The concept of social innovation

In general terms, it is considered innovation, the application and use of new ideas, concepts, products, services, practices, methods, etc., with the aim of increasing productivity (^{Planque, 2002}; ^{Amaro, Morales, & Villavicencio, 2011}). But this concept is oriented to the companies, the market and the economy, consequently, other authors consider as an innovation the "ability of people to exploit an idea or a new method correctly to achieve a desired effect (material or social). The consequences (intentional or not) of this innovative activity can cause incremental, radical or transformational changes in social life" (^{Smith, 2017}).

Although business innovation is the most widespread for human well-being, there are other innovations that have significant impacts on society and that explain the improvement in their living conditions, which are not necessarily commercial innovations, but rather social innovations, although there is not consensus on its specific meaning (^{Pol & Ville, 2009}).

Social innovation is a complex phenomenon that covers various activities of social innovations, which respond to the needs of the population that are not commercially feasible, due to new combinations of social practices, attitudes and values involving changes in strategies and policies, organizational structures and institutional frameworks (^{Van der Have & Rubalcaba, 2016}). For an innovation to be social, it must improve the economic and social conditions of society; in other words, to improve the quality of life (^{Pol & Ville, 2009}). Collective social innovation originates from social bases, activists, community groups, organizations, etc., where communities control processes and results (^{Boni, Belda-Miquel, & Pellicer-Sifres, 2018}).

Making a differentiation between social innovations and technological innovations, ^{Alijani and Wintjes (2017)} consider that the use of technology is of neutral value, and its use does not guarantee the production of social value, since social innovations are not measured by prices of market that determine the exchange value. On the other hand, social innovation is limited spatially and temporally by the diversity of social, economic, cultural and institutional contexts. As a social phenomenon, the pace and direction of social innovation are closely related to the dynamics of social relations.

^{Windrum, Schartinger, Rubalcaba, Gallouj and Toivonen (2016)} consider three areas of social innovation when relating them to innovation for the (service) market: i) social innovation has a social value, driven by principles of inclusion and wellbeing, while innovation for the market is oriented by profit objectives, that is, the creation of economic gain; ii) social innovations seek to empower citizens, while market innovations seek to empower citizens through new roles and relationships and the development of assets and capacities, and iii) social innovations tend to be very local in nature and often codification is difficult, while service innovations sometimes encourage imitation and rapid diffusion of new ideas and practices.

These characteristics coincide with the two basic conceptual elements pointed out by ^{Van der Have and Rubalcaba (2016)}: social innovations involve a change in social relations, systems or structures, and these changes serve as shared human objectives or to solve socially relevant problems.

In the same vein, ^{Álvarez-González, García-Rodríguez, Sanzo-Perez and Rey-García (2017)}, consider four dimensions for an innovation object to be considered social innovation: i) be focused on the common good to satisfy or solve social problems, ii) be a collaborative process where all the interested parties participate, iii) it implies an improvement in relation to the previous solutions and, iv) it involves effective changes in the behaviors and social practices in the different levels.

Therefore, innovation of a social nature presents features that differentiate it from innovation of an economic nature, such as: the search for solutions to social problems, rather than the market; the use of the intellectual power of the human, more than the financial one; free distribution, more than the protection of the idea, and its complex nature, rather than technological aspects (^{Morales, 2008}).

In this study, social innovation was considered to be the introduction of the ferrocement cistern for the capture and storage of rainwater. While the priority is rainwater, the sources can be others, such as public mains water, well or river water, water tanker truck, etc.

The term ferrocement, was patented by the French Joseph Louis Lambot, in the year 1855, refers to a material similar to concrete, which is reinforced with several layers of thin wire mesh, such as hexagonal mesh or chicken wire, electro welded mesh or acma , and some pieces of iron, forming a framework that is covered with the mixture of cement, sand, and water (mortar), forming a special structure with a thickness between 6 to 8 cm, where the geometry of the cylinder-shaped cistern gives it a stiffness and adequate resistance for the water accumulation (^{Mora, Jiménez, Carrasco, & Abarca, 2016}).

The human right to water

Based on the notion of Water Security there are two conceptions about water rights; "Those that predicate homogeneity and universality and adopt a vision of rights with regulations focused on the State", which function as a tool and condition to facilitate the exchange and trade of water; and water rights based "on the explicit recognition of their historical specificity and their roots in particular ecological and cultural situations", constituted in the understanding of current norms, practices for local water control and existing power relationships (^{Zwarteveen & Boelens, 2011a}).

The understanding of the State on the Right to Water was agreed upon in General Observation No. 15, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; bases that the human right to water "is the right of everyone to have sufficient, safe, acceptable, accessible and affordable water for personal and domestic use", to avoid death, reduce risks of diseases, satisfy consumption needs, cooking, personal and domestic hygiene. This right is indispensable and is a precondition for exercising other Human Rights for a dignified life (^{ONU, 2002}).

The human right to water is that "all people have access to the vital liquid and can use it in sufficient quantities and in adequate conditions so that their life needs are met in a dignified manner", so it is an inherent basic right the human being, is common to all, is not subject to negotiation and is inalienable (^{Azar, 2018}).

In a social approach compatible in some aspects with public and community approaches, it emphasizes that human dignity comes first, and that universal access to water sufficient for basic needs is an absolute and non-negotiable priority (^{Langford & Khalfan, 2006}).

From the perspective of the human right to water of indigenous communities and peoples, the Inter-American System for the Protection of Human Rights considers that the right of access to clean and quality water is linked to the property of the ancestral territory, so that existing lands and resources must be protected as a right to their property, so that communities can perform their ancestral customs as a right to cultural life and enjoy a dignified life (^{Salmón, 2012}).

The previous configuration focuses on the cultural recognition of water justice; recognize and respect different ways of treating, organizing and talking about water, based on diversity, identity and culture, granting autonomy to water user communities to build and apply their own standards (^{Zwarteveen & Boelens, 2011b}).

From the worldview of indigenous peoples "water as a universal and community right belongs to everyone and belongs to nobody. It belongs to the earth and to living beings, including the human being. It is distributed equitably according to needs, customs and community regulations, and according to its cyclical availability "(^{Huanacuni, 2010}).

Some Andean countries have included this paradigm in their Constitutions. In the Republic of Ecuador, water is part of the Pacha Mama (Mother Nature) and water is recognized as a fundamental and inalienable Human Right, recognized as the Rights of Good Living (^{Asamblea Constituyente, 2008}; ^{Martínez, 2017}).

With the same ideology, in Bolivia the right to water prioritizes its use, access and best usage as a strategic resource in sufficient quantity and quality to satisfy the conservation of life systems, the domestic needs of people and productive processes (^{Gaceta Oficial del Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia, 2012}).

This study expresses both ways of recognizing the human right to water by rural communities located in a water stress condition. However, it is analyzed with the paradigm of the State.

Characteristics of the study region: the Mixteca baja of Puebla

The study was done in 30 communities in nine municipalities of the Mixteca Baja region, south of the state of Puebla, Mexico: Tehuitzingo (Los Hornos de Zaragoza, Cuaulutla, Tecolutla, Tuzantlán y Atopoltitlán); Ahuehuetitla (Guadalupe Alchipini, Piedra Blanca y San Vicente El Peñón); Chinantla (San Miguel Buenavista, Cuatecontla y Amatepetlán); San Jerónimo Xayacatlán (Cañada Estaca, El Cuajilote y Gabino Barreda); San Pablo Anicano (San Miguel Tulapa, El Pedregoso y Francisco González Bocanegra); Tecomatlán (Mixquiapan, Xantoxtla, Tempexquixtle y Tezoquipan); Chila de la Sal (San Pedro Ocotlán); Tulcingo de Valle (La Ciénega, Guadalupe Tulcingo, Aguacatitlán y Francisco Villa) y Piaxtla (Loma Bonita, Yetla, Santa María y Atempa) (Figure 1).

Figure 1 Location of the sub-basins, main rivers, municipalities and communities of the study area in the Mixteca Baja of Puebla. Source: Elaboration by Álvaro Ernesto Ruiz Barbosa, with data vector from the National Institute of Statistics and Geography (^{INEGI, 2015}). 

According to the ^{National Institute for Federalism and Municipal Development (2010)}, the study area belongs to the Mixteca baja region of the state of Puebla; it covers an area of 1 677.6 km². It is located between parallels 17°06' and 18°30' of Latitude North and 97°50' and 98°33' of West Longitude. It presents three types of climates: the Aw0(w) warm sub-humid with rain in summer; (BS1(h’) w(w) semi-arid, very hot and warm (BS1(h’) w(w) and, the A(C)w0(w) semi-warm sub-humid with summer rains. The height above the sea level fluctuates between 700 and 1 200 meters, with rainfall between 600 and 1 000 mm, temperatures between 20 and 26°C and leptosol, regosol, phaeozem and vertisol soils (^{INEGI, 2010}).

In the nine municipalities studied, a population of 43,622 inhabitants (3.7 members) was reported for 2010, and 3 210 households were headed by women (^{INEGI, 2011}).

Research techniques

For the data generation, the following research techniques were applied:

a) Survey, was applied to 221 beneficiary families with a ferrocement cistern with the Strategic Project of Food Safety (PESA by its initials in Spanish), out of a total of 521. To determine the sample size, simple random sampling without replacement was used, and for the identification of its elements random processes were used. The analysis is presented in Equation (1):

Where:

To collect field information, a questionnaire was applied to the heads of household the 221 cases that resulted from the random process. The questionnaire considered questions about two moments of the water environment in the home: i) context before introducing the innovation (before constructing the ferrocement cistern), and ii) scenario after building the ferrocement cistern, with the support of the strategic project of food safety. To estimate the volume of water in each household for both contexts (before and after the ferrocement cistern), Equation (2) and Equation (3) were considered:

A) Context before the cistern:

b) Scenario after the cistern:

Where VTADH, total volume of water available in the home; AAA, water carried on foot; AAB, water carried on a donkey; AAC, water carried in a van; ACCC, water purchased from water tanker truck; ACG, water purchased from water jugs, and ACLL, water collected from the rain.

Information was collected about the access and volumes of domestic water available by family through the hauling on foot, on a donkey, in a van and the purchase of the water tanker truck service, as well as the purchase of a water jug. Regarding the public mains water (piped water), only the frequency was investigated.

b) Direct measurement. To generate accurate information on the ferrocement cisterns and to know the capacity of the water volume, direct measurements were made to 221 cisterns, on the following indicators: diameter, height and length (depth). To calculate the volume, Equation (4) was used:

Where: Vc, is cylinder volume, π is a constant (3.14), r, is radius and h, height.

c) Participant observation. The researcher participated in the whole process of planning, execution and evaluation of the project. This form of direct relationship allowed to know and register the situation before and after the construction and use of the ferrocement cistern (innovation) in the home. Tours of the territory, analysis and planning meetings, training workshops and interviews were conducted in order to learn about the problem of water scarcity, supply sources, local conditions, tools, storage works and forms of water appropriation.

Analysis of the information

The information collected through the questionnaire and direct measurement was organized in Excel sheets for later analysis in the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software. The information resulting from the participant observation was recorded in field notebooks and allowed to complement the data.

Water in the context of the study communities

The study area belongs to the Administrative Hydrological Region IV Balsas (RHA IV Balsas) that coincides with the Hydrological Region (RH) 18 Balsas (^{Conagua & Semarnat, 2012}). Most of the surface is part of the Atoyac River Basin and a smaller part of the Tlapaneco River, within the sub-basin of the rivers: Mixteco, Acatlán, Atoyac-Tehuitzingo and Salado. There is a body of perennial water called Boqueroncitos. The perennial water flows that flow through the territory are: the Atoyac, Mixteco, Acatlán and Tecoloyan rivers and the intermittent ones: El Chilsolote, Laguna Seca, La Trompeta, Tizaac, Valiente, Paredón, Tulapa and El Chahuate (^{INEGI, 2010}).

In the territory there are scarce sources of water and very erratic rainfall, which not only affects agricultural production and livestock, but the satisfaction of water needs for human consumption, personal hygiene and different household activities (washing clothes and dishes, prepare food and clean the house).

The ^{INEGI (2011)} reported for 2010, that of the 11 380 households in the nine municipalities studied, only 60.2% had water from the public mains in the area of housing. The situation of the municipalities of Tehuitzingo and Chila de la Sal became more serious, since less than half of the population had water from the pubic mains. However, none of the municipalities had water in all households (Figure 2).

Figure 2 Availability of water from the public mains in the area of housing in 2010, in nine municipalities of the Mixteca Baja of Puebla. Source: Prepared by the author with data from the National Institute of Statistics and Geography (^{INEGI, 2011}). Mexico in numbers. 

A more recent study made in the 30 communities confirms that 40.3% of families lack piped water, so 76.5% haul water on foot, in donkey and in a van, and buys water from water tanker truck and water jug service (^{Ocampo & Villarreal, 2014}).

Changes and contributions of social innovation to the human right to water