Research

INTRODUCTION

The climate crisis, along with excessive consumption patterns and food and water waste driven by a capitalist economic model, threatens the availability of freshwater worldwide (Brown et al. 2015). In response, various water management strategies have been implemented globally, introducing hegemonic concepts aimed at conserving and efficiently utilizing this resource within the framework of sustainable development (Agarwal et al. 2000). The prevailing approach is integrated water resources management (IWRM), which originated in Europe (Giordano and Shah 2014) and has since been adopted by many countries in their water policies and legislation. IWRM integrates economic, social, and environmental sustainability dimensions, conceptualizing water as a common good for the benefit of humanity. However, this approach remains fundamentally anthropocentric, disregarding and marginalizing local knowledge systems rooted in ancestral paradigms that view water holistically and relationally, recognizing human beings as part of a greater whole (Cachipuendo 2021).

The promotion of IWRM formalized during the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, commonly known as the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, has led to water governance practices grounded in the 10 Dublin Principles (Hassing et al. 2009). This has facilitated the implementation of both public and private water management models based on a watershed approach. Analyzing the intersections of IWRM enables a deeper understanding of the complex interactions between social, environmental, and economic factors, intending to ensure water resource sustainability without compromising vital ecosystems (Agarwal et al. 2000).

In this context, water governance is understood as the construction of a political system that integrates institutional frameworks, rules, principles, and the interaction of actors at all levels of society. This system directly influences decision-making procedures and processes related to water use and sustainable management (Ramírez et al. 2017, Sepúlveda Rivera 2017). At the same time, the incorporation of new paradigms into water management generates tensions in the development of policies, laws, and local management practices (Boelens et al. 2006).

Adopting a deterministic stance on the governance of natural elements, aimed at maximizing economic and social welfare, without considering the limitations and challenges arising from the design and implementation of IWRM principles (Mehta and Movik 2014) can lead to the marginalization of local norms, institutions, and resistance practices in the face of external transformations. This risk is heightened in contexts of pressure from extractive activities and the appropriation of land and water for agro-export purposes (Bueno de Mesquita 2011). There is also a danger of sidelining the knowledge systems of actors managing water in ancestral territories (Agarwal et al. 2000), which are characterized by specific relationships between humans and nature (Sepúlveda Rivera 2017).

Recognizing the existence of paradigms, worldviews, and unique ways of relating to water in ancestral communities enables a deeper understanding of the human and non-human relationships that shape water governance in local territories (Panez Pinto 2017). Such recognition presents a fundamental challenge to the development of fairer and more inclusive water governance frameworks, especially in a context marked by state laws and policies, and intense social, economic, and environmental pressures on this vital resource amid a climate and civilizational crisis.

Across different regions of the world, local practices of water access, control, distribution, and use persist, demonstrating the existence of unique structures of water governance. In South Africa, water distribution processes incorporate particular frameworks of human-nature relationships that influence evolving notions of water justice (Movik 2014).

The case of the Māori people in New Zealand illustrates how Indigenous frameworks and tools can serve as the foundation for more inclusive and equitable decision-making processes. These are rooted in customary actions and protocols that guide appropriate behavior (tika). Within this context, tikanga refers to participatory and engagement processes that have evolved into governance, planning, and management models based on co-governance, co-planning, and co-management (Harmsworth et al. 2016), contributing to the emergence of legal pluralism as a manifestation of plurinational governance (Fenemor 2017).

In the Americas, diverse ancestral water management practices continue to preserve Indigenous knowledge and cultural traditions. In Central America, the Maya civilization understood water as a sacred and life-sustaining element, closely linked to the deities known as Chaac, who were believed to serve as portals to the underworld. Their sophisticated water management systems combined astronomical knowledge with advanced water-harvesting techniques, ensuring equilibrium between human use and conservation (Scarborough 1998). Rituals of petition and gratitude reinforced respect for sacred water sources, strengthening community water governance. The revitalization of such knowledge systems may contribute to more sustainable and ecologically respectful water governance models (Chase 2019). However, despite legal frameworks recognizing the right to water and community water management, Indigenous communities often face barriers to participating in decision-making processes. Integrating their knowledge into public policies would enhance governance structures and ensure equitable and sustainable water access.

In South America, for the Mapuche people, natural resources are intrinsically tied to life itself. Their concept of ixofillmongen describes biodiversity as the totality of life within a given space, positioning humans as part of a larger interconnected system (Mansilla-Quiñones et al. 2024). This worldview underpins efforts to decolonize nature, advocating for the restitution of ancestral lands and the political-territorial autonomy of the Mapuche people, enabling self-determination in the development of their territories (Nahuelhual et al. 2018).

Among the Andean communities of Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia, water management practices are based on ancestral worldviews linked to the paradigm of Buen Vivir or Sumak Kawsay. In Ecuador, this approach has gained prominence within legal and constitutional frameworks that recognize the rights of nature and promote public and community-based water management (Vernaza and Cutié 2022). Several studies (Boelens 2015, Ortiz 2021) have analyzed how this revalorization strengthens community governance structures and upholds the right to territorial self-determination in plurinational contexts. However, the continued dominance of state frameworks based on IWRM, with minimal integration of local worldviews, reveals an unresolved structural tension. This disconnect hinders the effective implementation of truly intercultural water governance. The case of the Kichwa Kayambi people in the Ecuadorian Andes, whose management structure is rooted in the Chakana as a symbolic and organizational matrix, demonstrates the need to move beyond unidimensional national frameworks toward plurinational systems that align with principles of integrality, cyclicality, reciprocity, interconnection, and relationality.

In this context, the present study is framed within Max Weber’s concept of the “ideal type,” aiming to construct an analytical model of community-based water management in irrigation systems in the Ecuadorian Andes. This model incorporates symbolic, territorial, and organizational dimensions specific to Andean worldviews, intending to recognize and systematize water governance forms that challenge dominant models. Drawing on a conceptual review anchored in the Buen Vivir paradigm and supported by conceptual analysis and field data collected through surveys, interviews, workshops, and participant observation within a participatory action research (PAR) framework, the study reveals internal tensions within community organizations regarding state-imposed water norms and policies. These insights inform the development of a theoretical framework designed to legitimize and support alternative community-based water management practices, thereby contributing to ongoing debates on the transformation of governance in plurinational and intercultural contexts.

We present a theoretical review of the key concepts underpinning this study, Buen Vivir, plurinationality, Andean worldview, Chakana, community-based water management, and the ideal type of model framed in dialogue with the empirical evidence gathered during fieldwork. Data collection involved 58 surveys administered to water users and community leaders, as well as 14 participatory workshops focused on water governance, agro-productive systems, and environmental stewardship. These workshops were structured around reflective questions related to identity and community vision: Who were we? Who are we? Who do we want to be? And how can we become that? In total, 70 men and women representing the organizations comprising the CODEMIA-CPM community irrigation system took part in the process.

THEORETICAL APPROACHES

Good living, Buen Vivir or Sumak Kawsay

Good living, Buen Vivir or Sumak Kawsay in Indigenous worldviews, represents a political commitment to structural change, offering an alternative to the crisis of conventional development models (Delgado 2014). It was incorporated into Ecuador’s 2008 Constitution as a “paradigm” (Gonzales and Macías Vázquez 2013), and is considered a guiding principle in reconstructing community identity and fostering an intrinsic relationship with nature and the “whole” (Pachamama; Sandoval and Gunther 2013). This concept is expressed through social, cultural, spiritual, and reciprocal practices, recognizing human beings as part of a larger interconnected system (Houtart 2014). With Buen Vivir or Sumak Kawsay, the Ecuadorian Constitution establishes principles applicable to public policy making, including water resource management. These principles include equity, universality, solidarity, interculturality, quality, efficiency, precaution, bioethics, and a gender- and generation-inclusive approach, all aimed at fostering social coexistence in harmony with nature (Asamblea Nacional del Ecuador 2008).

Plurinationality

Plurinationality as a political project rooted in historical struggles and enshrined in Ecuador’s constitutional framework, seeks to reclaim Indigenous rights that have been suppressed since 1492 and continue to be challenged today. However, it is not solely an initiative for and by Indigenous communities; rather, it represents a broader proposal for structural political, economic, social, and institutional transformation (Churuchumbi and Pilataxi 2020). It is an open space envisioned by Indigenous peoples and nationalities, advocating for fair and equitable interdependence among all Ecuadorians. This entails respecting linguistic, epistemological, economic, territorial, legal, and cultural diversity, as well as the geobiodiversity present in the territories within a single state. In this context, the exercise of the right to self-determination is oriented toward achieving community self-governance within the state (Burgos-Guevara 1977, Almeida 2008, Cartuche 2023).

Andean worldview

The term “worldview” (cosmovision) is composed of two elements: cosmos (world) and vision (seeing; Illicachi Guzñay 2014). It represents a dynamic way of seeing, feeling, and perceiving the world (Moyano 2012), and the relationships between human beings, communities, cultures, and existence as a whole, including nature and the cosmos (Zuckerhut 2010, Illicachi Guzñay 2014, Achig-Balarezo 2019). This perspective encompasses philosophical, cultural, religious, and spiritual dimensions that shape a concrete reality and actively participate in humanity’s cosmological construction of life (Di Salvia 2011).

The Andean worldview considers space, or Pacha, as a fundamental element in the intercultural production of Andean philosophical thought (Achig-Balarezo 2019). It is shaped by beliefs, rational practices, and the interplay of opposing yet interdependent forces essential for balance, known as Yanantin or complementary duality (Moyano 2012). In this perspective, all material and immaterial elements coexist within a unified space (Pacha), where differences are seen as complementary rather than hierarchical (Zuckerhut 2010, Di Salvia 2011, Moyano 2012). This integrative view of existence aligns with the Andean principle of coexistence with Pachamama (Alvarado 2006).

Thus, everything is interconnected within a harmonious and ordered whole, represented by the Chakana, which embodies the three dimensions of time and space: the celestial world (Hanan Pacha), the terrestrial world (Kay Pacha), and the underworld (Uku Pacha; Alvarado 2006, Di Salvia 2011, Moyano 2012, Estermann 2013, Achig-Balarezo 2019). To maintain harmony and sustainability between these dimensions, Andean philosophy emphasizes the principles of complementarity, cyclicality, and reciprocity, embodied in Ayni (mutual aid) and Minka (community labor). These principles guide daily communal life through exchange and reciprocal work for the collective good (Estermann 2006).

Chakana

The Chakana, or Southern Cross, is a stepped cross representing Andean cosmogony and serving as a bridge between different dimensions of the universe (Pino 2012). Since the 1980s, it has been increasingly recognized as a symbol of intersection, linking the upper and lower realms, the right and left spheres, and the four cardinal directions (Pino 2012, Estermann 2013), However, various linguistic and cultural interpretations exist within Quechua and Aymara traditions (Pino 2012).

As an Andean symbol, the Chakana is understood as a “cosmic bridge,” connecting the above and below, left and right (Yánez del Pozo 2002, Pino 2012, Confederación del Pueblo Kayambi 2021). In some contexts, it is also a political instrument for planning and exercising collective rights toward self-determination, promoting balance and harmony in the water-wise breeding of life (Confederación del Pueblo Kayambi 2021). It functions as an organizing and harmonizing principle, establishing equilibrium within the territory based on Andean cosmogony. This worldview categorizes four key dimensions, family, community, chakra (agro-productive unit), and geobiodiversity, forming an ethical framework for interconnection (Yánez del Pozo 2002, Pino 2012), The Chakana thus fosters the harmonization of all-natural and human-created elements that coexist within the territory as part of the greater whole, Pachamama (Estermann 2006, Confederación del Pueblo Kayambi 2021).

Community water management

The Constitution of Ecuador (CRE) defines the nation as a “constitutional State of rights and social justice, democratic, sovereign, independent, unitary, intercultural, plurinational, and secular” (Asamblea Nacional del Ecuador 2008). Within this legal framework, Articles 10, 11, 57 (including 21 provisions), and 171 recognize Indigenous communities, peoples, and nationalities as political entities with collective rights and jurisdictional functions. These communities coexist under their own forms of social organization, community authorities, legal traditions, economic systems, religious practices, and worldviews. Moreover, Articles 318 of the Constitution explicitly state that “water management shall be exclusively public or community-based” and that “the State shall strengthen community initiatives for water management to ensure potable water and irrigation services.” This mandate is reaffirmed in Articles 32, 54, 71(b), and 73 of the Organic Law on Water Resources and Use (LORHUyAA; Asamblea Nacional 2014).

In practice, community water management is understood as “a set of practices and actions implemented by community organizations to access, control, distribute, use, and replenish water within natural flows, creating a system of life that generates life in its territorial unity” (Cachipuendo 2021). Alternatively, it has been described as “... the interrelation of socio-organizational, political, economic, and spiritual actions specific to Indigenous organizations that manage territories under a community regime” (Cachipuendo 2021). These practices, rooted in natural elements, customs, and traditions, support the paradigm of Buen Vivir or Sumak Kawsay (Sandoval and Gunther 2013).

Ideal type model

Max Weber developed the concept of the “ideal type” as a methodological tool for social analysis, distinguishing it from the natural sciences (De Donato 2007). Its function is to organize reality through “culturally significant ideas,” providing historical meaning to events (Gómez de Mantilla 1988, Aguilar Villanueva 1989). For Weber, it is impossible to construct a historical science without a conceptual framework that relates reality to cultural values.

The “ideal type” enables the comparison of specific social phenomena and the formulation of hypotheses regarding events and causal relationships (Nahrendorf 1963, De Donato 2007). Its validity lies in its heuristic capacity to interpret empirical realities within a systematic and comparative framework (Gómez de Mantilla 1988). From a historical perspective, it integrates elements of subjective understanding (verstehen) and objective causality (begreifen) for the analysis of social processes (Gómez de Mantilla 1988).

This model is particularly useful for examining how communities organize and manage resources, such as water, within their own knowledge structures. In this context, the “ideal type” will be applied to analyze community water management within the Andean worldview, highlighting its relationship with cultural and historical values.

METHODS

Case study

The selection of the case is methodologically justified by its representativeness as a well-established example of community-based water management in the Ecuadorian Andes, its richness in elements rooted in the Andean worldview, such as the Chakana and the principles of reciprocity, the feasibility of applying Max Weber’s “ideal type” approach, and the community’s willingness to actively participate in the research. Accordingly, the study was conducted in the northern highlands of Ecuador, within the territory of the Kayambi People, located approximately 70 kilometers from the capital, Quito. In this region, Indigenous organizations and communities are responsible for the management and governance of water resources for both human consumption and irrigation. As a case study, the research focused on the Water and Environment Development Consortium Cayambe-Pedro Moncayo (CODEMIA-CPM), an organization responsible for the management and handling of the Tabacundo acequia. This irrigation system supplies water to an area of 3054.13 hectares, benefiting 4211 irrigators organized into five grassroots user organizations.

The Tabacundo irrigation system is considered inter-community because it connects five parishes and a significant number of communities within the Kichwa Kayambi territory. The social structure of these communities is based on collective life, meaning that individualism is not prioritized; instead, all decisions are made based on common objectives (Cachipuendo 2021).

The governance and management of the irrigation system follow a structured organizational model. At the top, the Board of Directors, comprising five representatives from affiliated organizations, serves as the executive body responsible for implementing actions and activities established by the Expanded Council. This council consists of 70 male and female leaders representing the water distribution sectors and the communities. Its primary role is to validate the actions and strategies proposed by the Board of Directors and define guidelines for the management of the irrigation system. Finally, the General Assembly of Irrigators, the system’s legislative body, comprising all users, proposes policies for community water management, establishes regulations, oversees accountability processes, and channels the concerns and proposals of water users.

In Ecuador, the Constitution recognizes two models of water governance: public and community based. Within this framework, Indigenous peoples exercise autonomous water governance, often in continuous negotiations and disputes with the state (Zapata 2017). The Tabacundo acequia irrigation system operates within the Pisque River watershed, with its water sources originating from the páramo ecosystem and the glacial melt of Mount Cayambe. Irrigation water is collected from the upper section of the La Chimba River micro-watershed at an altitude of 3800 meters above sea level (masl) and distributed through a 70.92-kilometer main acequia, supplying the middle watershed (2950 masl) and the lower watershed (2700 masl).

Given the agroecological conditions of the region, three predominant agricultural production systems have been identified: floriculture, dairy farming, and smallholder family agriculture (Cachipuendo 2021). These productive systems make the Kayambi territory a key economic driver in the northern highlands of Ecuador.

Methodological approach

Max Weber’s concept of the “ideal type” functions as a methodological tool for constructing analytical models that can be compared with empirical reality, not as a literal description of facts, but as a conceptual framework for understanding social phenomena in their historical and cultural specificity. This approach is particularly useful for analyzing community-based water management in Andean contexts, where water practices are not governed by linear technical logics but by symbolic, territorial, and relational structures deeply rooted in ancestral worldviews.

In this context, the study was conducted using a qualitative approach, with a descriptive level of inquiry, and employed the Participatory Action Research (PAR) method. Since 2013, the Universidad Politécnica Salesiana has provided technical support to the community organization, with more consistent and intensified engagement beginning in 2022. During this period, the researchers actively participated in processes aimed at strengthening the organization through the development of training programs on various topics and the implementation of key initiatives, such as the preparation of the water management plan, the design of the tariff structure, the drafting of the organization’s bylaws, and the formulation of internal regulations.

This engagement was guided by a collaborative logic that recognizes and values local knowledge systems. In line with this, as Laparra Mendez (2018), notes, the spiral-shaped circular thinking of the Andean worldview is reflected in the conception of time as a way of understanding life through cyclical and integrative processes in which everything returns and transforms without losing continuity. This vision also shaped the research process, which was structured into four methodological stages: (i) document review; (ii) field data collection; (iii) participatory reflection and construction of the community water management model; and (iv) data systematization and feedback. To collect data, multiple techniques were used, including document review, semi-structured interviews, participant observation, and focus groups (Fig. 1).

Document review

The document review was conducted in collaboration with the leaders of the community organization, who facilitated access to internal archives and relevant materials. Documents were selected based on thematic relevance and analytical usefulness for the development of the community water management model. Priority was given to those who provided insight into the organizational structure, management mechanisms, community participation processes, and the cultural and cosmological foundations of the Kayambi people. The review included both normative and technical documents, as well as administrative records, project reports, and texts reflecting the Andean worldview concerning water (Table 1).

Field data collection

The purpose of the field data collection was to understand the practices, perceptions, and cultural principles that underpin community-based water management from the perspective of the Kayambi people. It was carried out through semi-structured interviews combining closed and open-ended questions. A total of 10 interviews were conducted with the organization’s leaders, one interview with the organization’s technical expert, and three interviews with scholars and/or elders knowledgeable about the Kayambi people’s worldview. These interviews were conducted between June and August 2023, each lasting approximately one hour. Once transcribed, the interviews were processed using NVIVO software, categorizing the information based on the following keywords: organizational structure, water distribution, irrigation management actions, irrigation system operations, sociocultural considerations of each irrigated territory, water spirituality, and elements of the Andean worldview. Finally, the information was systematized and presented to the members of the Expanded Council in the next phase of the study.

Construction and analysis of the governance model

Throughout this process, the 70 representatives of CODEMIA-CPM’s affiliated organizations actively participated. The study employed the workshop technique (focus groups), organizing seven workshops from November 2022 to December 2023, each lasting three hours. Each workshop followed a methodological guide including background information, objectives, methodology, and an agenda based on the topic of discussion. Each workshop was divided into five phases: (i) review of the previous workshop, where findings were presented for feedback; (ii) presentation by the moderator on the corresponding topic in a 40-minute session, covering themes such as community water governance; (iii) thematic analysis, where participants were divided into four groups and guided by specific questions; (iv) group presentations, where each team shared key findings with all participants; and (v) consensus-building and conclusions, where agreements and final reflections were established. The information gathered was cross-referenced with findings from the document review and systematized through diagrams based on the central symbol of the Andean worldview: the Chakana. This symbol served as a structuring tool to organize the content into four fundamental dimensions: family, as the space for intergenerational knowledge transmission; community, as the sphere of decision making and shared responsibility; chakra, as the agro-productive and spiritual unit where the balance between water, soil, and life is manifested; and geobiodiversity, expressing the relationship with the natural environment, its cycles, and its communal protection. This representation facilitated a holistic understanding of the management model and served as the foundation for feedback and refinement in subsequent workshops.

Finally, the organization’s irrigation management model was consolidated based on the Andean worldview, ensuring that its actions and activities reflect the community’s customs and traditions and are framed within the four dimensions of the Chakana: family, community, chakra, and geobiodiversity. These dimensions guide the model toward an integral, relational, and territorial vision of water as a source of life. In its construction, Max Weber’s concept of the ideal type was used as the analytical method, allowing for the abstraction and systematization of empirical practices into a conceptual structure aligned with the sociocultural reality of the Kayambi people. The final document was presented to the organization’s Board of Directors and Extended Council for review, feedback, and approval.

RESULTS

The results reveal a community-based model of water management grounded in the Andean worldview and the Buen Vivir paradigm, understood as a form of community water governance embedded within a broader process of territorial self-determination in a plurinational state. This model is structured around the symbolic dimensions of the Chakana: family, community, chakra, and geobiodiversity. Rooted in circular thinking, these findings form the basis for the design of an integrated model that interweaves normative, organizational, productive, natural, and spiritual aspects, offering a framework that can be projected onto other community contexts with similar territorial management realities and shared struggles for the protection of water as a common element.

Water management and handling model

The community-based water management model is grounded in a territorial approach, community principles, and the paradigm of Buen Vivir. It emerges from everyday water-related practices in the Andean communities of the Kayambi people. This situated and community-validated model integrates local knowledge and ancestral wisdom with organizational, ecological, and spiritual principles. Its formulation draws on Max Weber’s conceptual framework of the ideal type, which serves as a comparative and structural tool for analyzing social phenomena (Nahrendorf 1963; Gómez de Mantilla 1988, De Donato 2007). Adapted to local realities and customs, the model articulates interrelated community dimensions aimed at securing collective benefits (Cachipuendo 2021), and it is guided by fundamental principles such as complementarity, cyclicity, and reciprocity (Cachipuendo 2021), which shape social, political, and spiritual relationships around water in the territory (Boelens 2015, Cachipuendo et al. 2021).

A central feature of the model is the incorporation of the Andean worldview through the dimensions of the Chakana, an ancestral symbol that organizes the world into interrelated levels (Pino 2012). Each of its dimensions is associated with a vital principle, a color, a natural element (Estermann 2006, Confederación del Pueblo Kayambi 2021), and specific functions within the community-based water management system:

• Family is guided by the principle of “good doing,” represented by the color yellow and the element earth. From this perspective, the family is not viewed as an isolated individual unit, but as a constitutive part of the community. Family relationships are marked by mutual care, intergenerational knowledge transmission, and collaborative work, all in continuous dialogue with the natural and social environment.
• Community reflects the principle of “good feeling,” associated with the color red and the element fire. The community represents the space of collective self-determination, where practices such as Minka (communal labor), user assemblies, and other participatory mechanisms are exercised. These spaces allow communities to define common goals and sustain territorial water governance through a holistic, inclusive, and solidarity-based perspective.
• Chakra, or agricultural plot, embodies the principle of “good thinking,” linked to the color blue and the element water. The chakra is not only a site of agricultural production but also a spiritual and pedagogical space. It is where sowing and irrigation converge with rituals and intergenerational learning, making it a central axis that links water management, food sovereignty, and cultural identity continuity.
• Geobiodiversity corresponds to the principle of “good wishing,” represented by the color green and the element of wood. This dimension refers to the territory as a whole, where biotic and abiotic beings coexist. At this level, water is understood as life that gives rise to more life, implying a relationship of interdependence and respect toward ecosystems, natural cycles, and all beings of Pachamama.

At the center of the Chakana lies the origin of life, symbolized by the element wind and represented by the color white, which acts as the connecting and dynamic force between the dimensions. This symbolic and functional structure is integrated with the Andean communities’ conception of time and space, guided by the agro-festive calendar, whose spiral logic unfolds in a counterclockwise direction.

In this context, water use in agriculture is governed by an agro-spiritual calendar marked by festivals that reflect the cyclical relationship between humans, the land, and celestial bodies. Key celebrations include the following:

• Inti Raymi, the winter solstice celebration, associated with the sun and the harvest.
• Kuya Raymi, the festival of the moon and fertility, linked to honoring feminine energy, the earth, and sowing.
• Kapak Raymi, corresponding to the summer solstice, which symbolizes the growth of crops and people, especially in youth initiation processes.
• Pawkar Raymi, related to the spring equinox, celebrates flowering and abundance as a time of gratitude.

These festivities not only organize the agricultural cycle but also strengthen the spiritual bond with Pachamama, the human-nature relationship and guide water management practices to ensure healthy and sustainable harvests.

Within this symbolic and operational framework, it becomes possible to distinguish between “management” and “handling” of water as complementary actions. This distinction helps clarify the specific functions carried out by communities, in alignment with the dimensions of the Chakana and the ritual temporalities that guide their relationship with water (see Fig. 2).

Management encompasses the strategic and political actions carried out by the organization’s board or leadership. These actions include securing legal rights for water use, obtaining funding for programs and projects, establishing inter-community alliances and partnerships with public and private entities, and representing the organization in interinstitutional coordination spaces. All these actions are carried out in alignment with the Community Water Management Plan (Crianza Sabia del Agua).

Handling, in turn, refers to the internal operational activities of the organization. These include updating the user registry, maintaining water infrastructure, scheduling and distributing irrigation water, administering the technical components of water systems, and protecting water sources, among other essential tasks for the system’s daily functioning.

Within this framework, the model applied to irrigation by the CODEMIA-CPM organization constitutes a dynamic tool that strengthens both territorial planning and the wise stewardship of water from an intercultural perspective. Through its four dimensions, family, community, chakra, and geobiodiversity, the model promotes community self-determination, representative participation in the development of local water policies, sustainable production, and environmental protection. At the same time, it enables the binding integration of technologies and ancestral knowledge and encourages the formation of strategic alliances among communities and with the state (Requelme et al. 2024).

Dimensions of the Kayambi People’s worldview in the community water management and handling model

Family dimension

The first dimension of the Chakana, the Ayllu or family, forms the social foundation that engages in micro-level planning, execution, and social oversight for the development of community irrigation organizations. This dimension is interconnected with the other dimensions of the Chakana, which represent various elements of nature, such as territory and environment (geobiodiversity), agro-productive unit (chakra), and the construction of policies and regulations (community). These dimensions collectively contribute to meeting the needs of the family, community, and territory (Fig. 3). The actions and activities within this dimension are reflected in both water management and handling.

Management: Includes participation in assemblies, integration into the irrigation user registry, recognition of the irrigation system from its water sources, adoption of productive planning, and commitment to the community.

Handling: Encompasses the efficient use of water in the agricultural production unit (APU), production planning, participation in minkas (collective labor), adherence to the agricultural calendar, respect for water distribution schedules, and compliance with community principles and norms.

In this context, the irrigator is regarded as part of a family within an irrigated territory, integrating into a community organization structure where they acquire rights and obligations established by internal regulations (statutes). As a community member, the irrigator participates in collective life rather than acting individually. Merely owning an APU within the territory is not sufficient to access water; the irrigator must comply with community regulations (Aceldo and Farinango 2021). Additionally, they participate representatively, exercising both individual and collective rights based on the principles of self-determination, integrality, reciprocity, cyclicality, and territorial connection.

The CODEMIA-CPM irrigation organization promotes efficient water use at the plot level, encouraging irrigation methods such as sprinkler and/or drip irrigation. Irrigators must adhere to water distribution schedules according to crop type and APU size, which are key factors in irrigation efficiency (Mazabel and Caldera 2018). Furthermore, the adoption of practices that enhance soil water retention is encouraged, such as the incorporation of organic matter (Tácuna et al. 2015), and the creation of microclimates through the planting of live barriers or windbreaks to reduce wind impact (Liu et al. 2021).

Within community water management, users play an active role in the irrigation system (Martínez-Moscoso and Abril 2020). Their participation spans various levels of governance and management, from holding leadership positions to contributing labor in the operation and maintenance of the system through Minka. Additionally, they provide financial support through tariffs and fees according to the system’s needs. Lastly, irrigators actively engage in decision-making processes within the assemblies at different levels of irrigated territories.

Community dimension

The second dimension of the Chakana emphasizes territorial community authority and collective power through general assemblies, which serve as the highest authority within the community or irrigated territory. These assemblies establish local policies and regulations for territorial development, where traditions and customs form the foundation for Buen Vivir at the community level. This dimension reflects the principles of reciprocity, cyclicality, complementarity, and alternation, as all members belong to a single territory or Llaktari Allpa (Fig. 4). The actions and activities within this dimension are manifested in both community water management and handling.

Management: Includes the organizational structure of irrigators (assemblies, governing council, committees) to operationalize the water management plan, tariff plan, conservation of water sources, development of regulations and public policies, and establishment of strategic alliances.

Handling: Encompasses the user registry and irrigation cadastre for water distribution, financial contributions, operation and maintenance, financial administration, functions manual, information and communication management, and accountability processes.

Community water governance: Based on the collective capacity of irrigators to organize and establish agreements that ensure efficient and sustainable water management (Ulloa and Ribadeneira 2017, Diver et al. 2024). Within this framework, communities engage in self-managed water governance processes, promoting territorial self-determination (Burgos-Guevara 1977, Bernal et al. 2014). The General Assembly of Irrigators serves as the highest authority within the community organization, holding decision-making power over strategic irrigation management (Ulloa and Ribadeneira 2017, Cachipuendo 2021).

Organizational structure: The water management and handling model adopted by CODEMIA-CPM is fundamentally structured around its organizational framework, which integrates various levels of internal and external coordination. This model facilitates the exercise of collective rights, strengthens community power, and upholds territorial self-determination (Confederación del Pueblo Kayambi 2021, Diver et al. 2024). Under the water-wise breeding approach, water planning and governance include financial resource allocation, policy and regulatory development, strategic alliance formation, and legal reinforcement in alignment with national and international frameworks on collective rights and water management (Boelens et al. 2017). Additionally, it encompasses operational handling activities essential for the functioning of the irrigation system.

The organizational structure of CODEMIA-CPM consists of three community-based organizations (Second-Tier Organizations, STO) and two irrigation associations, with the General Assembly of Irrigators as the highest authority responsible for developing territorial policies and regulations (Fig. 5; Cachipuendo et al. 2021), Furthermore, this body facilitates coordination with state institutions and other stakeholders involved in irrigation water governance, fostering sustainable production, investments in hydraulic infrastructure, and environmental management (Asamblea Nacional del Ecuador 2010, Perugachi and Cachipuendo 2020). The decisions made by the General Assembly are formalized through binding mandates, reinforcing organizational autonomy (Günther 2014). This organizational framework is designed to exercise collective rights and strengthen community power within the Tabacundo acequia system and other irrigation networks while respecting the unique dynamics of community and irrigator organizations.

Community water management plan: water-wise breeding: Community water management, based on the principles of water-wise breeding, serves as a planning tool that integrates policies, strategies, and concrete actions to strengthen community water governance and management. The plan aims to ensure the sustainability of water availability and quality for both irrigation and human consumption while promoting principles such as equitable water access and distribution, representative participation, gender equity, and accountability. Additionally, it enhances organizational resilience and the protection of water sources and páramos (Andean ecosystem with shrub-like vegetation), preventing ecosystem contamination (Pachamama) in alignment with the Andean worldview.

Furthermore, the plan seeks to improve local capacities in financial administration and the technical operation and maintenance of the irrigation system. It also fosters project and program development through both internal and external funding sources while promoting community representation in decision-making spaces for public policy formulation.

Policies and regulations for community irrigation management: The mandates issued by the General Assembly of Irrigators provide key guidelines for designing institutional, legal, and administrative policies related to community water management (Ramírez et al. 2017). Although these policies adhere to national regulations, CODEMIA-CPM has its own statute and internal regulations aligned with the Ecuadorian Constitution and water and collective rights legislation. These regulatory instruments strengthen community water governance and ensure the exercise of collective rights in accordance with the Good Living (Sumak Kawsay) paradigm and the Andean worldview (Archidiacono 2013).

The Statute of CODEMIA-CPM establishes the legal framework for community water governance, incorporating principles of the Andean worldview and reinforcing community power (Arroyo 2017). Additionally, the internal regulations precisely define operational provisions, detailing the organizational structure, functions of governing bodies, and mechanisms for technical and administrative management (Rivera 2015). This regulatory framework enables CODEMIA-CPM to operationalize its governance structure, expanded council, board of directors, commissions, and other actors involved in addressing community water governance and management challenges at institutional, organizational, technical, economic-financial, and environmental levels, ensuring the responsible and conscious use of water from a territorial perspective.

Community water tariff plan: The tariff system implemented by CODEMIA-CPM operates under the principle of reciprocity, ensuring the financial sustainability of the irrigation system. Beyond its economic function, this tariff plan is conceived as a mechanism for valuing water in alignment with the community water management approach (Ulloa and Ribadeneira 2017). From the Andean worldview, the tariff structure is based on criteria of equity and reciprocity, considering factors such as water availability, cultivated area, crop type, environmental impact, and agricultural profitability.

Functioning of the community irrigation system: Community irrigation operates as an interconnected social-ecological system, integrating human, natural, and infrastructural elements (Aceldo and Farinango 2021, Cachipuendo et al. 2021). Its operation depends on regulatory measures agreed upon in organizational, economic, environmental, technological, and legal aspects (Ramírez et al. 2017). Water allocation and distribution are planned based on flow availability records and an irrigator registry, considering the irrigated surface area, crop type, and the irrigation method used.

The maintenance of the irrigation system is carried out through Minka and Ayni, traditional community labor practices based on unity and reciprocity (Estermann 2006). These practices include manual and mechanical cleaning of canals, debris removal, and inspection of gates and aqueducts. The operation of the system is overseen by water operators (aguateros), who manage water intake, conveyance, storage, and distribution while coordinating maintenance actions with the technical team and irrigators.

From a financial perspective, the irrigation system is managed through an annual budget funded by irrigator contributions. These payments cover administrative and technical expenses, ensuring the system’s sustainability, essentially enabling economic self-management. Transparency in financial administration is reinforced through accountability processes in general assemblies and expanded councils, complemented by communication strategies such as radio broadcasts and social media platforms.

Chakra dimension

The third dimension of the Chakana represents a living territorial system for the production and transmission of knowledge, wisdom, and technologies applied to agricultural planning in alignment with the four agro-festive cycles. Within this space, families reconnect to sustainably produced healthy and nutritious food. The agricultural production unit (APU) is home to diverse biodiversity, where various living beings interact with all elements of nature, complementing each other to generate wholesome food. This production serves both household consumption and the commercialization or exchange (trueque) of surplus goods (Fig. 6). The actions and activities within this system are categorized into management and handling:

Management: Includes equitable water distribution, implementation of modern irrigation projects for efficient water use, design of sustainable and healthy production plans, development of initiatives to promote food sovereignty, and organization of bio-fairs.

Handling: Encompasses irrigation scheduling within the APU, characterization of agricultural production systems, seedling production, and provision of equipment and materials for parcel-level irrigation.

In the irrigated territory, various production systems coexist, ranging from intensive models such as floriculture and dairy farming to family farming focused on the production of healthy food. The primary challenge for organizations in this context is to reconcile two life paradigms: sustainable development and Buen Vivir. Within these territories, two fundamental theoretical approaches can be observed: food security and food sovereignty.

Food sovereignty is defined as “ensuring that individuals, communities, peoples, and nationalities achieve self-sufficiency in producing healthy and culturally appropriate food on a permanent basis” (Asamblea Nacional del Ecuador 2008). This concept is closely linked to a country’ agrarian and economic policies (Lasso and Clark 2016). Among the key factors affecting food sovereignty are land-use changes due to monoculture and the increasing pressure on water sources, which are increasingly scarce and allocated for other uses. Within this context, the community water governance and management model seek to maintain balance in the relationship between humans and natural elements.

The CODEMIA-CPM organization is committed to sustaining food production within APUs that practice family farming and floriculture under an environmentally, socially, economically, and technologically sustainable production system with an entrepreneurial approach. To achieve this, families, community organizations, and irrigation systems need to promote the production of bio-inputs, the recovery of native seeds, rainwater harvesting, and the development of sustainable floriculture.

Food security relates to a territory’s capacity to generate financial resources that enable the population to access safe and healthy food (Salazar and Muñoz 2019). In the irrigated territory, floriculture yields higher profitability compared to other agricultural activities, with estimated revenues ranging from $6 to $8 per cubic meter of water used (Cachipuendo 2021). Additionally, this sector generates employment, averaging 5 to 6 workdays per hectare, leading to a 38% increase in floriculture production area within community territories over the past five years (Cachipuendo et al. 2024). However, floriculture also has negative environmental impacts due to the excessive use of pesticides and fertilizers, resulting in environmental liabilities (Restrepo et al. 2000, Pengue 2004) and increased pressure on water and soil resources (Chávez Caiza and Burbano Rodríguez 2021). Therefore, within the community-based irrigation management model, the chakra dimension, as an agro-productive unit, reflects the need for a transition toward more sustainable production systems, emphasizing the gradual reduction of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers.

Geobiodiversity dimension

In this fourth dimension of the Chakana, all elements, structures, and beings of nature are understood as life-generating and life-sustaining entities. These include mountains, rivers, páramos, animals, minerals, the sun, the moon, rain, soil, and even water system infrastructures and their uses. Within this context, the principle of reciprocity (giving and receiving) is essential for the harmonious coexistence of all beings and elements, ensuring the continuity of life through the integration of new technologies and ancestral knowledge in water-wise breeding (Fig. 7). The actions and activities within this dimension are categorized into management and handling:

Management: Involves the development of plans for managing agricultural solid waste, training water stewards, establishing strategic alliances with environmental institutions, formulating environmental policies, and allocating budgets for environmental research programs and projects.

Handling: Includes reforestation and páramo conservation, protection of sacred sites and water sources, monitoring the quality and quantity of surface water and aquifers, and managing irrigation system infrastructure. Additionally, it covers the proper handling of hazardous and non-hazardous waste, as well as regulating cattle and horse grazing in páramo ecosystems.

The impacts of climate change on geobiodiversity, both globally and locally, threaten the coexistence of living systems that sustain the life of all interrelated beings, including the human species. In this regard, Article 71 of the Ecuadorian Constitution recognizes the rights of nature (Pachamama), stating that: “... nature has the right to have its existence fully respected, as well as the maintenance and regeneration of its vital cycles, structure, functions, and evolutionary processes” (Asamblea Nacional del Ecuador 2008).

Based on this principle, maintaining a harmonious relationship between humans, nature, and water infrastructures, such as systems for water collection, conveyance, storage, distribution, and application, requires irrigators to understand that they are not separate individuals disconnected from biophysical, material, and spiritual elements. As Canessa (2012) reflects, an individual action is, in itself, a social act, and only when understood in its collective dimension can it foster a relationship based on relationality, reciprocity, and complementarity.

This approach helps to restore the human-nature relationship, which has been progressively eroded. As a result, environmental awareness is strengthened, reducing pollution and the accelerated degradation of water sources, soils, páramos, and other ecosystems, leading to long-term, holistic benefits, including improved health for producers.

From the Andean worldview, water sources are living and spiritual elements inherent to Mother Earth (Pachamama; Achig-Balarezo 2019, Confederación del Pueblo Kayambi 2021). Water is a life-giving force, essential for Buen Vivir in the territories influenced by community irrigation systems. Ensuring the health of water sources and interconnected ecosystems is a shared responsibility among members of the CODEMIA-CPM irrigation organization. This reciprocal relationship between humans and nature’s elements is fundamental to sustainability. Within this framework, various water conservation initiatives have been undertaken, supported by community decisions, budget allocations, and the reconstruction of a collective awareness of the need to safeguard the coexistence of all beings and elements for future generations. This also requires questioning traditional concepts of development and progress, as proposed by Gonzales and Macías Vázquez (2013) in favor of life’s continuity.

Infrastructure and water management projects, often referred to as humanized nature, shape and reshape irrigated territories. However, they can also create hierarchical spaces where knowledge claims and truths are established (Boelens et al. 2017). From the Andean perspective, hydraulic works are conceived as community assets, as their construction and maintenance typically depend on self-management and self-financing for a common goal, avoiding interpretations that associate them with territorial colonization (Leff 2006).

The most significant water infrastructures within the water governance system include the protection of water sources, water collection, conveyance, and storage, as well as the distribution and application of water at the plot level. The operation and maintenance of these infrastructures, especially the most sensitive and costly ones, require external funding. Therefore, establishing strategic alliances to secure financing and specialized personnel is essential. These actions must be complemented by the participation of local human resources and community leaders, within the framework of the competencies of state institutions.

DISCUSSION

A model becomes an operational and practical tool for water management and handling by illustrating practices, customs, and beliefs. However, models evolve based on paradigms and approaches to water governance in different territories. In many cases, these models may become hegemonic frameworks, generating conflicts over water access, control, and use especially in territories where multiple people and nationalities coexist. Within the paradigm of sustainable development, the integrated water resources management (IWRM) approach has been promoted, considering water as a common good managed under public, private, and collective models (Martínez Valdés and Villalejo García 2018).

At a global level, Indigenous peoples have developed their own forms of water governance, sharing a common perspective of water as an intrinsic element of nature and human life, interconnected with biotic, abiotic, and spiritual beings (Martínez and Acosta 2017). From this perspective, water is considered a natural heritage, used by all living beings, including humans, as the foundation for sustaining life.

In the Andean world, a set of epistemologies, philosophies, and approaches specific to Indigenous peoples has been developed, reflected in policies, methods, and techniques for water planning, management, and handling that are more locally focused. These practices align with the paradigm of Buen Vivir (Sumak Kawsay), which recognizes individual, collective, and community rights within an intercultural and plurinational state. In this context, community water governance is established as a national-scale approach with diverse characteristics that simultaneously revitalize ancestral knowledge (Lizcano Chapeta et al. 2022), leading to two main management and handling models: public and community-based.

The public management model is characterized by still adhering to the guidelines of IWRM rather than those of Buen Vivir, where water is considered a commodity and can be commercialized. As a result, the organizational structure follows a business-oriented vision linked to state institutions, with no participation from water users in decision making and a disregard for local water management and handling practices.

The implementation of the community water management and handling model requires strengthening the authority of community governments, councils, and governing bodies to enable water self-governance based on a different logic from the prevailing political economy (Sandoval and Gunther 2013). This approach promotes an alternative perception of human and non-human relationships in harmony with Pachamama, while reinforcing self-determination through the exercise of customary or Indigenous law (Perugachi and Cachipuendo 2020).

The community water management approach is rooted in Good Living (Buen Vivir), recognizing the territorial reality of Indigenous peoples and the interconnectedness between humans, the physical and biophysical elements of nature, and spiritual beings (Achig-Balarezo 2019). From this perspective, water is understood as a vital element for life. In contrast, IWRM, based on the sustainable development paradigm, views water as a resource or economic good intended for wealth generation (Martínez Valdés and Villalejo García 2018), often disregarding the realities of Indigenous peoples and their territories.

In Ecuador, community water management is framed within self-determination processes supported by the collective rights of Indigenous peoples, as recognized in the Constitution. This allows communities and Indigenous organizations to actively participate in territorial governance, which includes managing natural elements such as soil and water. Moreover, the right to decide over these resources constitutes a form of cognitive self-determination (Requelme et al. 2024), enabling the decolonization of knowledge in opposition to hegemonic models that overlook local ancestral wisdom. This highlights the need to build plurinational states in territories where multiple cultures and nationalities coexist.

At the global level, various agreements and guidelines, such as the Sustainable Development Goals, have been promoted. In some contexts, such as among the Indigenous peoples of New Zealand, co-governance, co-planning, and co-management strategies have been implemented (Harmsworth et al. 2016). However, in the broader global context, power dynamics and the appropriation of natural elements complicate the consolidation of plurinational states where Indigenous peoples are structurally integrated into state institutions and decision-making processes (Gutiérrez Chong et al. 2015). Despite this, communities and organizations have found ways to sustain governance structures within legal pluralism without descending into anarchy, through regulations and ordinances issued by local Indigenous governments (Requelme et al. 2024).

The community water management approach practiced by Indigenous peoples in Mexico, Colombia, Peru, Bolivia, and Chile demonstrates that homogeneous governance models are not viable because of cultural and territorial diversity. Therefore, it is essential to respect local knowledge and promote a dialogue of wisdom, fostering an ecology of knowledge (Leff 2004), that enables the creation of water governance models adapted to each people’s worldview.

Through community water governance, it is possible to develop management models that integrate Indigenous worldviews and promote their own development within the framework of Buen Vivir. One example is the case of the Kayambi people, where the Chakana serves as a harmonizing symbol in the stewardship of life, structured into four dimensions: family, community, chakra, and geobiodiversity (Confederación del Pueblo Kayambi 2021).

This model contributes to rethinking water governance, management, and stewardship from an intercultural, plurinational, and decolonial perspective, grounded in the paradigm of Buen Vivir (Sumak Kawsay). It offers a critical alternative to the technocratic and universalizing approach of IWRM (Agarwal et al. 2000, Mehta and Movik 2014). The articulation of the Andean worldview, the dimensions of the Chakana, and the methodological use of Weber’s ideal type enables the construction of an analytical framework that can be replicated in other Indigenous territories, such as those of the Mapuche, Maya, or Quechua peoples, who face similar tensions with hegemonic state water management models and policies (Boelens 2015). This approach provides organizational, normative, and symbolic tools to strengthen territorial self-determination, the recognition of the rights of nature, and the development of resilient and culturally embedded community systems.

Beyond its contextual value, this approach represents a theoretical and methodological contribution that can inform similar water governance processes in Indigenous territories across Latin America, Africa, or Asia, where ancestral communities contend with water management models imposed by state or corporate logics. The systematization of the Kayambi model broadens the analytical field of water governance by proposing a conceptual architecture rooted in Indigenous epistemologies, which critically engages with global frameworks such as the Sustainable Development Goals or IWRM. This proposal invites a rethinking of knowledge production about water from more plural, intercultural, and territorially grounded frameworks, integrating spirituality, relationality, and ancestral wisdom as central dimensions of environmental planning and management. In this way, it offers a methodological and epistemological path for social movements, universities, plurinational governments, and international organizations committed to water justice, Buen Vivir, and the defense of nature as a common element.

CONCLUSIONS

This research made it possible to construct a community-based water management model grounded in the Andean worldview of the Kayambi people and framed within the Buen Vivir paradigm. Through the symbolic matrix of the Chakana, the model’s symbolic and functional dimensions, family, community, chakra, and geobiodiversity, were organized to structure a form of water governance that is territorially rooted and intertwined with spirituality and ancestral knowledge. Conceptualized using Max Weber’s ideal type methodological approach, the model integrates local practices with collective principles, providing it with sociocultural coherence, normative capacity, and organizational legitimacy.

One of the central findings is that the organizational structure developed enables equitable water management, supported by mechanisms such as the community registry, irrigation turns, decision making through water user assemblies, and the principle of reciprocity. Sustainability is ensured through practices that connect respect for natural cycles, conservation of water sources, agroecological planning, and collective labor (minka and ayni), all underpinned by internal regulations such as the CODEMIA-CPM statute and its tariff plan. Although no quantitative measurement was applied, the participatory validation through seven community workshops, interviews, and document review provides robust qualitative evidence supporting the model’s effectiveness.

This study represents an advancement in existing literature by moving beyond the limitations of the dominant IWRM approach, which has been widely criticized for its technocratic and anthropocentric orientation (Agarwal et al. 2000, Mehta and Movik 2014). Instead, it proposes a relational, spiritual, and territorial perspective that understands water as a living being. Although prior research, such as that by Boelens (2015), Harmsworth et al. (2016), and Ortiz (2021), has explored the tensions between state and community-based systems, this study goes further by offering a concrete planning tool: the Chakana. This model integrates organizational, normative, and ecological principles from an Indigenous rationality. The research also aligns with experiences from Māori communities in New Zealand (Fenemor 2017), community-based management systems in Mexico (Martínez and Acosta 2017), and water councils (cabildos de agua) in Colombia (Tirado Acero et al. 2025), all of which illustrate how local governance models challenge centralized frameworks and generate viable, sustainable alternatives.

Furthermore, the model holds replicable potential in other Indigenous territories facing similar tensions between their ways of life and centralized state frameworks. Its contribution to the literature lies in demonstrating how a symbolic tool, the Chakana, can function as an instrument for territorial and water planning, guided by non-extractivist principles and a deeply relational understanding of human-nature interactions. By integrating spirituality, relationality, production, and normativity, it offers an alternative framework for rethinking water governance through intercultural and plurinational legal perspectives.

Finally, this research demonstrates that Indigenous communities not only preserve ancestral knowledge but are also capable of creating innovative and functional models of water governance. Recognizing, strengthening, and institutionalizing these models within state structures is essential to advancing structural water justice, aligned with territorial self-determination, the rights of nature, and the sustainability of life.

LITERATURE CITED

Aceldo, B., and W. Farinango. 2021. Construcción consensuada de criterios de reparto de agua de riego en la UCICMA, Ecuador. Textual 78:213-240. https://doi.org/10.5154/r.textual.2021.78.09

Achig-Balarezo, D. 2019. Cosmovisión Andina: categorías y principios. Revista de la Facultad de Ciencias Médicas de la Universidad de Cuenca 37(3).

Agarwal, A., M. De los Angeles, R. Bhatia, I. Chéret, S. Dávila-Poblete, M. Falkenmark, F. Gonzalez, T. Jonch-Clausen, M. Aït Kadi, J. Kindler, J. Rees, P. Roberts, P. Rogers, M. Solanes, and A. Wright. 2000. Integrated water resources management. Global Water Partnership, Stockholm, Sweden.

Aguilar Villanueva, L. F. 1989. Conceptos históricos y sociológicos. Pages 555-708 in Weber: La idea de ciencia social. Volumen II. La innovación. Miguel Ángel Porrúa, México D.F., México.

Almeida, I. 2008. El Estado plurinacional: valor histórico y libertad política para los indígenas ecuatorianos. 1ra edición. Abya-Yala, Quito, Ecuador.

Alvarado, M. O. 2006. El Kay Pacha: Ritos de regeneración y configuración del espacio en la Cosmovisión Andina. Escritura y Pensamiento 18:179-189.

Archidiacono, S. 2013. Yaku al Sur: fortaleciendo la gestión comunitaria del agua en la zona sur de Cochabamba. Fundación Abril y Editorial Yaku al Sur, Cochabamba, Bolivia. https://www.fundacionabril.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/yaku_pdf.pdf

Arroyo, A. 2017. Dos visiones de gestión del agua, la pública y la comunitaria: un análisis a partir de los cambios normativos introducidos en la constitución del 2008 y en la ley de aguas del 2014 en el Ecuador. Pages 263-284 in G. Vila Benites and C. Bonelli, editors. A contracorriente: agua y conflicto en América Latina. Serie Agua y sociedad 25, Sección Justicia Hídrica. Abya-Yala, Quito, Ecuador.

Asamblea Nacional del Ecuador. 2008. Constitución Política del Ecuador. Registro Oficial No. 449. Asamblea Nacional del Ecuador, Quito, Ecuador.

Asamblea Nacional del Ecuador. 2010. Código Orgánico de Organización Territorial Autonomía y Descentralización. Registro Oficial No. 303. Asamblea Nacional del Ecuador, Quito, Ecuador.

Asamblea Nacional del Ecuador. 2014. Ley Orgánica de Recursos Hídricos, Usos y Aprovechamiento del Agua. Registro Oficial No. 305. Asamblea Nacional del Ecuador, Quito, Ecuador.

Bernal, A., L. Rivas, and P. Peña. 2014. Propuesta de un modelo de co-gestión para los Pequeños Abastos Comunitarios de Agua en Colombia. Perfiles Latinoamericanos 22(43):159-184. https://doi.org/10.18504/pl2243-159-2014

Boelens, R. 2015. Water, power and identity: the cultural politics of water in the Andes. Earthscan Studies in Water Resource Management. Routledge, London, UK.

Boelens, R., D. Getches, and A. Gil. 2006. La gestión indígena y campesina del agua frente a las políticas hídricas de los países andinos. Pages 11-30 in R. Boelens, D. Getches, and J. A. Guevara Gil, editors. Agua y derecho: políticas hídricas, derechos consuetudinarios e identidades locales. IEP Instituto de Estudios Peruanos, Lima, Peru.

Boelens, R., J. Hoogesteger, E. Swyngedouw, and J. Vos. 2017. Territorios hidrosociales y gubernamentalidad: un enfoque desde la ecología política. Pages 27-47 in G. Vila Benites and C. Bonelli, editors. A contracorriente: agua y conflicto en América Latina. Serie Agua y sociedad 25, Sección Justicia Hídrica. Abya-Yala, Quito, Ecuador.

Brown, C. M., J. R. Lund, X. Cai, P. M. Reed, E. A. Zagona, A. Ostfeld, J. Hall, G. W. Characklis, W. Yu, and L. Brekke. 2015. The future of water resources systems analysis: toward a scientific framework for sustainable water management. Water Resources Research 51(8):6110-6124. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015WR017114

Bueno de Mesquita, M. 2011. Agua, Concentración de recursos naturales y conflictos en el Perú. Pages 179-194 in R. Boelens, L. Cremers, and M. Zwarteveen, editors. Justicia Hídrica: acumulación, conflicto y acción social. Abya-Yala, Lima, Peru.

Burgos-Guevara, H. 1977. La autodeterminación de las poblaciones indígenas del Ecuador: Nuevo rumbo del indigenismo ecuatoriano. Boletín Bibliográfico de Antropología Americana 1973-1979 39(48):61-77.

Cachipuendo, C. 2021. La Gestión Comunitaria del Agua y la Sustentabilidad de los Sistemas de Riego: Una Práctica del Buen Vivir. Pages 139-168 in C. Cachipuendo, P. Castillo, L. Cucurella, R. Sánchez, J. Negrete, P. Ortiz-Tirado, Á. Paucar, S. Uribe, and M. Villacis, editors. Agua para la gente: experiencias de gestión comunitaria del agua en el Ecuador. Editorial Universitaria Abya-Yala, Quito, Ecuador.

Cachipuendo, C., P. Castillo, L. Cucurella, R. Sánchez, J. Negrete, P. Ortiz-Tirado, Á. Paucar, S. Uribe, and M. Villacis, editors. 2021. Agua para la gente: experiencias de gestión comunitaria del agua en el Ecuador. Editorial Universitaria Abya-Yala, Quito, Ecuador.

Cachipuendo, C., C. Sandoval, and J. Sandoval. 2024. Sentinel-2A imaging in mapping greenhouse rose production and rainwater harvesting for agricultural irrigation use. Environmental Research Communications 6:111005. https://doi.org/10.1088/2515-7620/ad9437

Canessa, A. 2012. Intimate indigeneities: race, sex, and history in the small spaces of Andean life. Journal de la Société des américanistes 100:294-298. https://doi.org/10.4000/jsa.13820

Cartuche, I. 2023. Horizontes de la plurinacionalidad: luchas comunitario populares en Ecuador (1970-2019). Abya-Yala, Quito, Ecuador.

Chase, A. S. Z. 2019. Water management among the ancient Maya: degrees of latitude. Research Reports in Belizean Archeology 16:101-109.

Chávez Caiza, J. P., and R. T. Burbano Rodríguez. 2021. Cambio climático y sistemas de producción agroecológico, orgánico y convencional en los cantones Cayambe y Pedro Moncayo. Letras Verdes: Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios Socioambientales 29:149-166. https://doi.org/10.17141/letrasverdes.29.2021.4751

Churuchumbi, G., and C. Pilataxi. 2020. Octubre: El despertar de los pueblos. Fundación de Culturas Indígenas Kawsay, Quito, Ecuador.

Confederación del Pueblo Kayambi. 2021. Sistema de desarrollo integral y de crianza sabia para la vida comunitaria Wawakunapak Kintiku Yachay. M. Bustos and J. Bastidas, editors. Confederación del Pueblo Kayambi, Cayambe, Ecuador.

De Donato, X. 2007. El carácter de los tipos ideales weberianos y su relación con las ciencias naturales. Revista de Filosofía Diánoia 52(59):151-177. https://doi.org/10.21898/dia.v52i59.308

Delgado, G. C., editor. 2014. Buena vida, buen vivir: imaginarios alternativos para el bien común de la humanidad. Volumen 58. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Centro de Investigaciones Interdisciplinarias en Ciencias y Humanidades, Ciudad de México, México. https://biblioteca.clacso.edu.ar/Mexico/ceiich-unam/20170503034423/pdf_1508.pdf

Di Salvia, D. 2011. Para una dialéctica de la naturaleza andina. Aproximaciones filosófico-antropológicas a las creencias quechuas en los Apus y la Pachamama. Gazeta de Antropología 27:13. https://doi.org/10.30827/Digibug.15373

Diver, S., M. Vaughan, and M. Baker-Medard. 2024. Collaborative care in environmental governance: restoring reciprocal relations and community self-determination, Ecology and Society 29(1):7. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-14488-290107

Estermann, J. 2006. Filosofía andina: sabiduría indígena para un mundo nuevo. Instituto Superior Ecuménico Andino de Teología (ISEAT) Colección Teología y filosofía andinas 1, La Paz, Bolivia.

Estermann, J. 2013. Ecosofía andina: Un paradigma alternativo de convivencia cósmica y de Vivir Bien. Revista FAIA 2(9-10):21.

Fenemor, A. 2017. Water governance in New Zealand - challenges and future directions. New Water Policy & Practice 3(1-2):9-21. https://doi.org/10.18278/nwpp.3.1.3.2.2

Giordano, M., and T. Shah. 2014. From IWRM back to integrated water resources management. International Journal of Water Resources Development 30(3):364-376. https://doi.org/10.1080/07900627.2013.851521

Gómez de Mantilla, L. T. 1988. El tipo ideal, instrumento para la comprensión weberiana. Revista Colombiana De Sociología 6(1).

Gonzales, P., and A. Macías Vázquez. 2013. El Buen Vivir. Sumak Kawsay: una oportunidad para imaginar otros mundos. Alberto Acosta. Revista de Economía Mundial 33:265-269.

Günther, M. 2014. Gestión del agua y práctica del Buen Vivir. Pages 339-362 in G. C. Delgado, editor. Buena Vida, Buen Vivir: imaginarios alternativos para el bien común de la humanidad. UNAM, Centro de Investigaciones Interdisciplinarias en Ciencias y Humanidades, México.

Gutiérrez Chong, N., J. Martínez Rséndiz, and F. Sará Espinosa. 2015. Cultura política indígena:Bolivia, Ecuador, Chile, México. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México-Instituto de Investigaciones Sociales/Secretaría de Educación Pública/Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología, México.

Harmsworth, G., S. Awatere, and M. Robb. 2016. Indigenous Māori values and perspectives to inform freshwater management in Aotearoa-New Zealand. Ecology and Society 21(4):9. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08804-210409

Hassing, J., N. Ipsen, T. J. Clausen, H. Larsen, and P. Lindgaard-Jørgensen. 2009. Integrated water resources management in action. UNESCO, Paris, France.

Houtart, F. 2014. El concepto de Sumak Kawsay (Buen Vivir) y su correspondencia con el bien común de la humanidad. Pages 57-76 in Ecuador Debate. Acerca del Buen Vivir. Centro Andino de Acción Popular, Quito, Ecuador.

Illicachi Guzñay, J. 2014. Desarrollo, educación y cosmovisión: una mirada desde la cosmovisión andina. Universitas: Revista de Ciencias Sociales y Humanas 21:17-32. https://doi.org/10.17163/uni.n21.2014.09

Laparra Mendez, S. A. 2018. Pensamiento indígena y construcción del conocimiento en educación: una propuesta de sistematización inter-transcultural en investigación socio-educativa. Revista Latinoamericana de Metodología de las Ciencias Sociales 8(1):e034. https://doi.org/10.24215/18537863e034

Lasso, G., and P. Clark. 2016. Soberanía alimentaria, modernización y neodesarrollismo: las contradicciones de la política agraria en el Ecuador de la Revolución Ciudadana. Pages 259-297 in M. L. Quang, editor. La Revolución Ciudadana en escala de grises: avances, continuidades y dilemas. Instituto de Altos Estudios Nacionales, Quito, Ecuador.

Leff, E. 2004. Racionalidad ambiental y diálogo de saberes: significancia y sentido en la construcción de un futuro sustentable. Polis: Revista Latinoamericana 2(7). http://polis.revues.org/6232

Leff, E. 2006. La ecología política en América Latina un campo en construcción. Pages 21-39 in H. Alimona, editor. Los tormentos de la materia. Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Liu, Z., X. Jiao, C. Zhu, G. G. Katul, J. Ma, and W. Guo. 2021. Micro-climatic and crop responses to micro-sprinkler irrigation. Agricultural Water Management 243:106498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106498

Lizcano Chapeta, C. J., D. X. Chamorro Valencia, E. P. Vega, and R. G Cachimuel Colta. 2022. Disposiciones legales de la gestión comunitaria del agua y los pueblos indígenas en el Ecuador. Revista Universidad y Sociedad 14(3):514-522.

Mansilla-Quiñones, P., M. Pehuén, and A. Millanao. 2024. Confronting coloniality of nature: strategies to recover water and life in Mapuche territory. Geoforum 148:103922. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2023.103922

Martínez, E., and A. Acosta. 2017. Los Derechos de la Naturaleza como puerta de entrada a otro mundo posible. Revista Direito e Práxis 8(4):2927-2961. https://doi.org/10.1590/2179-8966/2017/31220

Martínez-Moscoso, A., and A. Abril. 2020. Las guardianas del agua y su participación en la gestión comunitaria de los recursos hídricos. Un análisis de la normativa ecuatoriana. FORO: Revista de Derecho 34:61-84. https://doi.org/10.32719/26312484.2020.34.4

Martínez Valdés, Y., and V. M. Villalejo García. 2018. La gestión integrada de los recursos hídricos: una necesidad de estos tiempos. Ingeniería Hidráulica y Ambiental 39(1):58-72.

Mazabel, D. G., and A. R. Caldera. 2018. Self-sustaining, irrigated agriculture and sustainability. A study in southern Guanajuato, Mexico. International Journal of Research in Sociology and Anthropology 4(1):24-35. https://doi.org/10.20431/2454-8677.0401004

Mehta, L., and S. Movik. 2014. Flows and practices: integrated water resources management (IWRM) in African contexts. IDS Working Papers 2014(438):1-34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2040-0209.2014.00438.x

Movik, S. 2014. A fair share? Perceptions of justice in South Africa’s water allocation reform policy. Geoforum 54:187-195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.03.003

Moyano, R. F. 2012. La Cosmovisión Andina en la Comunidad de Amaru: una investigación sobre la condición de la filosofía Andina a partir de la presencia de sectas religiosas y el turismo. Independent Study Project (ISP) Collection 1423.

Nahrendorf, R. O. 1963. El Concepto de Tipo-Ideal. Revista Mexicana de Sociología 25(2):521-540. https://doi.org/10.2307/3538721

Nahuelhual, L., G. Saavedra, F. Henríquez, F. Benra, X. Vergara, C. Perugache, and F. Hasen. 2018. Opportunities and limits to ecosystem services governance in developing countries and Indigenous territories: the case of water supply in Southern Chile. Environmental Science & Policy 86:11-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.04.012

Ortiz, P. 2021. Agua, territorio y poder en los Andes: la lucha de la comunidad de Pesillo, Cayambe, in Agua para la gente: experiencias de gestión comunitaria del agua en el Ecuador. Editorial Universitaria Abya-Yala, Quito, Ecuado.

Panez Pinto, A. 2017. Agua-Territorio en América Latina: contribuciones a partir del análisis de estudios sobre conflictos hídricos en Chile. Rupturas 8(1):193-217. https://doi.org/10.22458/rr.v8i1.1978

Pengue, W. A. 2004. Producción agroexportadora e (in)seguridad alimentaria: el caso de la soja en Argentina. Revibec: Revista Iberoamericana de Economía Ecológica 1:46-55.

Perugachi, J., and C. Cachipuendo. 2020. La lucha por el agua: gestión comunitaria del proyecto de agua potable Pesillo-Imbabura. Editorial Abya-Yala, Quito, Ecuador. https://doi.org/10.7476/9789978105764

Pino, A. 2012. LA CHACANA ¿Elucubración o resignificación?. Pluralidades Revista para el debate intercultural 1(1):41-57.

Ramírez, R., A. Yerovi, and D. Castro. 2017. La Gobernanza del agua para riego en el Ecuador contemporáneo, in Mikarimin. Revista Científica Multidisciplinaria 3(1):09-24.

Requelme, N., C. Cachipuendo, G. Alba, J. Bastidas, and S. Pilataxi. 2024. Pueblo Kayambi: planes de vida comunitarios, derecho a la tierra y al territorio. Pages 575-601 in A. Barrera Guarderas, M. A. Espín, S. Granda Merchán, and R. Oetzel, editors. Diálogos para la paz: miradas desde la diversidad. Abya-Yala, Quito, Ecuador. https://doi.org/10.17163/abyaups.80.595

Restrepo, J., D. Angel, and M. Prager. 2000. Agroecología. Edicion Manatí, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic.

Rivera, D. 2015. Diagnóstico jurídico de las aguas subterráneas. Ius et Praxis 21(2):225-266. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-00122015000200007

Salazar, L., and G. Muñoz. 2019. Seguridad alimentaria en América Latina y el Caribe. D. Pérez, editor. Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo, Washington, D.C., USA. http://dx.doi.org/10.18235/0001784

Sandoval, A., and M. Gunther. 2013. La gestión comunitaria del agua en México y Ecuador: Otros acercamientos a la sustentabilidad. Ra Ximhai 9:165-179. https://doi.org/10.35197/rx.09.02.e.2013.12.as

Scarborough, V. 1998. Ecology and ritual: water management and the Maya. Latin American Antiquity 9(2):135-159. https://doi.org/10.2307/971991

Sepúlveda Rivera, I. 2017. Gobernanza del agua y resistencia en territorio Atacameño. Pages 179-194 in G. Vila Benites and C. Bonelli, editors. A contracorriente: agua y conflicto en América Latina. Serie Agua y sociedad 25, Sección Justicia Hídrica. Abya-Yala, Quito, Ecuador.

Tácuna, R., L. Aguirre, and E. Flores. 2015. Influencia de la revegetación con especies nativas y la incorporación de materia orgánica en la recuperación de pastizales degradados. Ecología Aplicada 14(1-2):191-200. https://doi.org/10.21704/rea.v14i1-2.95

Tirado Acero, M., L. F. Ortega Guzmán, and D. F. Rey-Guerrero. 2025. Diálogos interculturales y cosmovisiones indígenas en su relación con el agua en Colombia. Revista Latinoamericana de Derecho Social 40:181-203. https://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?pid=S1870-46702025000100181&script=sci_arttext

Ulloa, D., and D. Ribadeneira. 2017. Gestión comunitaria de servicios integrados vinculados al agua. PROTOS Andes, Cuenca, Ecuador.

Vernaza, G., and D. Cutié. 2022. Los derechos de la naturaleza desde la mirada de los jueces en Ecuador. IUS Revista del Instituto de Ciencias Jurídicas de Puebla, México 16(49):285-311. https://doi.org/10.35487/rius.v16i49.2022.760

Yánez del Pozo, J. 2002. Yanantin: La filosofía dialógica intercultural del Manuscrito de Huarochiri. Abya-Yala, Quito, Ecuador.

Zapata, A. 2017. Construcciones discursivas en la nueva legislación de aguas en el Ecuador. Anthropologica 35(38):69-93. https://doi.org/10.18800/anthropologica.201701.003

Zuckerhut, P. 2010. Cosmovisión, espacio y género en México antiguo. Boletín de Antropología 21(38):64-85.