**The Actors, Rules and Regulations Linked to Export Horticulture Production and Access to Land and Water as Common Pool Resources in Laikipia County, Northwest Mount Kenya**

**Mariah Ngutu 1,\*, Salome Bukachi 1, Charles Owuor Olungah 1, Boniface Kiteme 2, Fabian Kaeser <sup>3</sup> and Tobias Haller <sup>3</sup>**


Received: 26 July 2018; Accepted: 14 September 2018; Published: 17 September 2018

**Abstract:** Agriculture is the backbone of Kenya's economy, supporting up to 80% of rural livelihoods. Kenya's export horticulture is currently the leading agriculture subsector in Kenya and is regarded as an agro-industrial food system based on the economies of scale, producing for mass markets outside of the production area. Much of the food consumed from Kenya's export horticulture sector has undergone multiple transformations and been subject to a host of formal and informal institutions (rules, regulations, standards, norms and values). Kenya's export horticulture production, driven by rising global demands, has expanded beyond the 'traditional' mountainous high yielding areas into arid and semi-arid (ASALs) zones such as Laikipia County, Northwest of Mount Kenya. An anthropological study of export horticulture viewed as an agro-industrial food system in Laikipia County was carried out utilizing the new institutionalism theory in anthropology to explore the actors, rules and regulations linked to export horticulture production and access to common pool resources. The study employed qualitative data collection methods to collect data over an extended field work period of eight months. The data from 40 in-depth interviews complemented by unstructured observations, four focus group discussions and five key informant interviews was transcribed, coded and analyzed thematically based on the grounded theory approach. This paper, therefore, presents findings from the qualitative case study on the actors as well as the rules and regulations (the institutional settings) of export horticulture production and access to common pool resources from an emic perspective of the involved actors. The formal and informal rules and regulations which form the institutional setting in this food system are viewed as changing and defining the operations of the food system's access and management of common pool resources, namely water and land. With the agro-industrial food system competing with local food systems such as agro-pastoralism and small holder agriculture for these scarce resources in a semi-arid zone, there is potential for conflict and reduced production, as well as overall benefits to the different actors in the study area.

**Keywords:** qualitative; agro-industrial food system; actors; formal and informal rules and regulations; export horticulture; common pool resources; land; water; Laikipia County

#### **1. Introduction**

Kenya's export horticulture is regarded as an agro-industrial food system based on the economies of scale, producing for mass markets outside of the production area [1,2]. Much of the food consumed from this food system has undergone multiple transformations, travelled substantial distances, passed through different hands and been subject to formal and informal rules and regulations [1,3]. Currently, the horticulture industry in Kenya is the fastest growing agricultural subsector and is ranked third in terms of foreign exchange earnings from exports, after tourism and tea [2]. Kenya's value of horticulture has quadrupled in the last three decades and is now the largest exporter of horticultural produce in Sub Saharan Africa, with a 16 percent share in the European market. Kenya's export horticulture sector also subscribes to international food safety and quality standards as the European union is its main destination market [2]. The steady growth, as seen in export horticulture is, however, not felt across other agriculture and foreign income earning subsectors [2,4].

While Kenya's export horticulture began with a small number of Asian-owned family enterprises in the 1960s, several well-financed exporters had joined the sector by the 1980s [5–7]. International investments (foreign direct investments) in Kenya grew rapidly after independence and these included investments into the horticulture sector [7,8]. The multinational exporters viewed direct sales of export horticulture produce to retailers in Europe as a way to exploit their advantages in investment, scale and market linkages [6,8]. As competition has intensified, many small and medium-sized exporters have shifted to growing crops for the large exporters rather than shouldering the risk of exporting [8,9]. However, despite the increase in large-scale, export-oriented farms, exporters still source at least some of their produce from their own farms because; control over one's own production guarantees continuity of supply and reduces the risk of losing suppliers to competitors and also provides them with hands-on problem solving capabilities [5,10,11]. In an industry increasingly characterized by innovation and the need for rapid problem-solving, these are important. Some exporters (and their associated importers) also believe that vertical integration provides greater control and greater scope for reducing costs [8,9,11]. Notably, the power in the supply chain lies in possessing resources and capabilities that are not easily substitutable. Established exporters have some protection from the competence and relationships that they have built up over time, including knowledge of production and post-harvest processes; investments in specialized facilities; and relationships based on trust and reciprocity with overseas customers in the short-term [11]. These capabilities decrease their vulnerability to substitution within the supply chain, either from within Europe or from another external supply source [8].

The growth in horticultural production of fruits and vegetables, for export, in developing countries has also been coupled with dramatic changes in governance patterns of trade in the sector. This is driven by two key factors related to the European market. The first factor is the increasingly multifaceted strict environment for control of food safety, particularly pesticide residues and conditions for post-harvest processing, as well as environmental and labor standards [10,12,13]. Many large food companies, supermarket chains (the main buyers of the horticultural produce) and NGOs (Non–Governmental Organization) have engaged in establishing private food standards—that are often stricter than public requirements—and have implemented food quality and safety standards in certification protocols, including GLOBAL G.A.P.; Ethical Trading Initiative (ETI); Tesco's Nature's Choice and Save Quality Food (SQV) Programme [3,12,14]. Although private standards are legally not mandatory, many of them have become indirectly mandatory due to export pressure by a large share of buyers in international agri-food markets requiring compliance with such private standards [3,8]. The second set of factors is the increasing involvement of retailers (supermarkets) in export horticulture trade of mainly fresh fruits and vegetables (FFV) which is credited to the strategic importance of the products. Fresh fruits and vegetables are one of the few items for which consumers will change their choice of stores and because they are income-elastic products [10,14].

The horticulture sector in Kenya that started with its production dependent heavily on small holder farming is now dominated by large-scale export, farming owned multinational companies as large-scale investments [1,2,15]. Large-scale land investments, such as export horticulture, often emphasize the rapid increase in yield they can produce and the additional employment they can provide [16–18]. However, these additional opportunities of agricultural production are not felt locally or only on a short-term basis [16–19]. There also are small holder farmers producing as outgrowers for the export companies and others for the domestic markets [19,20]. Export horticulture has become one of the highlights of African development because it has raised production standards in agriculture; provided good opportunities for increasing rural area incomes; improved nutrition of the people; resulted in diversification of exports; provided raw materials for agro-based industries and created employment, especially for the youth and women [9,19,20]. On the other hand, when export horticulture is seen as part of an export food system, the economic implications are viewed differently. Studies on horticulture in Kenya and other African countries, including Senegal, reported both positive and detrimental effects of this sector to development and livelihoods [4,8,19,20].

Horticulture export, when regarded as an agro-industrial food system producing for commercial markets outside of the production area, thus, needs to be interrogated further in relation to sustainable food systems, ecological considerations and resource use. New institutionalism and political ecology analysis views on the issue of food systems use and access of common pool resources, such as land and water, regard the subsequent resource contestation as the outcome of problems related to access, governance and distribution of resources [21–23]. Too much land and common pool resources, such as water, pasture, forests and fisheries, have seen a change from common, to state and private property, and are therefore not accessible for marginal people who also do not have the means to get adequate wage earnings from employment in order to substitute that loss [19,21,22]. There are formal and informal rules and regulations in export horticulture that define the institutional setting for production and the access and use of land and water [1,21,22]. As export horticulture rises in financial importance and becomes more valuable, it impacts on the local institutional setting of working conditions, property rights and access to common pool resources, such as water and pasture, vital for local livelihoods, and need to be interrogated further [11,16,21].

#### **2. Export Horticulture and Institutional Settings in Laikipia County**

The export horticulture sector in Kenya has evolved over the years since the pre-colonial period when the shaping of its structure, policies, production and marketing began [7]. The sector's production of vegetables, fruits, and high care products is market driven, with increasing stringent food safety standards resulting from increased consumer awareness and a series of food safety failures in the 1990s [24,25]. Notably, Kenya's export horticulture production, driven by rising global demands, has expanded beyond the 'traditional' mountainous high yielding areas into arid and semi-arid (ASALs) zones [19]. As a result of this expansion to regions with varying climatic and agronomic conditions, most horticulture companies rely on both rain-fed as well as economically modified conditions for crop production and utilize land to maximize production [26,27]. The ASALs, such as the Laikipia County region, are often prone to common pool resources (CPR) contestation among the different food systems, given the poor rainfall and frequent dry spells [19,26,28].

Despite arid climatic conditions in Laikipia County, the horticulture sector is booming with over 30 horticulture companies in 35 farms competing against other food systems, such as small holder farming and pastoralism in the region, for the already scarce resources [26,28,29]. Agro-industrial horticulture displays a specific form of interaction with neighboring communities and with the administration on different levels. In addition, the sector's culture and institutional settings define its operations, as well as utilization of common pool resources for the production of food and influences its linkages with other food systems. Understanding these institutions (rules and regulations), actors, and linkages provides insights into this sector which is also regarded as part of an agro-industrial food system.

Developments in agro-industrial horticulture in Kenya can be related to the issue of changes in relative prices, as in the institutional analysis model of Ensminger [30]. The rise of market prices for horticulture products triggers investments, and changes actors' access to labor, bargaining power and institutional settings, as land and other common pool resources are much more devoted to this sector [30]. Despite arid climatic conditions in the north west of Mount Kenya, the horticulture sector is still growing and, thus, utilizing more resources over time. The region's different food systems, namely; agro-industrial horticulture, pastoralism and small holder agriculture, compete for land, capital, and water, with access to water being particularly hotly contested [18,28]. There is also a lot of food being produced through this labor intensive agro-industrial horticulture, but there still remains limited holistic literature that can provide a deeper understanding of the actor involvement, power relations, the major institutional setting transformations, linkages to the local food systems and the 'rules of the game' of this sector [31].

Previous studies have focused on the impact of the development of the large-scale, export-oriented horticulture sector on river water resources on the upper Ewaso Ng'iro basin [26,32]. Studies have also looked into the implications of large-scale, export-oriented horticulture on rural livelihoods in the North West of the Mount Kenya region [28,29]. Based on the literature reviewed, this study assumes that power relations of actors with different bargaining powers, perceptions and ideologies, influence the formal and informal rules and regulations (institutional setting) 'rules of the game' of common pool resource use and access in export horticulture production.

#### **3. History of Land and Water Use and Access in the Study Area**

In pre-colonial Kenya, land in Laikipia County extending into the Rift valley region was mainly owned by pastoral communities, as community lands where water, land and pasture were utilized communally. When Kenya became a British colony, land in this region, alongside the Nyandarua ranges, was taken up by the white settlers, and regarded as the White Highlands [33]. At this time, the pastoral communities were pushed away into the Mugogodo forest area. The White settlers had casual workers in their farms and establishments who were mainly from the Agikuyu and Ameru communities [33]. As the colonial era came to an end in the late 1950s into early 1960s, the settlers began to leave the colony, back to Britain, and hence disposed of their properties and lands. Following Kenya's independence in 1963, the land previously occupied by the white settlers was designated to be given back to the Africans [33]. Prior to independence, the government initiated programmes to register customary land as private property (Swynnerton Plan) and to reallocate land that had been isolated during colonization [33]. According to Kohler (1987), the government bought land between 1961 and 1978, from European settlers who were keen to sell their land. This land acquired by the government was either divided into individually owned plots that were assessed to provide for full subsistence and a surplus cash production, or handed over as extensive ranches to wealthy and powerful Kenyans. However, in spite of their large coverage, the government settlement schemes did not meet the demand for land by the massive landless population [33].

Consequently, people organized themselves into groups/co-operatives to mobilize resources with which they would then buy land in large tracts from settlers on their own. Notably, for the private initiatives, public funds were crucial as the government provided credit facilities through the Agricultural Finance Cooperation (AFC) to over one thousand groups for purchases of land [33]. It is, however, important to note that not all land acquired post-colonial era was for immediate use; and also, not all the colonial land was re-sold to government or private settlement groups. Some chunks of land were still left in the ownership of large-scale landholders [33,34]. The largest settlement schemes were dominated by beneficiaries of the KANU dominated district governments and in particular the Kikuyu squatters, while the Luo and Maasai were nearly allocated no land. According to Hornsby, (2012): p. 120, "the complex bureaucratic processes of land re-allocations used favored those with money, education and contacts" [35]. This resulted in ethnic and violent tensions around the issue of land which are ongoing to date [36]. Therefore, the government and private initiatives for the redistribution of land can be viewed as not having achieved an equal allocation of land repossessed from the colonial

regime. Moreover, it is not described in the literature, how post-colonial land acquisitions influenced the access and use of land for large-scale horticulture, a focal aspect in this study.

Land settlement in Laikipia had long-term effects [33,34]. The settlements resulted in significant immigration and population growth in the region. Notably, a majority of the immigrants came from ecologically high-potential areas where land had become scarce [34]. In 1994, the majority of small-scale farmers in Laikipia were Kikuyu (89%) from the current Nyeri, Muranga and Kiambu counties. The Ameru (8%) of the current Meru County were reported to occupy almost exclusively the eastern part of Laikipia. Small-scale farmers who were previously farm laborers or squatters in the region were found to be of an insignificant proportion [34]. Given the semi-arid conditions of Laikipia County, the new immigrants had limited expertise in agriculture other than the rain-fed practices horned in their ecologically high-potential zones of origin. As such, the new land owners converted the expanses of land previously dedicated to rain-fed beef ranching and wheat cultivation into irrigated small-scale mixed farming portions to allow for their practice of the traditional agro-pastoralist production [34]. Accordingly, the management of land and related resources, such as water, was transferred from a few, large-scale land users to include a larger sub-set of individual small holders [33,34].

Numerous studies have documented that river water is the main source for irrigation farming practices in the semi-arid area [37–39]. Over time, this has resulted in the over use and depletion of water, an already scarce resource in the region, as well as conflicts over the access by the numerous food systems including the small holder agro-pastoralists and large-scale users such as wildlife conservancies, private ranches and horticulture investments in the region [19,26,28,29]. This paper, therefore, focuses on the actors, rules and regulations in relation to the access of land and water as common pool resources, linked to export horticulture in Laikipia County. It seeks to outline the rules and regulations (institutional settings), and changes linked by the different actors to export horticulture in its access and use of land, as well as the potential for common pool resource contestation. Furthermore, it relates to research on large-scale land acquisitions, or land grabbing debates, anchored on the new institutionalism theory that highlights the institutions as rules of the game, and the food system perspective that regards export horticulture as an agro-industrial food system [21,31].

#### **4. Materials and Methods**

#### *4.1. Description of Study Area*

The qualitative case study took place in the Laikipia County region. The research site was an export horticulture investment (farm and pack-house) located in the Naibor area of Laikipia North Sub-county (Figures 1 and 2). This research was carried out in the study site located in the Laikipia County region for several reasons: First, the region is an arid and semi-arid (ASAL) zone on the lee-ward side of Mount Kenya. It is characterized by dry spells and erratic rainfall patterns averaging 400 mm per annum [19,28]. Arable land constitutes 1984 km2, non-arable land constitutes approximately 7456 km2, and urban areas constitute 243.3 km2 out of the 9642 km<sup>2</sup> total land mass. Different food systems including pastoralism, mixed farming, and export horticulture, compete for the already scarce common pool resources especially water and arable land [26,32,40]. Secondly, in the last two decades, despite the ASAL characteristics, with the export horticulture sector spreading from the high yielding mountainous regions with favorable climate into the ASALs, the study area has been booming in export horticulture [26]. In Laikipia County, there has been notable growth of horticulture companies from one farm in the 1990s, to 30 horticulture companies that operated at 35 farms and covered an area of 1385 hectares in 2013 [26,32]. The area has, over the years, attracted migrants from all over Kenya to work in the horticulture companies, with the native inhabitants of the region mainly practicing pastoralism and small holder farming in their portions of land owned individually or communally [26,32,33,40].

**Figure 1.** Map of Kenya highlighting Laikipia County, the research area (Source: CETRAD, 2018 [41]).

**Figure 2.** Map of the research area (Source: CETRAD, 2018 [42]).

#### *4.2. Study Design and Selection of Study Participants*

This study adopted an inductive case study design based on in-depth, qualitative exploration to establish the institutional setting of export horticulture in the Laikipia County region in relation to common pool resources. The study adopted a qualitative approach to allow for emic perspectives of the food system actors. The study employed the purposive, non-probability technique to sample the export horticulture farm and pack-house [hereafter regarded as investment], and study participants respectively. Once the permission to carry out research was granted, the researcher relocated to the neighboring area where she lived with a host family for the entire period of research. These arrangements enabled interactions with different workers and with members of the communities neighboring the horticulture investment.

Data was collected in two research phases that were carried out simultaneously. The preliminary research stage involved direct and indirect observations complemented by informal, in-depth interviews recorded on a daily basis as field notes. With the preliminary data from the informal interviews, discussions and observations, different actors linked to the horticulture investment were identified. The in-depth research stage, during which the bulk of the data was collected, followed the preliminary stage without a break in between. At the preliminary research stage, the horticulture investment was sampled purposively through existing networks based on its location, products, and willingness of the company to host the research. The participants included: Representatives of management, workers at different cadres in the farm and pack-house, county, and national government representatives. Their participation was subject to their linkage to export horticulture production and willingness to voluntarily participate in the study. Study participants were sampled conveniently and taken through the informed consent process and verbal consent obtained with an emphasis on the

participant's right of voluntarism in deciding whether or not to participate in the study.1 The unit of analysis in this research was the actors linked to the export horticulture setting.

#### *4.3. Fieldwork and Data Analysis*

The qualitative data was collected through 40, in-depth interviews, complemented by unstructured observations, four focus groups discussions and five key informant interviews as summarized in Table 1. This data was collected from August 2016 to March 2017 to enable long-term exploration and interaction with the actors in export horticulture settings in Laikipia County. The study findings were analyzed thematically, based on the grounded theory approach, to inform the study objectives. Data obtained through the qualitative interviews was transcribed and translated into English transcripts for coding and analysis, as most of the interviews were conducted in Swahili. The field notes were also transcribed for analysis. Names of informants and places that were identifiers were replaced with pseudonyms on the transcripts for anonymity and confidentiality of the study participants. Once transcribed, the interview transcripts were reviewed for accuracy. Coding was done manually. The researcher read through the transcripts repeatedly to identify and list inductive codes. The codes were used to develop a codebook which was flexible to include new codes, delete or merge other codes as the analysis went on. After coder agreement and transcript review, themes were identified in line with the study objectives. Research findings have been integrated and presented as thick descriptions complemented with verbatim quotations in this paper. Ethical considerations were applied to data collection and subsequent analysis.1


**Table 1.** Summary of data collection tools and study participants.

#### **5. Findings**

#### *Actors with Common Pool Resource Use, Access and Sharing Linked to Export Horticulture in the Study Area*

Actors were identified in this study to include the members of communities neighboring the export horticulture investment, including the local authorities. Investors, outgrower farmers and workers in the horticulture setting were also identified as actors. Members of the communities neighboring the export horticulture setting included the people residing around Jua Kali and Muramati town centers

<sup>1</sup> **Ethical considerations.** The approval and permit for this study was issued by the National Council of Science, Technology and Innovation (NACOSTI), Kenya. Collaboration and approval was further sought from the Export horticulture investment, county government education and agriculture offices. The participants were given full details of the study including any foreseen or anticipated risks and how to tackle them in case they occurred, and any benefits/compensations or lack of beforehand. Informed consent and permission to record interviews was obtained.

about 5 km each from the horticulture farm and pack-house. These community actors were engaged in different livelihood activities including outgrowers/contract farmers for the horticulture farm located within the study area; people who have moved into the locality to work in horticulture farming. Besides working as wage laborers in the horticulture farm, people also obtain casual employment for construction, clearing fields and even farming in these other establishments. There are pastoralists who have come from Naibor and Doldol and bought land and settled around the horticulture farm's surrounding. These pastoralists still have their herds in the group ranches back in Naibor and Doldol. They have herders and members of their larger families to look after them and from time to time visit to tend after them. The small towns of Jua Kali and Muramati neighboring the farm also provide opportunities for small traders to bring merchandise from Nanyuki town and sell to the people living here. In addition, besides looking for work at the horticulture farm, people can find casual work in the development estates.

As observed in this study, in the neighboring areas close to the horticulture farm most of the housing is permanent (stone-built) or semi-permanent (wooden-built) for rentals. There are also individuals who have built their own homes and reside there. The road is tarmacked, there is electricity and, in some cases, tapped water is provided by the Nanyuki Water and Sewerage Company. As you move from the town towards the horticulture farm, a distance of about 3 km, there are people's homesteads, though these are sparsely placed. Most of these homesteads (built mainly of stone and wood with corrugated iron roofing) either have water tanks for water storage (which are used to store rain water) or just have to depend on the river water. These communities comprised people of different ethnicities originating from the study area, with others who migrated into the region in search of work, pasture and livelihood opportunities. There were other investments that offered work for the population, such as development companies constructing property, as well as smaller farms doing horticulture and permaculture in the study area, as in Figure 3.

**Figure 3.** Summary of land use and economic activities in the study area (Source: Author, 2017). (**A**) Picture of permanent corrugated iron roofed houses in the study area; (**B**) Picture of a signpost of one of the real estate developments in the study area; (**C**) Picture of the export horticulture open field production in the study area; (**D**) Picture capturing a packhouse for export horticulture (green building) and real estate homes being developed for sale in the study area (cream buildings).

The investors and owners were identified as value chain actors playing the role of producer and processor in export horticulture in the study area. The owners established the horticulture exporting company and subsequently production units such as the horticulture investment in Laikipia County where the study took place. As reported in this study, investors set up the production unit and facilities for post-harvest management to enable the production, processing and distribution of export horticulture produce. Owners and investors provided the capital to access the land, water, technology, material inputs. They engaged outgrowers and employ workforce for the labor intensive horticulture production. As of 2017, the investors had three big farms and pack-houses including the investment in Laikipia County. In addition to acquiring the land, the investors had capital investments for setting up the infrastructure for the operations and running of the export horticulture investment. Notably, the large-scale export horticulture investors had integrated technology into the processes and activities for production and post-harvest handling to guarantee safety, efficiency, freshness and quality of the high value, yet perishable, products.

Workers in the horticulture investment also identified as value chain actors in this study comprised of both skilled and unskilled labor that was engaged on permanent and short-term wage-based contracts, respectively. The workers played the roles of producers and processors as reported in this study. Many workers, especially women, found short term sources of income through the wage employment opportunities in large-scale horticulture as is further highlighted in the following excerpts:

*In the morning in Nanyuki town, you will find about 20 buses or more that ferry workers both from the management level and the farm hands moving across to the various farms. The locus of their operation is Nanyuki town*. (KII\_09, County Agriculture officer, Male, 47 years)

*Currently there are about 1073 employees with the farm having about 600 and the rest being in the pack-house. Of the workers, the majority are women because most of the work here is done better by women than men*. (IDI\_31, Crop manager, Female, 41 years)

The bulk of employees (over 80%) comprised of unskilled seasonal workers hired on a short-term wage basis. These workers lived in the surrounding areas with most of them being immigrants into the Laikipia County region in search of work. The majority of these workers did not own land in the region as illustrated in the excerpt:

*For the seasonal staff we give them contracts are varying from between 1 to 3 months renewable based on work availability and performance. Most of these workers do not have land to farm on here and the few who have, say about one percent of our workers only do subsistence or outgrower farming. The pastoralists who are the majority original inhabitants of this region rarely come to work in horticulture farms*. (IDI\_06, Administrative officer, Male, 38 years)

There were also a few small holder farmers in the study area as well, who teamed up into farmers groups and provided outgrower/contract farming services to the horticulture investment, as well as other horticulture farms in Laikipia County. The outgrowers often produced for the horticulture investment crops that required less monitoring, like the fine beans and baby corn. The outgrowers provided diversity by contributing to about 20 per cent of the export product for the company. The involvement of the outgrower contract farmers is further detailed in the following excerpts:

*We have contracted farmers around who supply different products like the fine beans coming in from the Timau group*. (IDI\_03, Team leader, Male, 29 years)

*We work with outgrowers to grow different horticulture produce from what was available at our own farm like fine or french beans (green and yellow) and baby corn and in this way, we increase the variety of produce for the consumers*. (IDI\_06, Administrative officer, Male, 38 years)

*Small growers have also come up because we are getting produce from the outgrowers who are around the farm so that some were working here; they went out and started doing their work*. (KII\_01, Manager, Horticulture investment, Laikipia County)

However, over the years the involvement of outgrowers had been greatly affected by the increasing market standards, whose compliance costs are to be met by the individuals. Consequently, outgrowers not meeting the market standards were often dropped off the value chain as explained in the following excerpt:

*We gave them the new regulations, for those who managed we continued with them and for those who did not manage by the new standards we had to let them go because it was very difficult to have everybody on board*. (IDI\_06, Administrative officer, Male, 38 years)

These different actors namely; the investors, the workers, the members of the neighboring communities, including the outgrowers around the study setting, have many narratives to project their ideologies based on their perceptions and bargaining power positions to explain common pool resource (water and land) use and access overtime.
