the concept of ‘communality’ [54], which underscores the intrinsic quality of the commons. This conceptualization recognizes irrigation systems as embedded within a social context, where the infrastructure maintenance and governance of water depend on the continuous (re)creation of community bonds, customary rules, and collective responsibility.

When a community collectively works, feels, and assigns access to resources through cooperative involvement, ensuring equitable access, the commons are potent. Collaboration, solidarity, autonomous coordination, and self-governance denote the pattern of the commons [15,70,71,72,73].

3. Study Area

Our research was carried out in a coastal village, Nikoleika, situated in the region of Achaea, Western Greece (Figure 1), characterized by an altitude ranging from 400 to 600 m. The region experiences an average annual temperature of approximately 17 °C to 18 °C with temperature fluctuations spanning from 2 °C during the height of winter to 38 °C in the peak of summer. Peak temperatures typically occur in July and August, while the lowest temperatures are recorded in January and February.

The area receives precipitation primarily in the form of rainfall during the winter months. The landscape is notably fertile, featuring gradual slopes predominantly covered by olive and pine trees. The average annual rainfall in the region is measured at 300 mm. The alternating wet and dry cycles, as well as the contrasting hot and cold seasons, contribute to the loosening of geological formations and the onset of slope instability.

In terms of administrative structure, small villages have been characterized as communities since the founding of the Greek state until 1997, when, within the framework of the Kapodistrias Plan, an administrative reform initiative was launched aimed at restructuring the administrative divisions of Greece. Subsequently, the administrative system underwent further modifications in 2010 through the implementation of the Kallikratis reform. The Kallikratis reform was later amended by the Kleisthenis Program, which was endorsed in July 2018 and implemented in September 2019.

Municipalities, characterized by their larger size and a more urban profile compared to communities, which were often as small as villages, underwent significant changes because of these reforms. Prior to and following the Kapodistrias Plan, the distinction between municipalities and communities primarily revolved around population size. The Kapodistrias reform led to a substantial reduction in the total number of municipalities and communities, decreasing from 5775 (comprising 441 municipalities and 5382 communities) to 1033 (consisting of 900 municipalities and 133 communities), as documented [68].

The subsequent Kallikratis Program, implemented in 2011 amidst Greece’s austerity period, further consolidated the restructuring efforts by mandating the merger of the 1033 municipal and community entities, resulting in the formation of only 325 municipalities. This consolidation yielded Greek municipalities with an average population size of 31,000 inhabitants, aligning more closely with the demographic profiles of many other European Union countries [74,75]. Due to the administrative and political transformations described above, the village of Nikoleika, which was a community until the Kapodistrias reform, is now referred to as an administrative unit of the municipality of Aigialeia. The irrigation community of this case study is the village of Nikoleika. The group of people who use, relate to, and identify with this irrigation system are the inhabitants of the village. The terms “irrigation community” and “village” are identical. In administrative discourse, the term “village” was referred to as “community”, and in Greek perception, until now, the terms “village” and “community” remain synonymous. The institution of community has a long history in Greece, dating back prior to the establishment of the state of Greece to the Ottoman Era. The principles of autonomy and self-governance were the defining characteristics of community life for several centuries. Today, because of these transformations, local communities have experienced a diminishment in their autonomy regarding the governance of local issues, often resulting in a lack of communication with higher levels of administration. In addition, through the hierarchical administrative structure provided by the law, the participatory perspective of citizens is no longer readily attainable [76]. As a result of the mandated political and administrative restructuring of the nation, a segment of the archival records belonging to the community under examination has been lost. Researchers have successfully located archives dating from 1930 to 1940, as well as those covering the span between 1950 and 1980, which were housed in the securely locked former community office. Oversight of these invaluable historical documents is now entrusted to the former secretary of the Community Council, who safeguards them in collaboration with the representative from the unit of Nikoleika. Throughout the periods of the German occupation (World War II) and the subsequent Civil War, spanning from 1941 to 1949, the community archives suffered loss or destruction. Furthermore, records from 1980 onwards remain elusive and presumed to be stored within the municipality’s basement, prompting our ongoing efforts to retrieve them. Consequently, our research concludes in the year 1980, despite the continued functionality of the irrigation system, due to the unavailability of pertinent documentation beyond this timeframe.

The village of Nikoleika had a permanent population of 368 in 2021, while in 1981, it had 453 inhabitants. In 1971, there were 351 inhabitants; in 1961, 408; in 1951, 363; in 1940, 295; and in 1920, there were 214 inhabitants in 45 families [77]. It is estimated that the total surface area is approximately 300 acres, with each family managing about 0,5-6 acres and around 80 families residing in the village. Significant cash income comes from agricultural products, like olive oil and citrus fruits, even today. A few work as craftsmen and builders. Households possess agricultural land both within and beyond the village’s political and spatial boundaries, which were convergent until 1997.

4. Theoretical Background

In our study, we have opted to employ the SES framework developed by Ostrom and McGinnis [17] to explore the governance of the traditional communal irrigation system. SES is developed as a framework to fathom collective action in real life—case study analysis—and is used as a lens through which sustainability is identified [78,79]. SES is employed in management practices [80,81], climate change adaptation efforts [82], urban planning coupled with development projects [83,84], and policy analysis. It is applied for empirical research in community-managed fisheries [81,85,86,87,88,89,90,91], irrigation systems [92,93,94,95], forestry [96,97,98], and other contexts where there is a nexus between sustainable management and collective action. However, the use of the framework has expanded beyond those resource-use sectors [78] to include energy systems [99,100] and pollution management [101,102], while its building blocks are also valuable in addressing local and global environmental challenges and social dilemmas related to ecological governance and sustainability.

The framework is proposed as a comprehensive sustainability assessment tool [69,78]. By placing the SES lens on the analysis of the irrigation system, we try to identify the nexus between collaborative governance approaches and sustainable outcomes. Collaborative governance entails the engagement of a wide array of institutions, official and unofficial actors, public and private organizations, local communities, interest groups, and corporations in joining forces to tackle societal issues and enhance social cohesion. It focuses on promoting participatory decision-making and harnessing a range of perspectives to advance positive societal transformation [103]. It has the potential to foster co-creative solutions to address the complexities and vulnerabilities of SES, thereby enhancing their sustainability and resilience [104]. Our aim is to thoroughly recognize the mechanisms and rationales underlying the relationship between cooperative organizational performances and the emergence of sustainability-oriented strategies and outcomes. Specifically, our focus lies in elucidating the interaction between community, institutional arrangements, ecological parameters, and infrastructure in the irrigation system.

Central to our study is the delineation of the roles of actors, performances, tasks, and decision-making processes inherent to the communal management of the irrigation system. Actors formulate solutions across diverse spatial and governance levels, generating different niches of knowledge and expertise [103]. Therefore, actors in collaborative governance have the advantage of learning from others [105]. This principle of shared learning is evident in our research, which emphasizes the historical resilience and sustainability displayed by traditional communal irrigation systems over an extended temporal horizon. The socio-ecological system framework provides a stepwise diagnostic process to identify the factors affecting sustainability, illuminating how collective knowledge and experience contribute to long-term system viability. Social–ecological systems are adaptive systems comprising complex networks of connections, associations, transactions, and encounters between humans and nonhuman entities [106].

Through this analytical lens, we try to diagnose the variables contributing to resilience while also scrutinizing the adaptive strategies employed in response to evolving socio-ecological processes. Our study provides valuable insights into the intertwined socio-ecological qualities, thereby contributing to a deeper understanding of traditional communal irrigation system resilience. This approach aligns with the recognition that social interaction is a key ingredient of adaptive capacity [105]. Our paper seeks to clarify these interactions, focusing on communal performance and adaptive capacity at local scale. The SES framework we employ consists of different levels of governing variables, units of analysis, outcomes, and adaptations. It is integrative in nature, encompassing social learning motivations, contextual and process factors, and outcomes, thus providing a comprehensive tool for examining the complex interplay between social and ecological systems in the face of challenges to social prosperity. Our inquiry endeavors to elucidate the micro-level action where the interconnection between various actors, embedded within a historical contextual framework, gave rise to the establishment of monitoring and sanctioning mechanisms, as well as the formulation of collective-choice and operational rules.

The SES framework has been systematically structured through the integration of interconnected variables spanning diverse conceptual categories The adaptive behaviors and interactions within a SES coalesce to produce emergent systemic properties that define the overall character and dynamics of the SES [104]. This highlights the need to consider SES as integrated, holistic entities rather than just the sum of their individual components. Furthermore, its variables inform the strategies and institutions that govern the irrigation system, thereby driving the sustainability, resilience, and governance of traditional communal irrigation practices. Our insights inform the development of sustainable management strategies and initiatives aimed at strengthening community resilience.

5. Data Collection

The data collected for the case study primarily originate from community archives as well as two interviews with older residents (85 and 90 years old) of the villages due to their age and ability to provide valuable insights into the village’s history in 2019 and 2020. Their health allowed for thorough discussions about the past. Their oral histories complemented the written archives, resulting in a comprehensive collection of information. Actors, governance structures, infrastructure, and interactions within a local irrigation system are recognized by studying historical archives, scientific reports, and community records, cross-checked with oral testimonies.

After conducting an investigative study, it was determined that community records and relevant archives are stored in the community office. The abandoned community office had become the primary repository of the community’s historical records. With the necessary permissions obtained from the representative of the Nikoleika unit, we gained access to the office and its community records. Upon organizing multiple visits to the office, we searched for the records, evaluated the condition of the documents, and determined their relevance to our research question regarding the organization of the community irrigation system. Assessing the substantial volume of available data, we systematically documented and cataloged the materials in chronological order.

Utilizing our phones, we created digital copies of the documents (photographs) and took notes, using relevant keywords such as water, river, regulation, well, primary canal, ditches, and personal labor. Subsequently, we organized the materials in an Excel spreadsheet, including the full date and subject, and proceeded to clean the data by removing irrelevant documents, such as those related to drinking water wells or forest protection.

Our analysis involved a comprehensive content analysis to identify patterns, themes, and meanings and contextualize the findings within a historical narrative. This involves understanding the cultural, social, political, and historical contexts in which the data were produced. By contextualizing the findings, we can provide a deeper and more nuanced understanding of the rural governance of the irrigation system. Throughout this process, we maintained a respectful approach to privacy and social sensitivities within the community archive, particularly in instances where individuals were mentioned as facing poverty or family matters that the community addressed.

Archives serve as invaluable repositories of data, offering insights into the social, economic, political, and environmental settings, both inner and broader, that influence community life. Our archival research enabled us to trace the historical trajectory of water management practices, discern the roles played by various actors both within and beyond the community, and scrutinize the organization and functioning of governance mechanisms.

6. Navigating Socio-Ecological Systems: The Case Study Analysis

The SES framework is informed by the guiding research question that defines the system boundaries and outcomes of interest. The actors’ performance and what benefits are gained for whom are examined. The framework identifies the outcomes linked to the performance of social practices, mediated by action situations. Biophysical properties and technology that influence resource unit extraction are central, as these attributes prescribe both the governance challenges and the interaction of the specific SES with neighboring SESs. An analysis of the institutional arrangements that respond to these community-related challenges is conducted. It is considered how users negotiate collective action problems based on relevant variables from the SES framework.

In Table 1, the first, second, and third-tier variables of the SES framework are discussed to describe the social–ecological system for the governance of the local irrigation system [17,107].

Table 1. The SES of the irrigation system.

First-Tier Variables	Second-Tier Variables and Definitions	Situation in the Study Community
Resource System	Sector (RS1)	Irrigation system
	Clarity of system boundary (RS2)	The boundaries of the water source are well-defined, utilizing water from the River Kerynitis.
	Size: (a) area and (b) Volume (RS3)	(a) Area: Agricultural lands within the community.
		(b) Volume: Emphasis is not placed on the quantitative measurement of water but rather on the frequency of irrigation, which is contingent upon the specific characteristics of the cultivated crops.
	Human Constructed facilities (RS4)	The “carouta” serves as a platform designed for conveying water from the river to the principal canal. Originally constructed from timber logs, its composition transitioned to metal structures post the 1970s era (Figure 2 and Figure 3). Pipeline: the central conduit responsible for transporting water from the “carοuta” to the network of canals. Irrigation canals: systems of canals that carry water from the central pipe to the cultivated land and distribute the water to the crops. Occasionally, they transport water for domestic use. Primary automation systems are embodied by open gate mechanisms, referred to as “glastra” which regulate the flow of water into the crops and individual property of the farmers-villagers
	Productivity of the system (RS5)	The productivity of the system is linked to the efficient use of water in agriculture, delivering water to different types of crops according to their needs and weather conditions. The infrastructure is also utilized to convey water for domestic usage during periods when it is not actively involved in transporting water for irrigation purposes.
	Equilibrium of system (RS6)	There is no underutilization or overutilization of the water.
	Predictability of the System (RS7)	There is the ability to predict the dynamics of the system: [a] Resilience to fluctuations: The system is engineered to endure diverse weather patterns, such as droughts or floods. [b] Scheduled maintenance and repairs: Regular upkeep and repair activities on system structures are conducted to uphold efficiency and functionality. This responsibility extends to community members, with each landowner/villager tasked with maintaining and preserving the integrity of the water-carrying ditches on their property. Additionally, it is imperative that every villager contributes to the maintenance of the central canal. [c] Rapid troubleshooting: Hydronomeas oversees the prompt resolution of potential system issues, such as channel leaks or damage, to safeguard its stable operation. He is also responsible for the sequence of irrigation, as well as the duration and quantity of water distribution. [d] Strategic planning and enhancement: A forward-looking strategy is devised to schedule future maintenance endeavors, considering evolving needs and environmental conditions, aiming to continuously optimize the system’s performance.
	Location (RS9)	The Kerynitis River flows continuously near the community.
Resource Units (RU)	Resource unit mobility (RU1)	Water flows through the irrigation canals and ditches. Irrigation commences from the easternmost region and progresses towards the westernmost area. Water follows a top-to-bottom approach (gravity system).
	Growth or replacement rate (RU2)	A watering plan is adhered to for various crops (e.g., cabbage every 8 days, tree crops every 20 days, etc.). Supplementary watering is predicted based on precipitation conditions and crop requirements. The presence of communal wells for irrigation is tied to the prospect of water scarcity. The utilization of these communal wells can function as a viable alternative water reservoir when the primary source, the river, fails to supply an adequate volume. It is recognized that the community allocates resources towards the maintenance and sanitation of these communal wells, thereby guaranteeing a dependable water supply for agricultural irrigation purposes.
	Interaction between units (RU3)	There is water flow for irrigation coming from the river. There is a mention that there is also a groundwater resource, but there is no information about its management.
	Economic value (RU4)	The economic value encompasses the expenses associated with irrigation system maintenance and operation, including irrigation fees (30–50 drachmas per acre per irrigation period). Moreover, it evaluates the economic significance of irrigation in agricultural production, influencing the pricing of agricultural products.
	Quantity of Units (RU5)	A river, and sometimes groundwater.
	Distribution [a] spatial] and [b] temporal (RU7)	Temporal distribution of water resources is steady and identified. The irrigation season spans from April 1st to October 31st. Water allocation is strategically managed based on crop necessity, geographical location, and weather conditions, ensuring the sustenance of community livelihoods.
Governance System (GS)	Governement Organizations (GS1)	Detailed rules and regulations for the operation and management of the irrigation system issued by the Community Council. National law foresees and imposes this obligation on the community council.
	Non-government organization (GS2)	NGOs are not involved
	Network Structures (GS3)	Habitants (villagers) are the users of the irrigation system and participate in the decision-making process through the community council. They are tasked with the maintenance or expansion of the infrastructure. Hydronomeas: is entrusted with supervising the management of the irrigation system and monitoring the irrigation process throughout the allocated irrigation period. He works in close collaboration with farmers and the community council not only to implement and monitor the irrigation plan but also to identify and address instances of free-riding or non-compliance with the regulations stipulated in the irrigation plan. Community Council: deliberates on matters pertaining to the management of the irrigation system and the harmonization of norms and directives in accordance with the community’s requirements regarding water utilization for irrigation purposes. It bears the responsibility for enforcement mechanisms and the imposition of sanctions. Irrigation Committee: This committee is responsible for overseeing the irrigation process, including the activities of the Hydronomeas, as well as addressing broader irrigation-related matters and instances of non-compliance. Its members (3) are appointed by the Community Council. Rural police: The rural police constitute a specialized public service vested with police authority aimed at upholding public order and deterring crime within rural areas and communities. In accordance with national legislation, they oversee compliance with irrigation regulations established by communities under specific terms and conditions. Functioning as an external regulatory body within the system, their intervention occurs upon request.
	Property-rights system (GS4)	Rights to use water for irrigation are allocated to landowners, who are inhabitants of the community. The inhabitants of Nikoleika uphold hydraulic property rights, which are heritable, transferring to descendants provided they remain actively involved in the communal irrigation system, including the maintenance of infrastructure.
	Operational-choice rules (GS5)	Guidelines for water distribution and management during irrigation were issued by the Rural Police for the communities that use water for irrigation at the national level. Then, every community specifies the rules according to its norms and customary laws.
	Collective-choice rules (GS6)	Decision-making processes involving the community council. The community council represents the community/village, and it has been elected by the community.
Actors (A)	Number of actors (A1)	Community members, rural police officers, community council, farmers, inhabitants, and neighbor communities (Eliki, Rizomylos, Rodia).
	Socioeconomic attributes (A2)	Including farmers, landowners, and possibly hired laborers.
	History or past experience (A3)	Previous experiences with irrigation practices and management.
	Location (A4)	All the actors are inhabitants of the community. Even the rural police officer could be a resident of the community.
	Leadership (A5)	The Community Council assumes the dual role of planning, strategizing, and implementing the irrigation system, in addition to its monitor and management responsibilities.
	Social capital (A6)	It manifests through informal networks, such as friendships and community gatherings in coffee shops and church, as well as formal institutions like community council.
	Knowledge of SES (A7)	Familiarity with local ecological systems. The actors are also intimately aware of the social bonds in the community.
	Importance of resource (A8)	Water is vital for rural production in the community.
	Technology used (A9)	Irrigation infrastructure is constructed by the irrigators.
Interactions (I)	Harvesting (I1)	Cultivating crops.
	Information sharing (I2)	farmers/villagers of the village exchange information about their crops, the status of the hydraulic infrastructure, and watering needs both among themselves and with villagers from neighboring communities.
	Deliberation process (I3)	There are discussions and negotiations among farmers/villagers on the management of water resource units and the irrigation network. Sharing and exchanging observations, reflections, and assessing risks.
	Conflicts (I4)	There are no conflicts between farmers over the allocation of water resource units or the use of the irrigation system in the community. Disputes and conflicts exist over the use of the irrigation system by neighboring communities. The types of conflicts that arose included disputes over land use and canal usage among neighboring communities. The communities involved were Nikoleika, Eliki, Rizomylos, and Rodia.
	Investment activities (I5)	Community members invest their personal labor in water infrastructure, contribute to their community’s budget, and also access funding from the central government, either through grants or loans.
	Lobbying activities (I6)	Neighboring communities were lobbying central government agencies for the use of the irrigation infrastructure of Nikoleika. The community council engages in lobbying activities to secure funding from the national government for the maintenance and enhancement of the irrigation infrastructure. The farmers lobby the Community Council to update the rules regarding water distribution based on changing weather patterns or crop needs.
	Self-organizing activities (Ι7)	The community decides on the maintenance of the irrigation system (tangible and intangible). There is voting for the election of the community council every 4 years.
	Monitoring and sanctioning activities (Ι9)	Hydronomeas is the guardian of the system, as are all its users. He oversees and supervises the management of the irrigation system, and he is responsible for the monitoring of the irrigation process throughout the planned irrigation period. He disseminates pertinent information to both the community council and the irrigation community. Penalties, ranging from fines to the forfeiture of irrigation privileges for specific instances during the irrigation season, are deliberated and enforced by the Community Council subsequent to Hydronomeas’s report.
	Evaluative activities (I10)	Annually, when the Community Council convenes to determine the irrigation season, it conducts a comprehensive assessment of the irrigation system’s performance and its environmental implications while also formulating strategies for enhancement. For example, during the 1950s and subsequent years, the duration of the irrigation season was extended. Initially spanning from June to September, it was later adjusted to run from May to October during the 1960s. Furthermore, recognizing the vital role of Hydronomeas in system maintenance, the fee for this position was increased, owing to the absence of applicants among the users. During the winter months, decisions are made regarding the requisite maintenance works for the infrastructure.
Outcomes	Social performance measures (O1)	Just distribution of water resource units between the farmers, considering the needs (of crops), the extent of crops, and the participation and collaboration of the members of the community. Application of management practices aimed at the “reasonable” use of water.
	Ecological performance measures (O2)	Maintenance of the irrigation system to withstand extreme climatic conditions, such as floods. Along the banks of the river, the community “creates” a forest in order to be protected from floods.
	Externalities to other SESs (O3)	The flow of water to neighboring communities can affect the availability of water.
Action Situation	Process of Monitoring [a] Environmental and [b] Social	[a] Environmental: Monitoring water levels, flow rates, and soil moisture [b] Social: Monitoring compliance with irrigation plan and rules by community members.
	Sanctioning	Imposing penalties for violations of irrigation rules and guidelines. Penalties range from fines to the withdrawal of irrigation rights.
	Conflict Resolution	Resolving disputes over water allocation or misuse within the community by the council.
	Provision [a] informational and [b] infrastructural	[a] Informational: Providing guidance on irrigation practices and scheduling. [b] Infrastructural: Maintaining and repairing hydraulic infrastructure.
	Appropriation	Allocating water based on crop requirements to resident farmers who have contributed to the maintenance of the irrigation system and have fulfilled their obligations (financial and personal work).
	Policymaking	Establishing and revising rules and regulations governing irrigation practices according to local conditions, weather conditions, and national law by the community council.

Table 1. The SES of the irrigation system.

First-Tier Variables	Second-Tier Variables and Definitions	Situation in the Study Community
Resource System	Sector (RS1)	Irrigation system
	Clarity of system boundary (RS2)	The boundaries of the water source are well-defined, utilizing water from the River Kerynitis.
	Size: (a) area and (b) Volume (RS3)	(a) Area: Agricultural lands within the community.
		(b) Volume: Emphasis is not placed on the quantitative measurement of water but rather on the frequency of irrigation, which is contingent upon the specific characteristics of the cultivated crops.
	Human Constructed facilities (RS4)	The “carouta” serves as a platform designed for conveying water from the river to the principal canal. Originally constructed from timber logs, its composition transitioned to metal structures post the 1970s era (Figure 2 and Figure 3). Pipeline: the central conduit responsible for transporting water from the “carοuta” to the network of canals. Irrigation canals: systems of canals that carry water from the central pipe to the cultivated land and distribute the water to the crops. Occasionally, they transport water for domestic use. Primary automation systems are embodied by open gate mechanisms, referred to as “glastra” which regulate the flow of water into the crops and individual property of the farmers-villagers
	Productivity of the system (RS5)	The productivity of the system is linked to the efficient use of water in agriculture, delivering water to different types of crops according to their needs and weather conditions. The infrastructure is also utilized to convey water for domestic usage during periods when it is not actively involved in transporting water for irrigation purposes.
	Equilibrium of system (RS6)	There is no underutilization or overutilization of the water.
	Predictability of the System (RS7)	There is the ability to predict the dynamics of the system: [a] Resilience to fluctuations: The system is engineered to endure diverse weather patterns, such as droughts or floods. [b] Scheduled maintenance and repairs: Regular upkeep and repair activities on system structures are conducted to uphold efficiency and functionality. This responsibility extends to community members, with each landowner/villager tasked with maintaining and preserving the integrity of the water-carrying ditches on their property. Additionally, it is imperative that every villager contributes to the maintenance of the central canal. [c] Rapid troubleshooting: Hydronomeas oversees the prompt resolution of potential system issues, such as channel leaks or damage, to safeguard its stable operation. He is also responsible for the sequence of irrigation, as well as the duration and quantity of water distribution. [d] Strategic planning and enhancement: A forward-looking strategy is devised to schedule future maintenance endeavors, considering evolving needs and environmental conditions, aiming to continuously optimize the system’s performance.
	Location (RS9)	The Kerynitis River flows continuously near the community.
Resource Units (RU)	Resource unit mobility (RU1)	Water flows through the irrigation canals and ditches. Irrigation commences from the easternmost region and progresses towards the westernmost area. Water follows a top-to-bottom approach (gravity system).
	Growth or replacement rate (RU2)	A watering plan is adhered to for various crops (e.g., cabbage every 8 days, tree crops every 20 days, etc.). Supplementary watering is predicted based on precipitation conditions and crop requirements. The presence of communal wells for irrigation is tied to the prospect of water scarcity. The utilization of these communal wells can function as a viable alternative water reservoir when the primary source, the river, fails to supply an adequate volume. It is recognized that the community allocates resources towards the maintenance and sanitation of these communal wells, thereby guaranteeing a dependable water supply for agricultural irrigation purposes.
	Interaction between units (RU3)	There is water flow for irrigation coming from the river. There is a mention that there is also a groundwater resource, but there is no information about its management.
	Economic value (RU4)	The economic value encompasses the expenses associated with irrigation system maintenance and operation, including irrigation fees (30–50 drachmas per acre per irrigation period). Moreover, it evaluates the economic significance of irrigation in agricultural production, influencing the pricing of agricultural products.
	Quantity of Units (RU5)	A river, and sometimes groundwater.
	Distribution [a] spatial] and [b] temporal (RU7)	Temporal distribution of water resources is steady and identified. The irrigation season spans from April 1st to October 31st. Water allocation is strategically managed based on crop necessity, geographical location, and weather conditions, ensuring the sustenance of community livelihoods.
Governance System (GS)	Governement Organizations (GS1)	Detailed rules and regulations for the operation and management of the irrigation system issued by the Community Council. National law foresees and imposes this obligation on the community council.
	Non-government organization (GS2)	NGOs are not involved
	Network Structures (GS3)	Habitants (villagers) are the users of the irrigation system and participate in the decision-making process through the community council. They are tasked with the maintenance or expansion of the infrastructure. Hydronomeas: is entrusted with supervising the management of the irrigation system and monitoring the irrigation process throughout the allocated irrigation period. He works in close collaboration with farmers and the community council not only to implement and monitor the irrigation plan but also to identify and address instances of free-riding or non-compliance with the regulations stipulated in the irrigation plan. Community Council: deliberates on matters pertaining to the management of the irrigation system and the harmonization of norms and directives in accordance with the community’s requirements regarding water utilization for irrigation purposes. It bears the responsibility for enforcement mechanisms and the imposition of sanctions. Irrigation Committee: This committee is responsible for overseeing the irrigation process, including the activities of the Hydronomeas, as well as addressing broader irrigation-related matters and instances of non-compliance. Its members (3) are appointed by the Community Council. Rural police: The rural police constitute a specialized public service vested with police authority aimed at upholding public order and deterring crime within rural areas and communities. In accordance with national legislation, they oversee compliance with irrigation regulations established by communities under specific terms and conditions. Functioning as an external regulatory body within the system, their intervention occurs upon request.
	Property-rights system (GS4)	Rights to use water for irrigation are allocated to landowners, who are inhabitants of the community. The inhabitants of Nikoleika uphold hydraulic property rights, which are heritable, transferring to descendants provided they remain actively involved in the communal irrigation system, including the maintenance of infrastructure.
	Operational-choice rules (GS5)	Guidelines for water distribution and management during irrigation were issued by the Rural Police for the communities that use water for irrigation at the national level. Then, every community specifies the rules according to its norms and customary laws.
	Collective-choice rules (GS6)	Decision-making processes involving the community council. The community council represents the community/village, and it has been elected by the community.
Actors (A)	Number of actors (A1)	Community members, rural police officers, community council, farmers, inhabitants, and neighbor communities (Eliki, Rizomylos, Rodia).
	Socioeconomic attributes (A2)	Including farmers, landowners, and possibly hired laborers.
	History or past experience (A3)	Previous experiences with irrigation practices and management.
	Location (A4)	All the actors are inhabitants of the community. Even the rural police officer could be a resident of the community.
	Leadership (A5)	The Community Council assumes the dual role of planning, strategizing, and implementing the irrigation system, in addition to its monitor and management responsibilities.
	Social capital (A6)	It manifests through informal networks, such as friendships and community gatherings in coffee shops and church, as well as formal institutions like community council.
	Knowledge of SES (A7)	Familiarity with local ecological systems. The actors are also intimately aware of the social bonds in the community.
	Importance of resource (A8)	Water is vital for rural production in the community.
	Technology used (A9)	Irrigation infrastructure is constructed by the irrigators.
Interactions (I)	Harvesting (I1)	Cultivating crops.
	Information sharing (I2)	farmers/villagers of the village exchange information about their crops, the status of the hydraulic infrastructure, and watering needs both among themselves and with villagers from neighboring communities.
	Deliberation process (I3)	There are discussions and negotiations among farmers/villagers on the management of water resource units and the irrigation network. Sharing and exchanging observations, reflections, and assessing risks.
	Conflicts (I4)	There are no conflicts between farmers over the allocation of water resource units or the use of the irrigation system in the community. Disputes and conflicts exist over the use of the irrigation system by neighboring communities. The types of conflicts that arose included disputes over land use and canal usage among neighboring communities. The communities involved were Nikoleika, Eliki, Rizomylos, and Rodia.
	Investment activities (I5)	Community members invest their personal labor in water infrastructure, contribute to their community’s budget, and also access funding from the central government, either through grants or loans.
	Lobbying activities (I6)	Neighboring communities were lobbying central government agencies for the use of the irrigation infrastructure of Nikoleika. The community council engages in lobbying activities to secure funding from the national government for the maintenance and enhancement of the irrigation infrastructure. The farmers lobby the Community Council to update the rules regarding water distribution based on changing weather patterns or crop needs.
	Self-organizing activities (Ι7)	The community decides on the maintenance of the irrigation system (tangible and intangible). There is voting for the election of the community council every 4 years.
	Monitoring and sanctioning activities (Ι9)	Hydronomeas is the guardian of the system, as are all its users. He oversees and supervises the management of the irrigation system, and he is responsible for the monitoring of the irrigation process throughout the planned irrigation period. He disseminates pertinent information to both the community council and the irrigation community. Penalties, ranging from fines to the forfeiture of irrigation privileges for specific instances during the irrigation season, are deliberated and enforced by the Community Council subsequent to Hydronomeas’s report.
	Evaluative activities (I10)	Annually, when the Community Council convenes to determine the irrigation season, it conducts a comprehensive assessment of the irrigation system’s performance and its environmental implications while also formulating strategies for enhancement. For example, during the 1950s and subsequent years, the duration of the irrigation season was extended. Initially spanning from June to September, it was later adjusted to run from May to October during the 1960s. Furthermore, recognizing the vital role of Hydronomeas in system maintenance, the fee for this position was increased, owing to the absence of applicants among the users. During the winter months, decisions are made regarding the requisite maintenance works for the infrastructure.
Outcomes	Social performance measures (O1)	Just distribution of water resource units between the farmers, considering the needs (of crops), the extent of crops, and the participation and collaboration of the members of the community. Application of management practices aimed at the “reasonable” use of water.
	Ecological performance measures (O2)	Maintenance of the irrigation system to withstand extreme climatic conditions, such as floods. Along the banks of the river, the community “creates” a forest in order to be protected from floods.
	Externalities to other SESs (O3)	The flow of water to neighboring communities can affect the availability of water.
Action Situation	Process of Monitoring [a] Environmental and [b] Social	[a] Environmental: Monitoring water levels, flow rates, and soil moisture [b] Social: Monitoring compliance with irrigation plan and rules by community members.
	Sanctioning	Imposing penalties for violations of irrigation rules and guidelines. Penalties range from fines to the withdrawal of irrigation rights.
	Conflict Resolution	Resolving disputes over water allocation or misuse within the community by the council.
	Provision [a] informational and [b] infrastructural	[a] Informational: Providing guidance on irrigation practices and scheduling. [b] Infrastructural: Maintaining and repairing hydraulic infrastructure.
	Appropriation	Allocating water based on crop requirements to resident farmers who have contributed to the maintenance of the irrigation system and have fulfilled their obligations (financial and personal work).
	Policymaking	Establishing and revising rules and regulations governing irrigation practices according to local conditions, weather conditions, and national law by the community council.

This irrigation initiative delineates clear boundaries delimited by the flow of the Kerynitis River (Figure 4), which serves as the principal water source. While the river acts as the primary “container” of water, historical records within the community archives document the establishment of two wells for irrigation. The community assumes responsibility for the maintenance and sanitation of these wells. The Kerynitis River and the cultivation land demarcate the spatial extent of the irrigation system and its resource units, together with hydraulic infrastructure, including a platform, a central canal (Figure 5), and ditches (Figure 6), which facilitate water movement. The interaction between these infrastructure elements and the natural milieu profoundly influences water resource availability and distribution, consequently impacting system productivity and efficiency. Measures aimed at enhancing efficiency, such as a plan for water allocation and routine maintenance or even a technological input, are implemented to optimize resource utilization in alignment with crop requirements and the socio-economic and political context of the local community. We are informed that the convergence of tree trunks was orchestrated to form the platform of this water outlet named “carouta” (Figure 2 and Figure 3), channeling towards the central canal (Figure 7). Carouta was placed in the river at the beginning of the irrigation period (usually in May), and it was removed by the end of irrigation (September and later October). Today, metal is used for its construction.

The primary canal, initially composed of earthen materials, has been the subject of community efforts to be built by concrete since 1955. This was eventually realized in 1965 through concerted individual labor efforts, communal financing, and loans by the central government. Hydraulic facilities such as central pipelines and irrigation canals facilitate water movement within the system and direct the water flow. The interplay between these infrastructure elements and the natural milieu profoundly influences water resource availability and distribution, consequently impacting system productivity and efficiency. Measures aimed at enhancing efficiency, such as self-governance, routine maintenance, communication, reciprocity, and trust, are implemented to optimize resource utilization in alignment with crops and the socio-economic character of the local community.

According to the decisions taken by the community council, every male inhabitant of the community was mandated to contribute two, three, four, or, in certain cases, five daily wages with a fee of 70 drachmas (the national currency until 2002) towards community welfare. Termed “personal labor,” this obligation was compulsory for males aged 18 and above. It was deemed exclusively male due to prevailing norms, which relegated women to domestic duties, precluding their participation in manual labor: “women were exclusively involved in the housework and did not know how to do manual work” is mentioned in the minute’s book of the community.

Personal labor was earmarked for community projects. These projects were initially reliant solely on individual contributions, though they were later supplemented by a community budget. Later, funding from state authorities was added. The imposition of personal labor was legally sanctioned and stipulated within a Royal Decree in Greece, and its origins date back to the Ottoman era of Greece. The exercise of this obligation remains unspecified, although one document mentions its extension until the end of May, acknowledging the impracticality of fulfilling it during the winter months.

Community projects included flood prevention measures necessitated by frequent inundations from the nearby river Kerynitis, maintenance of the primary canal facilitating water distribution to agricultural land, and safeguarding the forest against deforestation and fire hazards. Subsequently, with the advent of agricultural industrialization, the incorporation of tractors and trailers into farming practices necessitated an expansion of the concept of personal labor to encompass the utilization of agricultural machinery. Consequently, individuals owning such machinery were compelled to contribute both their personal labor and the use of their tractors, subject to a fee equivalent to triple the standard daily wage. In instances where a villager lacked the capacity to fulfill his personal labor obligation due to time constraints, a relative (a brother, a son) or a friend would undertake the task on his behalf. Failure to fulfill this obligation incurred a monetary penalty. However, in cases where the offender faced financial hardship, rendering them unable to fulfill their “personal labor” or pay the imposed penalty, the community council exercised discretion in providing relief to the needy.

7. Results

Community governance embodies a net of rules, regulations, norms, roles, and institutions that collectively form and interpret communal performance. This comprehensive system of processes, structures, and interactions encompasses the management of critical infrastructure and resources, such as the irrigation system, bridges, forests, and drinking water, among other vital domains.

The underlying community structure is characterized by its actors, who share goals, perceptions, experiences, interests, and a sense of shared responsibility. Through coordinated and collaborative efforts, the community carries out performances to address practical needs and priorities, thereby driving the resilience and robustness of the community until today. Community governance cultivates a cohesive societal framework, fostering transparency, trust, accountability, and sharing in broader processes than equitable access and distribution of resources. The interaction between institutional structures and actualized daily activities ultimately underpins the resilience of the community. The governance system, comprising both formal and informal institutions, actively engages in efforts to combat poverty and enhance living standards, all while preserving rural biodiversity and traditional knowledge related to land and its ecological function. Community governance thus represents an ample yet simple framework that guides every aspect of communal life.

The irrigation community and the village, through irrigation performance, develop a “taskscape” [108,109]. The collaborative and social nature of community action, along with its durability in time within a specific social and ecological setting, is embedded in everyday life. The array of tasks forms a complex pattern of performances through which people interact both with their peers—being in a relationship with one another—and with the ecological system. To foster cooperation and establish a common pattern of tasks, it is vital to cultivate trust and reciprocity among community members involved in provision, appropriation, and policymaking. Transparent communication channels facilitate the expression and exchange of opinions, concerns, considerations, and questions articulated by the local community.

The ordinary meeting cycle of the community council promotes dialogue, information sharing, and transparency. Reciprocity entails acknowledging personal labor contributions, providing support to those in need, participating in skill-sharing initiatives, ensuring that all members receive an equitable share of water for their crops, and involving all the members of the community in the governance and management of the irrigation system. Inclusive and democratic decision-making processes are essential to ensuring that diverse perspectives and needs are considered and discussed. Effective conflict resolution, grounded in community values and norms, ensures equitable resource access, devoid of favoritism or discrimination. Analyzing community archives, we are informed that the president of the community council presents an annual report detailing the community’s income and expenses to the council, usually submitted in December. This report is then publicly displayed in central locations to ensure all community members have access to it for review. This allows for transparency and provides an opportunity for community members to voice concerns or objections if any issues are identified. Additionally, it is the responsibility of the community council to compile a list of technical projects annually, along with their respective budgets and preliminary requirements, including the personal labor assessed in monetary terms. The Community Council makes decisions regarding water resource management, taxation for rural production, and infrastructure development, with villagers complying by contributing labor, taxes, and, in some cases, their own land to enhance communal resilience.

For example, in August 1936, the local community council decided to clear the forest along the Kerynitis River, a forest created by the community. In this decision, we are informed that 46 years before, in 1890, the river had flooded and destroyed the vineyards of the community. At that time, the community agreed to abandon part of their land along the river so that it could become a forest of willow and plane trees and thus protect the village, the land, and crops from floods. In 1936, the community made the decision to remove the accumulated rocks, wood, and other natural debris brought to the forest by river flow.

The relationship between communities and the Greek state (exogenous ecosystem) until 80s—the case study’s time frame—was complex and formed by diverse political and legal procedures. Communities were operating in a manner that aligned with their specific regional needs and conditions yet simultaneously adhered to the central legal framework and state policies. In many cases, communities served as the crucial interface between citizens and the state. For instance, the decision-making processes regarding resource management and infrastructure development often involved community participation in state political institutions. This did not guarantee that local voices were always heard or adequately represented. Nonetheless, there were occasions when communities encountered challenges or conflicts with the state. Disagreements over the implementation of state strategies or policies at the local level were not uncommon, highlighting tensions between centralized governance and local autonomy.

Nikoleika village functions both as a self-organized irrigation community and as a political institution, an administrative tool, and an official configuration. The state recognizes the community as a formal political institution, and state authorities provide financial resources. In certain situations, state officers offer their expertise, although it is not always readily available when requested.

The community, which functioned as the lowest political organizational entity of the Greek state until 1997, was instrumental in the operation of the rural landscape. The community’s predominantly agrarian population was electing a council to govern and manage the overall operational endeavors within the community, including the irrigation system. This community-based governance structure provided a decentralized framework for the organization of rurality. The democratically elected community council served as the coordinating body for organizing and monitoring the maintenance and utilization of communal assets, such as the irrigation network, bridges, roads, and communal buildings, that were vital to the livelihoods of the rural population. This grassroots, community-centric approach to rural administration persisted as the foundational political unit within the Greek state until legislative reforms in 1997 altered this longstanding governance model.

The taskscape of the irrigation system encompasses social and ecological processes that ensure its operation. Through an interactive dialogue, the irrigation community formulates decisions and strategies, implements them, and subsequently evaluates their outcomes. Adjustments and modifications are promoted through evaluative activities and feedback processes, fostering adaptability and continuous learning within the system. For example, the irrigation period was defined in the years before 1940, from May to August. In the 1950s, it was extended to September, while from 1960 onwards, the irrigation period was defined from May to October. However, it was frequently documented in the archives that “if conditions warranted an extension of the irrigation period, the Community Council would make a corresponding decision to prolong it.” However, there is no record indicating whether the council opted to extend the irrigation season during the current irrigation practice.

The state defines the basic outline of community irrigation; for example, the law states that irrigation regulation must indicate the irrigation period, the extent of the irrigated crops, the amount to be paid by those who use the water, etc. Each community then specifies it according to its priorities, following the general principles set by the central government. Furthermore, the state has designated the rural police as responsible for monitoring whether rural communities have established irrigation regulations. This agency is informed by the community when regulations are implemented, and it will intervene upon request.

For the local irrigation system, the community employs the “hydronomeas” as water guardian to monitor the distribution and oversee maintenance works. “Hydronomeas” operates within the hydraulic boundaries of the community, paid by the community, adhering to the regulations issued by the community that outline his duties in detail. Community regulation advances local problem-solving and adjustments and “hydronomeas”works on it.

The interplay between grassroots, self-organizing structures (e.g., community-based irrigation systems) and hierarchical structures of state governance (e.g., rural police) holds the potential to influence the performance of SES, given the phenomenon of ‘mutual causality’ [106,110] among levels of governance—ranging from local to regional and state scales.

In this case study, the community and the state ‘flow calmly’ within the irrigation system, operating in a cooperative rather than antagonistic or conflictual manner. The community has developed problem-solving skills, participation in decision-making processes, active involvement, meaningful and committed engagement, a sense of responsibility, collective ownership, norms and values that intertwine with the irrigation performance, holding themselves accountable, and ensuring that the benefits and responsibilities are equitably distributed among all members of the community. Consequently, this communal irrigation framework embodies principles congruent with the theoretical frameworks articulated by Elinor Ostrom, particularly her eight design principles, as evidenced in her analysis of governing the commons.

By promoting dialogue and cooperation among different levels of governance, cross-scale governance mechanisms can facilitate the exchange of knowledge and resources, leading to more effective decision-making and the implementation of management strategies. Recognizing the community’s authority in the governance framework enhances the resilience and sustainability of social ecosystem services. By valuing community wisdom and local performances, governance structures can foster equilibrium between human activities and natural systems, thus promoting the long-term health and vitality of ecosystems. These factors are often interconnected and interdependent, and their effective integration into governance structures contribute to more sustainable and equitable management of ecosystem services.

This irrigation system can be seen as a tangible representation of the shared cognitive framework within the community, encapsulating principles of organization, functionality, adaptability, and mutual understanding within a delimited socio-economic setting. It serves as a manifestation of water perception, rural performances, and communal governance, forming a systematic scaffold for apprehending communal patterns. The irrigation infrastructure organizes access to water, mirroring a methodical apprehension of natural resource utilization and appropriation. Furthermore, its primary function revolves around securing a sufficient water supply for agrarian harvest, facilitating the community’s functionality and navigation of the dilemmas and challenges inherent within the governance reality, and accommodating shifting ecological qualities. This irrigation system was not developed by an isolated, egalitarian community deeply connected with nature. It represents collaborative efforts to acknowledge and manage the interdependence between society and the natural world, shaped by specific resource utilization patterns, knowledge systems, governance frameworks, and techno-political interventions as various socionature commons [111].

8. Discussion

The irrigation system, as a commons, requires a community that uses irrigation water, appropriates the river in coordination and collaboration, and resolves any disputes related to its access and use, creating a shared identity. Regarding environmental sustainability, traditional communal irrigation systems compose landscapes that protect biodiversity, regulate the hydrological cycle, and recharge underground aquifers and springs through water filtered by irrigation canals and surface irrigation while making the soil fertile and preventing bracking, contributing to an increase in relative humidity, and reducing maximum temperatures. Furthermore, an irrigation system is an effective tool in the effort to adapt to climate change and an important part of local knowledge.

Organizing the study of an SES in this irrigation system, we analyze the social interactions and relational configurations that influence institutional performance in the governance of the commons. Treating a case of communal irrigation in Greece as common, our intention is to diagnose the institutional rationality according to which the community operates and prescribes roles and performances and the indirect and concealed manifestations of policy that counteract or sustain institutional structures. Communal irrigation systems are an example of how people adapt to their natural environment, and at the same time, the landscape is transforming. Knowledge, skills, rationalism, and imaginaries held by the community drive the invention and operation of the irrigation scheme.

The motivation to engage in collective work, a traditional communal irrigation system, is not solely predicated on a transactional relationship between self-interested individuals purported to be inherently rational actors. This perspective challenges the traditional economic model that conceptualizes human behavior as driven by the maximization of individual utility through strategic cost–benefit analyses. Rather, the impetus for collaborative endeavors may stem from alternative social and normative properties that transcend the narrow confines of rationality and self-interest, but are rooted in trust, solidarity, and reciprocity. In this community framework of social interaction, action situations and taskscapes are developed, fostering a collective identity. Institutions are challenged in capturing the way to generate incentives and outcomes combined with specific natural, economic, cultural, environmental, and ecological conditions. There is “no better way” to organize irrigation activities [15,112,113] because the rules governing the availability and access to a system must be introduced, applied, and revised with time by the appropriators themselves. When institutions function, opportunism is greatly reduced. The temptations associated with free riding or cheating can never be completely eliminated, but institutions can keep these factors restrained [106]. To reduce opportunistic behavior, it is necessary to activate some coordination activities, such as monitoring and sanctioning. Lack of supervision and enforcement, unfair distribution of monitoring costs, and expensive conflict resolution processes can erode the system of mutual obligations and agreements [114]. Controlling opportunistic behaviors involves both reducing parasitizing temptations and ensuring a high probability of discovering violators when they break a rule. The introduction of internal commitment and punishment mechanisms can play a significant role in enforcing shared values and establishing trust. These mechanisms incentivize users to respect and adhere to norms, thereby fostering a sense of collective responsibility and accountability. Our research has identified that actor interactions and their shared values contribute to enhancing governance performance and mitigating free riding. Social capital, regarded as an inherent characteristic of individuals, improves their capacity to address collective action problems by promoting collective responsibility and accountability [115]. It is a concept that encompasses those qualities of a community that affect its ability to address problems of collective action. It could be the outcome of the previous development and cultivation of close interpersonal relationships and networks or the result of a preceding process of relationship-building and community engagement.

In our case, social capital reflects a legacy extending over centuries where an autonomous community has operated as a distinct political formation and self-governing unit. Trust is indeed the fundamental element in linking social capital and collective action within the social–ecological system and its variables. In social settings, trust is enhanced when individuals are reputable, foster networking among peers, and engage within institutions that encourage ethical conduct [116].

According to Ostrom and Walker [114], most individuals exhibit conditional trust, trustworthiness, and cooperation, influenced by the potential outcomes of their actions and the intentions of others. Once established, these factors, in turn, enhance the community’s ability to govern its commons and promote the continuous process of institutional adjustment necessary for long-term sustainable management of natural resources [117]. This community’s historical experiences preserve and depict its capacity to identify a challenge—correlated with the standard of living—and then its actors to cooperate. The model of cooperation for irrigation management described in this case study implies that fair and equitable governance of common pool resources can take place without the presence of external enforcement agencies, privatization, or strong internal sanctions. The community overcomes the tragedy of the commons through trust, cooperation, reciprocity, and direct democracy.

The communal management of common pool resources is neither rare nor necessarily unfeasible, despite the perceived complexity. Individuals participate in the collective endeavor as their institutions cultivate the expectation that other actors will collaborate. However, in this case study, institutions are interconnected to such an extent that the choice of whether to contribute or parasitize affects not only irrigation but also the overall roles and potential interactions that are developed within the community. The irrigation community and the community as a framework for the operation and organization of social and political life are identical.

Resilience performance emerges through collaboration. The elaborate nets among the economy, the community, and nature, marked by both conflict and alignment, serve as a framework for creating spaces where ‘appropriate’ resilience for the local landscape can flourish. We conceptualize resilience as a dynamic process that emerges within co-evolving socio-environmental systems, wherein individuals pursue security in their livelihoods [118]. There is no predefined plan for resilience processes. ‘Equitable resilience’ [119], exemplified by this irrigation system, is defined as the process of building collective, emotional, democratic, and fair relationships with both people and nature, ensuring long-term livelihood security. We acknowledge that this type of resilience may contradict modern perceptions and be incongruous with policies of growth, but it is in accordance with the long-term viability of nature and the autonomy of local communities in governing natural resources. This concept of equitable resilience resonates strongly with the growing recognition that contributions from every segment of the global community, including local performances and peoples, are essential to achieving the United Nations (UN) sustainable development goals [120].

Local governments and community organizations play pivotal roles as key stakeholders in advancing global Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) through their capacity to formulate and implement sustainability policies at local levels. However, as perceptions of sustainability become normalized through globalized, neoliberal, and capitalist discourses, alternative narratives of sustainability are often marginalized [121]. This article addresses this issue by positioning a local perception of sustainability within a relational assemblage framework to map the local governance contexts with the SES tool. Employing a diffractive storytelling approach through the SES variables, this study maps the perception of sustainability, providing an emplaced and situated account of how the community governance landscape is (trans)formed through co-implicated relationships with social and material forces. Using the taskscape assemblage through the SES framework offers a valuable conceptual approach for enhancing the development and implementation of sustainability policies by accounting for the relational nature of socio-ecological systems.

Community governance that engages target beneficiaries of sustainable development drives can contribute to the real sustainability of the world. This perspective emphasizes the importance of local knowledge, community autonomy, and respectful relationships with nature in fostering genuine, long-term sustainability that may challenge conventional growth-oriented paradigms, offering more holistic and equitable paths to resilience and development.

9. Conclusions

The presented case demonstrates that the Nikoleika communal irrigation system in Greece provides valuable insights into the role of rural environmental governance in fostering sustainable and resilient water management practices. This community governance structure transcends mere water access solutions, embodying a socially integrated system of institutional frameworks, actors’ interactions, and ecological processes. The need for water management and fair allocation drives community members to interact to make decisions and undertake collaborative governance of the irrigation system.

In our work, we identified a constructive correlation between the endurance of the system and the presence of a deeply rooted body of shared values. The community functions independently, without external support, by utilizing the natural flow and through investments by a population with limited financial means. Social capital, trust, and reciprocity enable the community to overcome management constraints embedded in the commons challenge.

Our empirical analysis suggests that commons governance requires a process that adequately considers not only the characteristics of the community and the ecological conditions but also trust as a co-produced value shared by the actors, crystallized in governance institutions. Trust and shared spaces are indeed the drivers of collective mastery and the foundation of social praxis within the community, as well as tools for elaborating the institutional function. The motivation to engage in collective work in a traditional communal irrigation system is not solely predicated on a transactional relationship between self-interested individuals purported to be inherently rational actors. This perspective challenges the traditional economic model that conceptualizes human behavior as driven by the maximization of individual utility through strategic cost–benefit analyses.

The Nikoleika community does not represent a hydrosocial utopia because it is not. Its effectiveness relies on actor interactions, institutional arrangements, and the water’s unique power to connect people. However, this irrigation system is a hydrosocial formation that challenges dominant paradigms and advocates for alternative methods of organizing and managing water resources that endure over time, with incentives grounded in solidarity, reciprocity, trust, and interdependence promoting resilience.

Additionally, comparative studies with communal irrigation systems in different geographical regions can provide valuable information about common success factors and challenges, especially in the face of the climate crisis. Exploring the potential for new technologies and innovations to enhance the efficiency and sustainability of traditional irrigation systems is also a pertinent area of study, considering that the technology has remained largely unchanged for over a century.

To gain a comprehensive understanding of the Nikoleika community’s irrigation system, it is essential to continue research from 1980 on. This research should encompass the formal supervision of communal irrigation systems by new institutions as well as their informal management by the local community.

Despite the diminished institutional significance of the community irrigation system due to the abandonment of rural territories in Greece and its impact on smallholder farmers’ practices, it remains crucial to examine why this communal irrigation system continues to influence rural collective action in the governance of the irrigation commons. This analysis is particularly relevant given the context of ongoing rural abandonment and the limited economic performance of irrigation practices today for the community.

The persistence of this system’s influence on collective behavior warrants investigation, as it may provide insights into the resilience of traditional resource management structures in the face of demographic and economic challenges. Understanding these dynamics can inform policy approaches to rural development and sustainable resource management in evolving rural landscapes.