Downloads provided by UsageCounts
Water resources management and climate change represent two necessarily interdisciplinary topics in which the natural and social sciences must be integrated [1]. Although this nexus was generally overlooked in the accurate statistics and modelling literature by mostly focusing on understanding the natural processes, a paradigm shift is required to put social in the modelling loop [2]. Consequently, water domains (physical, social, political, and symbolic matters) should be entwined in research configurations by considering social learning, personal experience, observations, and human choices. As argued by [3], deepen social perception is fundamental for two main reasons: as a key component of the socio-political context and as the first step for behaviour transformation and attitude change. In this line, social and behavioural sciences have discussed associative processing methods, such as social surveys, to monitor the nature, extent, significance, and influence of personal experience regarding human-nature interactions [4]. Farmers develop their activity supporting the complexity of interrelated nature and human systems characterized by biophysical conditions and social behaviour [5]. Consequently, farmers are in a favourable position to provide first-hand observations and narratives of water resources availability and climate change perceived impacts [6]. Could social surveys contribute to deepening farmers’ behaviour on water supply and climate change impacts while providing new social scenarios to advance understanding of data-mining, processing, and modelling of human-water systems? This contribution provides an upgraded and comprehensive overview of the social surveys added-value in building a methodological approach and defining an intellectual structure to monitoring farmers’ behaviour on water-climate change nexus. The literature review will provide new insides to be discussed for policy formulation and implementation at the local and the regional scale. [1] G. Escribano-Francés, P. Quevauviller, E. San Martín González, and E. Vargas Amelin, Environmental Science and Policy 69, 1 (2017) [2] M. Giuliani, A. Castelletti, and C. Gandolfi, Water Resources Research 52: 6928 (2016) [3] L. Antronico, R. Coscarelli, F. De Pascale, and D. Di Matteo, Sustainability 12: 6985 (2020) [4] J.R. Marlon, S. van der Linden, P. Howe, A. Leiserowitz, S.H.L, Woo, and K. Broad, Journal of Risk Research 22: 936 (2018) [5] M. Abid, J. Scheffran, U.A. Schneider, and E. Elahi, Environmental Management 63: 110 (2019) [6] K. Talanow, E.N. Topp, J. Loos, and B. Martin-Lopez, Journal of Rural Studies 81: 203 (2021)
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 0 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
| views | 6 | |
| downloads | 5 |

Views provided by UsageCounts
Downloads provided by UsageCounts