1. Introduction
Seasonality (Kelly et al. 2018; Tucker et al. 2014) and rainfall variability (Mirzabaev et al. 2019) affect water insecurity in smallholder farming households in the drylands of sub-Saharan Africa. The Sahel region of West Africa—which is dominated by subsistence crop and livestock production (Mertz et al. 2009)—is one of the most famous examples of recorded rainfall variability, water insecurity, and famine (Hulme 2001; Rasmussen et al. 2016). The impact of climate change can vary among different groups, and its effects are expected to further worsen preexisting household vulnerabilities and widening gender inequalities in water security (Huyer and Partey 2020; Sultana 2018). In recent years, international research on household water insecurity has increased, bringing social science expertise to the core of water research (e.g., Adams et al. 2020; Harris et al. 2018; Jepson et al. 2017a; Wutich and Brewis 2014; Budds et al. 2014). This more recent view, known as a relational perspective, focuses on cultural dynamics, social structural inequities, and human capabilities (Jepson et al. 2017b) and is needed now more than ever in gender roles and water insecurity literature (Brewis et al. 2023; Adams 2024; Shah et al. 2023; Nunbogu et al. 2023; Tallman et al. 2023; Harris et al. 2017; Bisung and Elliott 2017; Geere and Cortobius 2017; Cole 2017). The severity of drought in the Sahel region of West Africa underscores the need to better understand farmers’ vulnerability and adaptation (Mortimore and Adams 2001) to water insecurity in that region. Understanding variation among and within households with different structures, income, and assets—and how gender roles and relations within these households influence seasonal water insecurity (Mason 2012)—is even more crucial.
This paper explores gender dynamics around water insecurity within and across cropping and livestock herding households, which are two different but complementary climate-sensitive livelihood activities. The devastating effects of climate-related disasters on the livelihoods of these poor, vulnerable, and marginalized rural households—including disadvantaged groups such as livestock farmers, women and girls—has been widely documented in Africa (Giannini et al. 2021; Balehegn and Kelemework 2013; Schmidhuber and Tubiello 2007). Yet, there is still a lot to learn about intrahousehold water insecurity experiences and differences across livelihood groups. Our consideration of livelihood differences was informed by previous studies that found that, when exposed to drought, livestock farmers—generally living in marginal exposed areas with more variable hydroclimate and conflict—experienced more widespread, severe, and longer food insecurity than did cropping farmers (Anderson et al. 2021). In northern Kenya, sedentary livestock farmers, women, and children were found to be particularly vulnerable to seasonal water insecurity due to sociocultural and water governance systems (Balfour et al. 2020). Yet, most of the studies in Africa have focused on crop farmers and/or the herding activities of male livestock farmers away from their home and overlooked women’s complex roles within their households (Yurco 2024; Wangui 2008; Ducrotoy et al. 2017).
New social and ecological shifts exacerbated by climate change have reshaped livelihood activities, leading to a renegotiation of traditional gender norms and division of labor in crop-livestock farming households (El Nagar 2001; Wangui 2008), with potential impacts on water-related responsibilities. This is even more important during men’s migration and/or transition into nonagricultural work and the resulting feminization of rural subsistence activities. Therefore, one needs to understand gender roles within households as performative rather than structurally cemented (Lindsay 2007). Our intention here is to contribute to the much-needed gender-responsive and inclusive climate, water, and development policies (Lau et al. 2021; Huyer and Partey 2020; Cook et al. 2019; Denton 2002).
a. The unresolved questions about men
Following the call for a more relational understanding of water insecurity, researchers have compared the experiences of people living within the same household and advanced our understanding of the emotional aspects of household water insecurity (Tsai et al. 2016; Wutich 2009; Wutich et al. 2020), biocultural coping strategies (Brewis et al. 2020), intrahousehold buffering (Maxfield 2020), and decision-making autonomy (Bisung and Dickin 2021). Many of these have touched on gendered roles and practices around household water but none have centered analysis on them. Most studies on water insecurity have mainly focused on women because research has long argued that women’s role in water management requires focused analysis (Meinzen-Dick and Zwarteveen 1998). Much of the foundational literature relating to women’s gendered roles, responsibilities, and burdens related to water acquisition and household water use (Sultana 2011, 2009; Ray 2007; Roy and Crow 2004; Crow and Sultana 2002) indicated that women were disproportionately responsible for acquiring water, were exposed to dangers while fetching and transporting water, experienced financial strain due to need to find the money and time to acquire water, and had elevated distress and even heightened risk of household and intimate partner violence (Choudhary et al. 2020; Geere et al. 2018; Naiga et al. 2017; Caruso et al. 2015; Van Houweling 2016; Stevenson et al. 2016; Wutich and Ragsdale 2008). Because of these early findings, the underlying assumption in existing water insecurity is that water insecurity is largely a women’s burden.
More recently, however, research on the global patterning of water fetching reveals that men can often be more responsible for water acquisition in some settings than previously assumed (Geere and Cortobius 2017; Dery et al. 2021). Other studies have found that men in extremely water-insecure households, like women, suffer from psychosocial distress and mental ill health when water runs scarce (Maxfield 2020), and some evidence indicates that men engaged in farming livelihoods may be particularly at risk (Hanigan et al. 2012; Alston and Kent 2008). In Burkina Faso, Roncoli et al. (2019) found that factors such as gender and involvement in irrigated agriculture influenced whether a person reported sufficient or insufficient water security. Beyond this, in other parts of the world, there is some evidence that men are recruited to work alongside women to buy, carry, or otherwise acquire water when the household runs out, working desperately (Wutich 2012, 2009). It is unclear whether past findings underestimated men’s involvement or if gender roles around water acquisition are currently shifting, but more recent literature has indicated that men are potentially burdened by household water challenges alongside women. This new research raises important questions about how masculinities—which are currently understudied—shape experiences of water management, insecurity, and suffering (Adams 2024; Brewis et al. 2023). There are many unanswered questions about the way that men, gender roles, and water-related responsibilities shape water insecurity experiences for men relative to women.
b. Why gender and livelihoods?
The aim of our research is to derive and test some basic research questions regarding proposed mechanisms for why water insecurity would be experienced differently based on gender, and how livelihoods could affect gender responsibilities. We examined two distinct categories of men and women who are involved in different livelihood strategies, thus moving beyond assumptions of men or women as monolithic groups. We compared crop and livestock farmers—who differ linguistically, economically, and culturally—living near each other in the same semiarid rural zone where subsistence and tradition together shape gendered roles around water in slightly different ways. In this region, crop and livestock farmers—whose occupational categories are historically tangled with ethnic identities—share the same space, adapt to similar climatic stresses, but they sustain their livelihoods and adapt to change in vastly different ways (Bassett 1988; Benjaminsen and Ba 2021; Dafinger and Pelican 2006; Mortimore 2010; Turner 2004). The contrast between cropping and livestock performance among Fulani livestock farmers and Mossi crop farmers in Burkina Faso is useful for understanding the complex intersection of livelihoods, gender, and water experiences.
Comparing Mossi and Fulani women’s vulnerability to climate-related risks in Burkina Faso, Dickin et al. (2021) found that during the dry season, Mossi women—who participated more in income generating activities—reported being overburdened with water-related tasks when water was scarce whereas Fulani women—who did not fetch water for productive purposes—were content with the division of labor but had access to poorer water quality. While Dickin and colleagues concluded that livelihood diversification and access to extra income increased Mossi women’s adaptive capacity, in the dry season—when household water collection labor competed with other livelihood activities—securing water for income-generating activities added more stress on Mossi women. Unlike Fulani women livestock farmers in Burkina Faso, in northern Kenya, Samburu women livestock farmers reported being overburdened with water provision for homebased livestock, especially in households with large number of herds—which tended to have more water insecurity relative to households with smaller herds (Balfour et al. 2020). Household labor available to fetch water depends on household size (Ducrotoy et al. 2017) and influences total domestic water use (Tucker et al. 2014). Balfour et al. (2020) found that social capital significantly increased the resilience of Samburu women livestock farmers for water stress in comparison with those with diversified livelihoods. The Samburu women’s ability to mobilize their social networks (e.g., kinship, friends, and group membership) helped address water fetching labor issues since they could borrow water from those networks when they were unable to fetch water themselves.
Our study further adds to Dickin et al. (2021) research design by examining intrahousehold dynamics and comparing men and women within the same household. Building on their study, which compared women’s water experiences in the dry season, we examined the experiences of men and women crop and livestock farmers in the rainy season (May–July) when the water supply is relatively higher in good years.
Given the theoretical discussion above, and with the guidance available from empirical studies, we identify the following research questions in this preliminary study:
-
Do husbands report less household water insecurity severity than do their matched wives?
-
Does the difference between men and women correspond to gendered roles and responsibilities around household water? (That is, do those who normally complete the relevant water tasks within each group report more severity?)
-
Do differences between crop and livestock farming households reflect different gender role arrangements of household labor?
2. Methods
a. Study site
We conducted fieldwork in eight rural villages (see Fig. 1) near the regional towns of Ziniaré and Loumbila in the Oubritenga Province (Plateau Central region) and Kaya and Korsimoro in the Sanmatenga Province (Center-North region) in Burkina Faso, a semiarid country in the Sahel region of West Africa. Burkina Faso is highly dependent on rainfed agriculture and livestock husbandry and limited severely by poor soil quality, land erosion, and water scarcity. This region receives between 600 and 900 mm of annual rainfall. The major rainy season starts in early May and ends in late September. The timing and intensity of the rain season is increasingly changing and affecting agro-pastoral activities and water availability (mostly for the worse).
A map of the study site. The geospatial data are from the Geographical Institute of Burkina (IGB).
Citation: Weather, Climate, and Society 16, 1; 10.1175/WCAS-D-22-0105.1
The study site is home to Mossi farmers who are the largest ethnic group in the country that is sedentary and indigenous to the study site, and Fulani livestock farmers—the second largest ethnic group that is semisedentary—moved into the area in the 1970s and 1980s to escape droughts in the northern parts of the country in which they originated. Other Fulani herders have come in more recently to take care of livestock entrusted to them by Mossi farmers. The length of time in which a settlement has been in an area is associated with household wealth and livelihoods, with older settlers thriving better due to their ability to occupy the most suitable areas while newer settlers (migrants) tend to live farther away and have poorer access to markets, transhumance routes, infrastructure, and grazing reserves (Ducrotoy et al. 2017). While living permanently near a river can be considered a key asset for a farmer’s livelihood, living in wet areas increases livestock trypanosomiasis risk (Odeniran et al. 2018).
The annual livelihood cycles are associated differently with water between cropping and livestock households. The Fulani are expert cattle herders who move their cattle seasonally to wetter regions, looking for adequate pasture and water. Toward the end of the dry season, resettled herders—who are typically men—begin to migrate with livestock toward other locations (e.g., Ghana) where rainfall starts earlier during which farming communities began cropping in the area. The Fulani return once the rainy season is fully under way or after harvest. Fulani women and children typically stay in the settlement. Seasonal mobility is essential for the survival of Fulani livestock in the harsh Sahel region, especially with the rising local impacts of climate change (Hein et al. 2009). Fulani livestock is constantly on the move, sometimes with paid herders, even with Fulani livestock owners becoming less mobile and travel shorter distances (Adriansen 2008; Adriansen and Nielsen 2002). Fulani livestock farmers have been diversifying livelihood strategies to respond to social, ecological, and political changes that impact livestock production. Diversification includes growing crops, developing businesses, or migrating to neighboring coastal countries for wage labor, as also observed in farming communities (Hampshire 2002).
In contrast, Mossi crop farmers—who traditionally grow subsistence crops such as millet, sorghum, and maize, among others—are sedentary (Izard 1970; Marchal 1983). Mossi crop farmers’ use of water revolves around rainfed agriculture, gardening, livestock, and domestic use. They are increasingly raising livestock; however, it is different and at a lesser extent when compared with livestock farmers. They intensively stall-feed livestock with agro-industrial by-products (e.g., cottonseed cake and bran) and crop residues. Mossi livestock husbandry includes cattle, sheep, goats, donkeys, pigs, chickens, and guinea fowl. Historically, Mossi farmers have owned livestock that they occasionally choose to entrust to their Fulani neighbors for herding based on friendship and trust (Breusers et al. 1998). Women owning small stocks has been linked with household dietary diversity, income generation, and food security in crop-livestock farming households (Njuki and Sanginga 2013).
Across the region, farmer–herder conflicts over land and water resources have been widely documented (Ilboudo Nébié et al. 2020; Turner 2004; Thébaud and Batterbury 2001). In past decades, these preexisting tensions have been fueled by stereotypes that have given rise to a biased single story linking one ethnic group—Fulani livestock farmers—to rising insecurity in the Sahel (Moritz and Mbacke 2022).
b. Data collection
The study received clearance from Burkina Faso’s national health ethics review board in April 2021, and the two trained Mooré-speaking Burkinabe research assistants (RAs) have successfully completed the Canadian TriCouncil Policy Statement Tutorial Course on Research Ethics. Interviews were conducted face to face by in three intermittent phases (due to COVID restrictions) over the course of three weeks between May and July 2021 and three days in January 2022. This period was also marked by increased political, social, and economic instabilities from violent extremism, COVID-19, massive ongoing internal displacements (although not as pronounced in the research zone at the time of fieldwork as elsewhere in the country), rising internal xenophobia, and violent clashes against Fulani herders and sedentary farming groups in Sahel (Benjaminsen and Ba 2021; Cline 2021). Fieldwork schedule, site selection, and recruitment were also constantly adapted in line with travel advisories.
We used a network sampling strategy in which we asked a total of five village officials and extension agents to recruit a sample of 160 households who met the following criteria: 80 households who engaged primarily with cropping, and 80 households who engaged primarily with livestock husbandry. The network sampling strategy was the most culturally appropriate approach for study recruitment, considering the social and political context, local farmer–herder and ethnic tensions, and lack of trust and reluctance from rural communities—Fulani in particular—to participate in research. Table 1 shows the estimated total population size in each of the study villages in 2019 from a nationwide census; however, the true size of Mossi and Fulani communities in these villages is unknown due to not being able to conduct a more detailed village census. Even so, the size of this purposive sample exceeds the minimum required for detecting and comparing cultural patterning (Wutich et al. 2023, manuscript submitted to Field Methods; Hennink and Kaiser 2022; Hagaman and Wutich 2017).
Our sampling strategy did not recruit according to ethnicity due to the interconnectedness of ethnicity and livelihood strategies. For example, in our final study sample, we found that all households engaged primarily in cropping were Mossi (n = 103). On the contrary, 71% (n = 55) of households engaging primarily in livestock raising were Peulh (also known as Fulani). The remainder were Mossi who relied more on intensive livestock production—which is different from Fulani’s extensive herding. Two households were removed from the study due to incomplete surveys.
The extension agents and village leaders were each given 10 000 FCFA (∼US$24) for gas and calling cards to help recruit participants; however, the study participants were interviewed in their households and were not paid for their time. Consent forms were shared before the surveys were performed to give participants enough time to make an informed decision. Results from phase 1 helped revise the survey questionnaires to be administered to farmers in phase 2.
In phase 2, the RAs administered a survey downloaded on tablets via Kobo Toolbox to examine food and water insecurity, food and water borrowing, household water sources, and household water-related tasks among farmers and herders. The male RA surveyed men, and the female RA questioned women separately but during the same period. Within the selected households, 31.9% of Mossi men and 7.7% of Fulani men were polygynous. As part of the recruitment process, the male head in polygynous households was asked to identify and share the name of the wife they wanted the team to speak with during data collection. On the day of the survey, if the designated wife was not available, the husband was asked to refer the team to a different wife of their choosing who was available.
The initial analyses of survey data identified questions that would need to be addressed through semistructured interviews during phase 3. Phase 3 was conducted in January 2022 over the course of three days with five Mossi crop farmers (three men and two women) and five Fulani livestock farmers (three men and two women). For safety reasons, data in this phase were only collected in the village of Tamissi, one of the closest to the capital city Ouagadougou. At this location we intentionally aimed to recruit and compare Mossi and Fulani perspectives on their livelihood strategies, interethnic interactions, gender division of labor and water sources, storage, and transportation. We chose to talk to only 10 participants due to limited time, budget, and safety reasons. While both husbands and wives participated in phase 2, in phase 3 only one household member was reinvited to participate and answer more general household and community-related questions. While recruitment materials and questions in phase 3 focused only on water insecurity experience, materials in phase 1 and 2 integrated other topics (e.g., food insecurity and soil and water conservation experiences) in addition to water insecurity. These differences might have had some implications in participant selection, consent, and engagement.
Seasonality may have also affected participant recruitment and answers. Phase 1 was conducted in May 2021 during the transition period between the long dry and rainy season when food stocks were depleted, dry water points were just starting to be filled with water from the first rains, and most farming households were preparing their fields for cropping. During this period, transhumant herders had moved livestock toward more humid areas of the countries in the south and in neighboring countries such as Ghana where grass and water were more available. The rainy seasons of 2020—a year before fieldwork phase 1— and 2021 were considered to be average to above average only in central Burkina Faso (dry spells were recorded in other regions), favorable for the earlier than normal growth of pasture and crop growth (FEWSNET 2020; WFP 2021).
In phase 2, data were collected between June and July 2021 when the rainy and lean season was well under way, and most households had better access to water. This period also corresponded to a time when herders returned to their settlement and were busy keeping livestock away from farming areas, which is a cause for highly mediatized farmer–herder conflicts. Phase 3 was conducted in January 2022 during the dry season and postharvest period. In a good rainfall year, this is a time when households had relatively more food than during the rest of the year; there was less water than in July but more water than in early May. Some herders had already left with livestock toward more humid regions while others planned to leave soon.
c. Key analytic variables
1) Household water insecurity experiences
Our key outcome variable in most analyses was spouses’ reports of household water insecurity. This outcome was assessed using the cross-culturally validated 12-item Household Water Insecurity Experiences Scale (HWISE; reported in Table 4) (Young et al. 2019a,b). The scale items relate to household water insecurity events in the last 30 days, based on reports of never (no days, coded as 0), rarely (1–2 days, coded as 1), sometimes (3–10 days, coded as 2), and often or always (≥11 days, coded as 3). The 12-item responses were then summed to provide a score on a scale of 0–36, where higher scores suggest more water insecurity. Each spouse reported independently on this scale, and dyad concordance or discordance in the summary HWISE scores was also considered in analyses.
2) Household water-related task
We asked both wives and their matched husbands who in the household had primary or significant responsibility for specific household tasks that require water (including fetching water, watering household animals, watering household food plants, preparing meals, doing laundry, and keeping the home clean). We relied on each individual’s own reports and coded each as 1 (contributes significantly) or 0 (does not) at the individual level. Husband and wife results were then summed respectively into a “number of household water tasks” interval measure for each. We also identified with a dummy variable (1 yes; 0 no) households where both spouses reported substantial water responsibilities.
3) Water borrowing
We asked wives and husbands if they had borrowed water from other households and how frequently over the last 30 days.
4) Household water
As water insecurity screeners provided outcome variables in many of the analyses, we used estimates of the amount of water the household consumed in a typical day to characterize household levels of water availability. This was based on the average of husband’s and wife’s reported volume (converted to liters) consumed daily in all tasks, including care of crops, animals, food preparation, and washing.
5) Household food insecurity
Food insecurity status in the last four weeks was based on the standard 9-item Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS), which captures household food situation in the last 30 days (0 = never, rarely = 1, sometimes = 2, often = 3) (Coates et al. 2007). Total scores can be between 0 (fully food secure) and 27 (the most severely food insecure). Husbands and wives each responded on the HFIAS independently for their households, as they did with the HWISE.
d. Analytic approach
We used simple descriptive statistics to explain general elements of farmers in comparison with herding household water contexts (e.g., sources, transport, use, and sharing). We supplemented this analysis with Pearson’s correlation to describe within household associations between key factors like water insecurity and food insecurity measures.
To test for differences in mean reported household water insecurity across different livelihood strategies, we used independent sample t tests. Paired t tests were then used to identify mean differences by gender within couple dyads and to identify if men versus women perceived household water insecurity differently than their matched spouses. These analyses were conducted in SPSS version 26, with alpha set at 0.05.
A thematic analysis of the 10 follow-up semistructured interviews allowed us to build on the field observations and closed-ended data by comparing, contrasting, and identifying patterns in gender and livelihoods. These comparisons focused on the perceived gender division of labor as it relates to household overall duties, water storage and transportation, and interethnic relationships among other questions raised in the survey analysis.
3. Results
a. Water insecurity: Crop and livestock farmers’ experiences based on semistructured interviews
1) Water sources
In the study site, tube-protected wells or boreholes, protected spring water, and rainwater collection were the primary water source for domestic uses, followed by surface water, unprotected spring, unprotected borehole water, and others. In the rainy season, very few people purchased water from other households, and no one gave water as a loan or gift to other households in the past 30 days.
2) Water transportation
The means of transporting water were socially differentiated by gender and livelihood activity and intertwined with ethnicity. The most used means of transporting water by men were bicycles, motorbikes, and donkey carts. The most used means of transporting water by women were bicycles, donkey carts, and on their head. Women did not typically transport water on motorbikes. In the study area, motorbikes were generally owned by men. Means of transporting water differed across livelihood groups. Five of five females in crop farming households used donkey carts as compared with one of five females in livestock farming households (20%). Donkey-drawn carts were key assets in farming households. These carts were used to load and transport crops, firewood, water, people, and so on.
Transporting water on the head was mainly a mode of transportation carried out by female livestock farmers and their children. Four of five females in livestock farming households said that females and their children carried water on their heads versus one of five Mossi females from crop farming households. Very few men transported water on their heads. When asked what mode of water transportation men generally used to collect water for household needs, no participant noted that men carried water on their heads. However, when asked how they “personally” transported water, 3 of 10 men reported that they transported water on their heads. This implies that the three men who noted they transported water on their heads did not associate the method of transportation with males overall.
3) Water storage
There were several containers used to collect and store water. Water containers are generally bought from local markets or occasionally borrowed from acquaintances. The most popular and cheapest containers are 20-L recycled oil jerry cans (widely known by their French name “bidons”). The number of water containers a household uses varies depending on household size. Containers, as shown on Fig. 2, are filled from different water sources and can be utilized in different ways.
Household water storage: (a) Recycled oil jerry cans and a metal barrel that are refilled at the village fountain pump. (b) These fired clay pots can be over 40 years old and are used to conserve drinking water. The pots are usually placed at the center of the house for easy access by all household members. the photographs were taken by AWIPLAY Group, a professional photographer in Tamissi village.
Citation: Weather, Climate, and Society 16, 1; 10.1175/WCAS-D-22-0105.1
b. Water insecurity, gender, and livelihoods: Survey data
1) Household water tasks
Crop farmers reported that they consumed more water for all domestic uses in comparison with livestock farmers (178 L day−1). This difference is significant based on t-testing average reporting of matched spouses on the HWISE scale. Livestock farmers had lower mean household size and significantly higher number of livestock, and they reported worse mean household levels of water insecurity than did crop farmers. Household food insecurity, based on average HFIAS scores for spouses, was also significantly worse in livestock farming households when compared with crop farmers (all shown in Table 2). As expected, food and water insecurity of individual households was significantly correlated (Pearson correlation of 0.649, p = 0.000).
Sample descriptive and t tests to identify significance of mean differences for the two study groups, based on surveys. Standard deviations (SD) are given in parentheses; NS indicates not significant at alpha = 0.05.
Borrowing water was not reported as frequent in either group; however, there was no overlap between husband and wives’ reports of water borrowing. This means that in all of these cases one spouse reported borrowing but the other did not.
Survey results reflected gender differences in typical household task assignments (Table 3). While there were some expected minor discrepancies between husbands and wives reporting, primary responsibility for fetching water was clearly reported as women’s work; however, some men (16.5% of livestock farmers and 5.5% of crop farmers) also reported primary responsibility for water fetching duties. Women conducted most of the tasks related to housework (e.g., laundry, cooking, and cleaning), and both men and women participated tending animals and crops in most households.
Survey responses about who in the household is primarily responsible for a given task. Percentages reflect reports of each group of themselves being the primarily responsible household member vs another. Because husband and wife both report for themselves, the percentages do not add to 100.
2) Gendered experiences of household water insecurity
Based on independent sample t tests, there were no significant gender differences in mean HWISE (0–36 scale) scores (men = 3.71 ± 4.0, women = 4.05 ± 4.6, p > 0.05, n = 206). As shown in Fig. 3, when separated by group, livestock farmers had larger mean differences in reports of water insecurity by gender and larger standard deviations; however, the sample is smaller.
Mean (center of box), median (line across box), and quartiles (whiskers) for reports of household water and food insecurity in the last month.
Citation: Weather, Climate, and Society 16, 1; 10.1175/WCAS-D-22-0105.1
Women livestock farmers had significantly higher mean HWISE scores than men livestock farmers (p = 0.01; n = 110). Although the crop farmers also had significant gender differences based on the same t tests (p = 0.000; n = 206), the difference in the means was less significant. There is a mean difference of +2.07 units for crop farmers on the 36-point HWISE scale with women reporting more severity versus −2.92 for livestock farmers. For comparison, in Fig. 3 we compared HFIAS (0–27 scale) scores by gender and found that gender did not predict different reported levels of food insecurity (p > 0.05).
We also analyzed how spousal reporting differences, including group differences, might vary across items within the HWISE scale. As shown in Table 4, we assessed the extent to which men systematically reported severity/frequency ratings that were higher or lower than the linked women for each item. The patterns related to the dual differences in reporting on items were very different across the two groups, with men livestock farmers reporting greater severity than their matched wives on many items, including items related to shame and anger. Among crop farmers, women tended to report greater severity than their matched spouses, including items related to drinking unsafe water, changing food, and changing plans.
Intrahousehold differences in reports of matched spouses for HWISE scale items (each 0–4 score). Positive mean difference scores reflect wives reporting higher than husbands, and negative scores indicate the converse; NS indicates not significant at alpha = 0.05.
4. Discussion
This study is one of the rare comparative studies on water insecurity experience looking at the intersection between gender and livelihood in the times of climate change in Africa. Past findings have suggested that women’s greater responsibilities for water-related tasks—such as housework, collecting water, and cooking—explain their more intense and harmful experiences of water insecurity (Choudhary et al. 2020; Geere et al. 2018; Naiga et al. 2017; Caruso et al. 2015; Van Houweling 2016; Stevenson et al. 2016; Wutich 2009). Yet, our research reveals that spousal divergence in perceptions of water insecurity differs based on subsistence strategy. In our study, women crop farmers reported more water insecurity than did their husbands, consistent with Dickin et al. (2021). Women crop farmers split their labor between fetching water for domestic use (e.g., human and livestock drinking, cooking, washing, and ablution) and income-generating activities (e.g., dry season gardening, handicraft, and trade). In contrast, among livestock farmers, men perceived greater water insecurity than women in the same household. Within the same household, gendered roles cause adults to inhabit very different socioecologies that can cause their fundamental experiences of water insecurity to be distinctive. Women are assigned different productive roles and, therefore, respond to different sets of social expectations. These normative gendered practices around household management are embedded in local norms and practices, distinct cultural traditions, and within livelihood differences.
Men livestock farmers perceive more water insecurity than women in the same household
Men livestock farmers, in contrast to what the literature predicts, report water insecurity as more severe than did their wives. These findings are of significance since we cannot link this to the previously theorized mechanism—specifically women’s greater allocation of generalized water-related tasks. When we examined men’s variable roles in household water tasks—and the difference between spouses in number of water tasks or men’s participation in water fetching—we had expected it would explain divergences; however, it does not. Kitchen duties could be especially important in explaining these findings; however, since there was no variation in spousal food preparation roles—it was all performed by women—we could not test this directly. In combination with the observation that food insecurity is a significant overall predictor of spousal differences in risk perceptions, this remains a possibility.
This pattern associated with men livestock farmers is the opposite of what we expected since the current theory regarding gender and water insecurity proposes that women are more attuned to and affected by water insecurity. The Fulani women’s experience of water insecurity in Burkina Faso differs, however, from that of Samburu women livestock farmers in northern Kenya (Balfour et al. 2020). The Samburu women were identified as being overburdened with water provision for home-based livestock and more vulnerable to water stress in households with large herds. Intersecting household and community-level variables (e.g., ethnicity, geography, power relations, sedentarization, mobility, rainfall patterns, gender roles and responsibilities, home-based livestock size and characteristics, available social and financial capital, water fetching labor, and distance to water points), along with regional forces that widen social inequalities and hinder access to social and financial capital, could explain these differences.
At the household level, intersecting factors such as herd and household size, water fetching labor availability and purchasing power influenced gendered perceptions of water insecurity. Male Fulani livestock farmers generally own more and larger livestock (i.e., cattle) than women who tend to own less and smaller stock (i.e., small ruminants and poultry), even though this varied from household to household as argued by Yisehak (2008). It is much more burdensome to secure water for more and larger animals than it is for fewer and smaller animals, especially for households with limited labor to herd or fetch water for livestock. As argued by Ducrotoy et al. (2017), household labor availability is linked to household size. Livestock farmers have lower mean household size and less labor to secure water for both humans and livestock than do crop farmers. Yet, in livestock farming households, as demonstrated by Njuki and Sanginga (2013), fetching water could be less stressful for women livestock farmers who are able to sell off the small stocks that they own to purchase water and food to meet the needs of their smaller household size. Since water borrowing was not significant in this community, it was challenging to measure the actual impact of social networks on women livestock farmers’ water fetching experience, as done by Balfour et al. (2020) among the Samburu. In contrast, crop farmers have larger household size and less animals to water. These households also benefit from additional labor from women crop farmers for fetching water for the household. Nonetheless, these women share their water fetching labor with livelihood diversification activities (i.e., farming, gardening, and trade), thus increasing their water-related stress.
Beyond their different subsistence, cultural, and gender division of labor systems, it is important to look at larger regional intersecting factors such as climate vulnerability, land tenure, xenophobia, marginalization, and conflict, all of which add additional stress on how particular groups sustain their livelihoods and exacerbate their experiences of water insecurity. Cropping and livestock husbandry are climate sensitive, but while rainfed agriculture is seasonal, pastoralism is pursued year long. In the dry season, when water becomes scarce, male herders must continue to herd livestock toward more humid regions. In livestock farming households, securing water for the multiple animals owned by the household is men’s responsibility, even though distributing water among lactating and sick cattle, calves, small ruminants, and poultry—all of which are not moved with the entire herd to different water point—is often done by women and children during the day at home. Female livestock farmers do not move livestock but collect water for domestic purposes. With increased rainfall variability, they must move longer distances to secure water in southern areas of Burkina Faso or even in neighboring countries such as Ghana. But political and social turmoil in the region complicate these seasonal migrations and livestock watering opportunities.
In our field site, the migrant Fulani livestock farmers are extremely more vulnerable to these issues relative to sedentary and indigenous Mossi crop farmers not just because they are herders but also because of their social background (i.e., ethnicity, mobility, and lack of land tenure). Fulani livestock farmers are the second-largest ethnic group in the country, but they are marginalized politically in comparison with the Mossi, who are the major ethnic group in the country, own the land, and are much more influential in politics. The entanglement between their livelihood strategy, their ethnicity, and land tenure makes it even more challenging for Fulani men to access water resources. Moving livestock and avoiding agricultural fields—a major source of crop and livestock farmers conflicts in the Sahel region—is increasingly stressful for male livestock farmers, especially in the rainy season during cropping because of the increased risk that livestock enter agricultural fields and damage crops. Demographic pressure, the rapid expansion of agricultural fields, decreased grazing land, and the lack of clear transhumance corridors are some of the challenges that male livestock farmers are currently facing. This is even more challenging for livestock farmers during drought years when they encounter these issues on their long-distance trips. Moreover, xenophobia against Fulani livestock farmers has reduced the number of water points they can visit or the paths they can travel to access these water points. Men who are in direct contact with the “outside” world are particularly more vulnerable to these issues than are Fulani women who “stay” at home.
In their host communities, the location of Fulani settlements, often on the outskirts of villages, complicates their access to community water points. As found by Ducrotoy et al. (2017), older settlers have a comparative advantage when it comes to accessing key community resources, including water infrastructure, in comparison with migrants. Although Fulani settlements at the periphery of their host villages could be viewed at first glance as discriminatory and negative because they increase the time traveled to access strategic water resources, there are potential benefits for livestock producers. In fact, while crop farmers might be settling very strategically close to water points to improve agricultural productivity, gardening opportunities, and household water access, keeping livestock away from wet areas helps reduce the risk of livestock disease caused by flies and parasites that breed in humid areas. Moreover, living at the periphery of the village also serves as a conflict mitigation strategy that allows livestock farmers to keep livestock away from agricultural fields. This helps alleviate widely documented crop and livestock farmers’ conflicts and offers livestock farmers with the opportunity to remain in those villages and secure household access to water resources, regardless of the distance to access water.
5. Conclusions
One of the most pressing climate challenges for crop and livestock farmers in places such as the Sahel is adequate and safe household water. We used a livelihood lens in comparing married crop and livestock farmers from two different ethnic groups who share the same physical water microecology and microeconomy in the Plateau Central of Burkina Faso. Our results enabled us to identify several key points about intrahousehold variation in perceptions of water insecurity in the rainy season. Some previous studies have suggested a gender bias in how men versus women report on household water insecurity (e.g., Tsai et al. 2016). The basic assumption is that women are usually better at reporting water insecurity than men due to women having greater responsibilities in terms of securing water for household uses. From this study, we can say that in some gendered livelihood contexts there is a significant and meaningful explanation that extends theorization well beyond the notion of bias, and these differences capture divergent experiences of gendered livelihoods and water use.
Men and women experience water insecurity differently due to how their livelihood roles and responsibilities are configured within households. This suggests that single reports from households cannot be assumed to reflect an overall household experience—even when the person is asked to report for that whole household. More generally, there is a need to question how gendered climate vulnerability is recognized and the basic assumption that the burdens and deeper knowledge of household water insecurity are mainly accrued to women. We found that not only does spousal divergence in perceptions of water insecurity differ based on subsistence strategy, but it is also associated with other factors that are linked to social background, including ethnicity and migrant status.
We noted, however, a few limitations related to our methodology and to the social and political context within which data were collected. Although it was culturally appropriate to ask the male head of the household which of his wives he would like to be interviewed, we recognize that letting the husband choose was a limitation to this study. In addition, security crises limited site selection and participant recruitment. Other major limitations include Fulani livestock farmers participating less when compared with Mossi crop farmers. The Fulani are relatively cautious about participating in research. The acute security crisis and ongoing marginalization of Fulani herders by sedentary groups likely contributed to this reluctance. Also, the selection bias linked with network sampling from local leaders and extension agents—who tried to reach out to the Fulani but were not Fulani themselves—could have also affected participation. The overall lower number of Fulani households in the area and the seasonal mobility of some of the male head of households could also explain the lower participation relative to Mossi.
Beyond these limitations, this study adds to the scarce research on intrahousehold experiences of water insecurity across gender and climate-sensitive livelihoods groups. One interesting finding, which we believe deserves to be further studied in the future, is the conflicting reports of household water borrowing within households. Water sharing systems are universal in water-insecure communities, and crucial to buffering water insecurity, even if not everyone participates (Rosinger et al. 2020; Brewis et al. 2019; Wutich et al. 2018). Managing water transfers with neighbors and other community members when water is scarce can be an emotionally distressing and socially burdensome task, associated with greater stress and interpersonal conflict (Wutich et al. 2022b)—especially if the system is perceived to be unfair and engagement is not consistent across seasons (Brewis et al. 2021). Our interest in this finding is not so much the differences across subsistence modalities but rather the disconnect in household reporting. That is, all individuals reporting borrowing had spouses who did not concur that the household had done so. There could be many possible reasons for this finding related to gendered social roles; however, we cannot currently isolate the reason, which suggests the need for more research on how water sharing systems are reported and differently experienced by people within households. For example, water borrowing can be felt as very shaming (Wutich et al. 2022a, 2020), and perhaps spouses are not sharing details of intermittent borrowing for that reason. Or, alternatively, it may be so infrequent and incidental when done that it is not sufficiently notable to mention to a spouse.
Our findings have significant implications as to how water insecurity is operationalized in research, development, and policies in dryland contexts where rainfall variability and water scarcity are crucial issues for crop and livestock producers. We found considerable nuance in water insecurity experiences within households and suggest that research designs must specifically build on intrahousehold measures or generalize only to the respondent and not the household. In comparison with better-established self-report measures of food insecurity, spouses demonstrated more difference in their perceptions of water insecurity in the rainy season. This implies that the common practice of having one knowledgeable respondent, often a woman, report water experiences on behalf of the household (e.g., Young et al. 2019a,b, 2021) is likely inadequate and possibly even inappropriate.
Acknowledgments.
Fieldwork was supported by the International Development Research Center (IDRC) through author Ilboudo Nébié’s Research Award. Author Wutich was supported under U.S. NSF GCR-2021147 and NSF BCS-1759972. The authors thank Sévérine Ouédraogo for contributing to data collection.
Data availability statement.
Because of privacy and ethical concerns, neither the data nor the source of the data can be made available.
REFERENCES
Adams, E. A., 2024: “Why should a married man fetch water?” Masculinities, gender relations, and the embodied political ecology of urban water insecurity in Malawi. Soc. Cult. Geogr., https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2023.2183245, in press.
Adams, E. A., J. Stoler, and Y. Adams, 2020: Water insecurity and urban poverty in the Global South: Implications for health and human biology. Amer. J. Hum. Biol., 32, e23368, https://doi.org/10.1002/ajhb.23368.
Adriansen, H. K., 2008: Understanding pastoral mobility: The case of Senegalese Fulani. Geogr. J., 174, 207–222, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4959.2008.00278.x.
Adriansen, H. K., and T. T. Nielsen, 2002: Going where the grass is greener: On the study of pastoral mobility in Ferlo, Senegal. Hum. Ecol., 30, 215–226, https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015692730088.
Alston, M., and J. Kent, 2008: The big dry: The link between rural masculinities and poor health outcomes for farming men. J. Sociol., 44, 133–147, https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783308089166.
Anderson, W., and Coauthors, 2021: Violent conflict exacerbated drought-related food insecurity between 2009 and 2019 in sub-Saharan Africa. Nat. Food, 2, 603–615, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00327-4.
Balehegn, M., and T. Kelemework, 2013: Gendered impacts and adaptation mechanisms to climate change among Afar pastoralists in North Eastern Ethiopia. Impacts of Climate Change and Variability on Pastoralist Women in Sub-Saharan Africa, M. Mulinge and M. Getu, Eds., Organization of Social Science Research in Eastern and Southern Africa, 83–120.
Balfour, N., J. Obando, and D. Gohil, 2020: Dimensions of water insecurity in pastoralist households in Kenya. Waterlines, 39, 24–43, https://doi.org/10.3362/1756-3488.19-00016.
Bassett, T. J., 1988: The political ecology of peasant‐herder conflicts in the northern Ivory Coast. Ann. Assoc. Amer. Geogr., 78, 453–472, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.1988.tb00218.x.
Benjaminsen, T. A., and B. Ba, 2021: Fulani-Dogon killings in Mali: Farmer-herder conflicts as insurgency and counterinsurgency. Afr. Secur., 14, 4–26, https://doi.org/10.1080/19392206.2021.1925035.
Bisung, E., and S. J. Elliott, 2017: Psychosocial impacts of the lack of access to water and sanitation in low-and middle-income countries: A scoping review. J. Water Health, 15, 17–30, https://doi.org/10.2166/wh.2016.158.
Bisung, E., and S. Dickin, 2021: Who does what and why? Examining intra-household water and sanitation decision-making and autonomy in Asutifi North, Ghana. J. Water Sanit. Hyg. Dev., 11, 794–804, https://doi.org/10.2166/washdev.2021.039.
Breusers, M., S. Nederlof, and T. van Rheenen, 1998: Conflict or symbiosis? Disentangling farmer-herdsman relations: The Mossi and Fulβe of the Central Plateau, Burkina Faso. J. Mod. Afr. Stud., 36, 357–380, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022278X98002808.
Brewis, A., and Coauthors, 2019: Water sharing, reciprocity, and need: A comparative study of interhousehold water transfers in sub‐Saharan Africa. Econ. Anthropol., 6, 208–221, https://doi.org/10.1002/sea2.12143.
Brewis, A., K. T. Roba, A. Wutich, M. Manning, and J. Yousuf, 2021: Household water insecurity and psychological distress in eastern Ethiopia: Unfairness and water sharing as undertheorized factors. SSM-Ment. Health, 1, 100008, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmmh.2021.100008.
Brewis, A., and Coauthors, 2023: Gender identities, water insecurity, and risk: Re-theorizing the connections for a gender-inclusive toolkit for water insecurity research. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.: Water, e1685, https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1685.
Brewis, A. A., B. Piperata, A. L. Thompson, and A. Wutich, 2020: Localizing resource insecurities: A biocultural perspective on water and wellbeing. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.: Water, 7, e1440, https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1440.
Budds, J., J. Linton, and R. McDonnell, 2014: The hydrosocial cycle. Geoforum, 57, 167–169, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.08.003.
Caruso, B. A., V. Sevilimedu, I. C.-H. Fung, A. Patkar, and K. K. Baker, 2015: Gender disparities in water, sanitation, and global health. Lancet, 386, P650–P651, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)61497-0.
Choudhary, N., A. Brewis, A. Wutich, and P. B. Udas, 2020: Sub-optimal household water access is associated with greater risk of intimate partner violence against women: Evidence from Nepal. J. Water Health, 18, 579–594, https://doi.org/10.2166/wh.2020.024.
Cline, L. E., 2021: Jihadist movements in the Sahel: Rise of the Fulani? Terror. Political Violence, 35, 175–191, https://doi.org/10.1080/09546553.2021.1888082.
Coates, J., A. Swindale, and P. Bilinsky, 2007: Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) for measurement of food access: Indicator guide, version 3. FANTA, 29 pp., https://www.fantaproject.org/sites/default/files/resources/HFIAS_ENG_v3_Aug07.pdf.
Cole, S., 2017: Water worries: An intersectional feminist political ecology of tourism and water in Labuan Bajo, Indonesia. Ann. Tourism Res., 67, 14–24, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2017.07.018.
Cook, N. J., T. Grillos, and K. P. Andersson, 2019: Gender quotas increase the equality and effectiveness of climate policy interventions. Nat. Climate Change, 9, 330–334, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0438-4.
Crow, B., and F. Sultana, 2002: Gender, class, and access to water: Three cases in a poor and crowded delta. Soc. Nat. Resour., 15, 709–724, https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920290069308.
Dafinger, A., and M. Pelican, 2006: Sharing or dividing the land? Land rights and farmer-herder relations in Burkina Faso and northwest Cameroon. Can. J. Afr. Stud., 40, 127–151, https://doi.org/10.1080/00083968.2006.10751338.
Denton, F., 2002: Climate change, vulnerability, impacts and adaptation: Why does gender matter? Gender Dev., 10, 10–20, https://doi.org/10.1080/13552070215903.
Dery, F., M. Achore, and E. Bisung, 2021: “Today men’s orientation has changed”: Gender and household water and sanitation responsibilities in Ghana. Geography, Health and Sustainability: Gender Matters Globally, A. Williams and I. Luginaah, Eds., Routledge, 145–160.
Dickin, S., L. Segnestam, and M. Sou Dakouré, 2021: Women’s vulnerability to climate-related risks to household water security in Centre-East, Burkina Faso. Climate Dev., 13, 443–453, https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2020.1790335.
Ducrotoy, M. J., and Coauthors, 2017: Wealth, household heterogeneity and livelihood diversification of Fulani pastoralists in the Kachia Grazing Reserve, northern Nigeria, during a period of social transition. PLOS ONE, 12, e0172866, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172866.
El Nagar, S. E. H., 2001: Changing gender roles and pastoral adaptations to market opportunity in Omduruman, Sudan. African Pastoralism: Conflict, Institutions and Government, M. A. R. M. Salih, T. Dietz, and A. G. M. Ahmad, Eds., Pluto Press, 247–277.
FEWSNET, 2020: Mostly normal start of season with average to above-average, well distributed rainfall. Accessed 31 May 2023, https://fews.net/west-africa/seasonal-monitor/may-2020.
Geere, J. A., and M. Cortobius, 2017: Who carries the weight of water? Fetching water in rural and urban areas and the implications for water security. Water Altern., 10, 513–540.
Geere, J.-A. L., M. Cortobius, J. H. Greere, C. C. Hammer, and P. R. Hunter, 2018: Is water carriage associated with the water carrier’s health? A systematic review of quantitative and qualitative evidence. BMJ Global Health, 3, e000764, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2018-000764.
Giannini, A., E. K. Ilboudo Nébié, D. Ba, and O. Ndiaye, 2021: Livelihood strategies shape vulnerability of households’ food security to climate in Senegal. Front. Climate, 3, 731036, https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2021.731036.
Hagaman, A. K., and A. Wutich, 2017: How many interviews are enough to identify metathemes in multisited and cross-cultural research? Another perspective on Guest, Bunce, and Johnson’s (2006) landmark study. Field Methods, 29, 23–41, https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X16640447.
Hampshire, K., 2002: Fulani on the move: Seasonal economic migration in the Sahel as a social process. J. Dev. Stud., 38, 15–36, https://doi.org/10.1080/00220380412331322491.
Hanigan, I. C., C. D. Butler, P. N. Kokic, and M. F. Hutchinson, 2012: Suicide and drought in new South Wales, Australia, 1970–2007. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 109, 13 950–13 955, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1112965109.
Harris, L., D. Kleiber, J. Goldin, A. Darkwah, and C. Morinville, 2017: Intersections of gender and water: Comparative approaches to everyday gendered negotiations of water access in underserved areas of Accra, Ghana and Cape Town, South Africa. J. Gender Stud., 26, 561–582, https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2016.1150819.
Harris, L. M., D. Kleiber, L. Rodina, S. Yaylaci, J. Goldin, and G. Owen, 2018: Water materialities and citizen engagement: Testing the implications of water access and quality for community engagement in Ghana and South Africa. Soc. Nat. Resour., 31, 89–105, https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2017.1364818.
Hein, L., M. J. Metzger, and R. Leemans, 2009: The local impacts of climate change in the Ferlo, Western Sahel. Climatic Change, 93, 465–483, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-008-9500-3.
Hennink, M., and B. N. Kaiser, 2022: Sample sizes for saturation in qualitative research: A systematic review of empirical tests. Soc. Sci. Med., 292, 114523, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114523.
Hulme, M., 2001: Climatic perspectives on Sahelian desiccation: 1973–1998. Global Environ. Change, 11, 19–29, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-3780(00)00042-X.
Huyer, S., and S. Partey, 2020: Weathering the storm or storming the norms? Moving gender equality forward in climate-resilient agriculture. Climatic Change, 158 (1), 1–12, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02612-5.
Ilboudo Nébié, E. K., C. T. West, and T. A. Crane, 2020: ‘Where’s the map?’: Integrating ethnography with maps to understand the complementarity between pastoral mobility and border formation. J. Political Ecol., 27, 795–818, https://doi.org/10.2458/v27i1.23152.
INSD, 2022: Cinquième Recensement Général de la Population et de l’Habitation du Burkina Faso. Fichier des localités du 5e RGPH, 133 pp.
Izard, M., 1970: Introduction à l’Histoire des Royaumes Mossi. CNRS, 434 pp.
Jepson, W. E., A. Wutich, S. M. Collins, G. O. Boateng, and S. L. Young, 2017a: Progress in household water insecurity metrics: A cross‐disciplinary approach. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.: Water, 4, e1214, https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1214.
Jepson, W. E, and Coauthors, 2017b: Advancing human capabilities for water security: A relational approach. Water Secur., 1, 46–52, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasec.2017.07.001.
Kelly, E., K. F. Shields, R. Cronk, K. Lee, N. Behnke, T. Klug, and J. Bartram, 2018: Seasonality, water use and community management of water systems in rural settings: Qualitative evidence from Ghana, Kenya, and Zambia. Sci. Total Environ., 628–629, 715–721, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.02.045.
Lau, J. D., D. Kleiber, S. Lawless, and P. J. Cohen, 2021: Gender equality in climate policy and practice hindered by assumptions. Nat. Climate Change, 11, 186–192, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-00999-7.
Lindsay, L., 2007: Working with gender: The emergence of the “male breadwinner” in colonial southwestern Nigeria. Africa After Gender?, C. M. Cole, T. Manuh, and S. F. Miescher, Eds., Indiana University Press, 241–252.
Marchal, J. Y., 1983: Yatenga, Nord Haute-Volta: La Dynamique d’un Espace Rural Soudano-Sahélien. O.R.S.T.O.M., 873 pp.
Mason, L. R., 2012: Gender and asset dimensions of seasonal water insecurity in urban Philippines. Wea. Climate Soc., 4, 20–33, https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-11-00037.1.
Maxfield, A., 2020: Testing the theoretical similarities between food and water insecurity: Buffering hypothesis and effects on mental wellbeing. Soc. Sci. Med., 244, 112412, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112412.
Meinzen-Dick, R., and M. Zwarteveen, 1998: Gendered participation in water management: Issues and illustrations rom water users’ associations in South Asia. Agric. Hum. Values, 15, 337–345, https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007533018254.
Mertz, O., C. Mbow, A. Reenberg, and A. Diouf, 2009: Farmers’ perceptions of climate change and agricultural adaptation strategies in rural Sahel. Environ. Manage., 43, 804–816, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-008-9197-0.
Mirzabaev, A., and Coauthors, 2019: Desertification. Climate Change and Land, P. R. Shukla et al., Eds., Cambridge University Press, 249–344, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157988.005.
Moritz, M., and M. Mbacke, 2022: The danger of a single story about Fulani pastoralists. Pastoralism, 12, 14, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13570-021-00227-z.
Mortimore, M., 2010: Adapting to drought in the Sahel: Lessons for climate change. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.: Climate Change, 1, 134–143, https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.25.
Mortimore, M. J., and W. M. Adams, 2001: Farmer adaptation, change and ‘crisis’ in the Sahel. Global Environ. Change, 11, 49–57, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-3780(00)00044-3.
Naiga, R., M. Penker, and K. Hogl, 2017: Women’s crucial role in collective operation and maintenance of drinking water infrastructure in rural Uganda. Soc. Nat. Resour., 30, 506–520, https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2016.1274460.
Njuki, J., and P. C. Sanginga, Eds., 2013: Women, Livestock Ownership and Markets: Bridging the Gender Gap in Eastern and Southern Africa. Routledge, 148 pp.
Nunbogu, A. M., S. J. Elliott, and E. Bisung, 2023: I feel the pains of our past water struggles anytime I turn on the tap: Diaspora perceptions and experiences of water, sanitation, and hygiene (WaSH) gendered violence in Ghana. Soc. Sci. Med., 317, 115621, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115621.
Odeniran, P. O., I. O. Ademola, E. T. Macleod, and S. C. Welburn, 2018: Bovine and small ruminant African animal trypanosomiasis in Nigeria – A review. Vet. Parasitol., 13, 5–13, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vprsr.2018.03.001.
Rasmussen, K., and Coauthors, 2016: Environmental change in the Sahel: Reconciling contrasting evidence and interpretations. Reg. Environ. Change, 16, 673–680, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-015-0778-1.
Ray, I., 2007: Women, water, and development. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour., 32, 421–449, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.32.041806.143704.
Roncoli, C., B. Orlove, C. Ungemach, B. Dowd-Uribe, C. T. West, K. Milch, and M. Sanon, 2019: Enough is enough: How West African farmers judge water sufficiency. Reg. Environ. Change, 19, 573–585, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-018-1426-3.
Rosinger, A. Y., A. Brewis, A. Wutich, W. Jepson, C. Staddon, J. Stoler, S. L. Young, and Household Water Insecurity Experiences-Research Coordination Network, 2020: Water borrowing is consistently practiced globally and is associated with water-related system failures across diverse environments. Global Environ. Change, 64, 102148, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102148.
Roy, J., and B. Crow, 2004: Gender relations and access to water: What we want to know about social relations and women’s time allocation. Center for Global, International and Regional Studies Working Paper, University of California Santa Cruz, 24 pp., https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0m5033gv.
Schmidhuber, J., and F. N. Tubiello, 2007: Global food security under climate change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 104, 19 703–19 708, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0701976104.
Shah, S. H., and Coauthors, 2023: Variations in household water affordability and water insecurity: An intersectional perspective from 18 low-and middle-income countries. Environ. Plann. F, 2, 369–398, https://doi.org/10.1177/26349825231156900.
Stevenson, E. G. J., A. Ambelu, B. A. Caruso, Y. Tesfaye, and M. C. Freeman, 2016: Community water improvement, household water insecurity, and women’s psychological distress: An intervention and control study in Ethiopia. PLOS ONE, 11, e0153432, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0153432.
Sultana, F., 2009: Fluid lives: Subjectivities, gender and water in rural Bangladesh. Gender Place Cult., 16, 427–444, https://doi.org/10.1080/09663690903003942.
Sultana, F., 2011: Suffering for water, suffering from water: Emotional geographies of resource access, control and conflict. Geoforum, 42, 163–172, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2010.12.002.
Sultana, F., 2018: Gender and water in a changing climate: Challenges and opportunities. Water Security Across the Gender Divide, C. Fröhlich et al., Eds., Springer, 17–33, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64046-4_2.
Tallman, P. S., S. Collins, G. Salmon-Mulanovich, B. Rusyidi, A. Kothadia, and S. Cole, 2023: Water insecurity and gender-based violence: A global review of the evidence. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.: Water, 10, e1619, https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1619.
Thébaud, B., and S. Batterbury, 2001: Sahel pastoralists: Opportunism, struggle, conflict and negotiation. A case study from eastern Niger. Global Environ. Change, 11, 69–78, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-3780(00)00046-7.
Tsai, A. C., B. Kakuhikire, R. Mushavi, D. Vořechovská, J. M. Perkins, A. Q. McDonough, and D. R. Bangsberg, 2016: Population-based study of intra-household gender differences in water insecurity: Reliability and validity of a survey instrument for use in rural Uganda. J. Water Health, 14, 280–292, https://doi.org/10.2166/wh.2015.165.
Tucker, J., A. MacDonald, L. Coulter, and R. C. Calow, 2014: Household water use, poverty and seasonality: Wealth effects, labour constraints, and minimal consumption in Ethiopia. Water Resour. Rural Dev., 3, 27–47, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wrr.2014.04.001.
Turner, M. D., 2004: Political ecology and the moral dimensions of ‘resource conflicts’: The case of farmer–herder conflicts in the Sahel. Political Geogr., 23, 863–889, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2004.05.009.
Van Houweling, E., 2016: “A good wife brings her husband bath water”: Gender roles and water practices in Nampula, Mozambique. Soc. Nat. Resour., 29, 1065–1078, https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2015.1095377.
Wangui, E. E., 2008: Development interventions, changing livelihoods, and the making of female Maasai pastoralists. Agric. Hum. Values, 25, 365–378, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-007-9111-z.
WFP, 2021: West Africa: The 2021 season in review. VAM Food Security Analysis, 26 pp., https://docs.wfp.org/api/documents/WFP-0000133543/download/.
Wutich, A., 2009: Intrahousehold disparities in women and men’s experiences of water insecurity and emotional distress in urban Bolivia. Med. Anthropol. Quart., 23, 436–454, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1387.2009.01072.x.
Wutich, A., 2012: Gender, water scarcity, and the management of sustainability tradeoffs in Cochabamba, Bolivia. Gender and Sustainability: Lessons from Asia and Latin America, University of Arizona Press, 97–120.
Wutich, A., and K. Ragsdale, 2008: Water insecurity and emotional distress: Coping with supply, access, and seasonal variability of water in a Bolivian squatter settlement. Soc. Sci. Med., 67, 2116–2125, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.09.042.
Wutich, A., and A. Brewis, 2014: Food, water, and scarcity: Toward a broader anthropology of resource insecurity. Curr. Anthropol., 55, 444–468, https://doi.org/10.1086/677311.
Wutich, A., and Coauthors, 2018: Household water sharing: A review of water gifts, exchanges, and transfers across cultures. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.: Water, 5, e1309, https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1309.
Wutich, A., A. Brewis, and A. Tsai, 2020: Water and mental health. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.: Water, 7, e1461, https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1461.
Wutich, A., A. Rosinger, A. Brewis, M. Beresford, S. Young, and Household Water Insecurity Experiences Research Coordination Network, 2022a: Water sharing is a distressing form of reciprocity: Shame, upset, anger, and conflict over water in twenty cross‐cultural sites. Amer. Anthropol., 124, 279–290, https://doi.org/10.1111/aman.13682.
Wutich, A., M. Beresford, T. Montoya, L. Radonic, C. Workman, 2022b: Water security and scarcity. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Anthropology, https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190854584.013.475.
Yisehak, K., 2008: Gender responsibility in smallholder mixed crop-livestock production systems of Jimma zone, South West Ethiopia. Livest. Res. Rural Dev., 20 (1), 11, http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd20/1/yise20011.htm.
Young, S. L., and Coauthors, 2019a: The Household Water InSecurity Experiences (HWISE) scale: Development and validation of a household water insecurity measure for low-income and middle-income countries. BMJ Global Health, 4, e001750, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2019-001750.
Young, S. L., and Coauthors, 2019b: Development and validation protocol for an instrument to measure household water insecurity across cultures and ecologies: The Household Water InSecurity Experiences (HWISE) Scale. BMJ Open, 9, e023558, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023558.
Young, S. L., J. D. Miller, E. A. Frongillo, G. O. Boateng, Z. Jamaluddine, and T. B. Neilands, 2021: Validity of a four-item household water insecurity experiences scale for assessing water issues related to health and well-being. Amer. J. Trop. Med. Hyg., 104, 391–394, https://doi.org/10.4269/ajtmh.20-0417.
Yurco, K., 2024: Rethinking spaces of gendered livestock ownership: Pastoralist women’s knowledge, care, and labor. Soc. Cult. Geogr., https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2022.2157043, in press.
