The Relationship Between Water, Society and Sustainable Development Goals: A Forest Conservation and Rural Community Study Case

Abstract

The conservation of ecosystems is essential for ensuring natural resources like water, a key ecosystem service sustaining human activities. However, its effect on human well-being remains uncertain. This study explores links between water provision, local activities, and Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) targets in El Carmen de Jadán, a rural Andean community in Azuay, Ecuador. Located downstream of the Aguarongo Protected Forest (APF), residents rely on headwaters for agriculture, livestock, and domestic use. Conservation efforts since the 1990s have played a key role in maintaining this supply. We developed a storyline to create a conceptual framework connecting water provision, respondents’ activities, and personal and community goals and challenges. We surveyed 55 water users and evaluated relationships through two indices: Level of Support for Contribution (LSC) and Importance of Contribution (IC). A network analysis of highest values revealed that human consumption activities (44–52 responses) were most linked to water, followed by livestock (29–37), agriculture (24–29), and ancestral health practices (28). Human consumption was associated with SDG targets 2.4, 6.1, 6.4, 6.6, 12.8, 13.3, 15.2, and 15.4 (346–416 links), while other activities were linked to all 11 targets analyzed, including 1.1, 1.2, and 2.1 (220–427). The results show strong connections between conservation, livelihoods, and sustainability goals.

1. Introduction

Ecosystem conservation involves the protection and preservation of natural areas through strategies designed to prevent or mitigate environmental degradation [1]. This practice is fundamental to ensure the sustained supply of ecosystem services (ES), which are essential for human well-being [2]. Globally, a broad view of the landscape is commonly taken without considering its heterogeneity to assess ES, which is usually carried out at a small scale [3,4]. Among them, the water provision service stands out as one of the most relevant, since the downstream areas depend on water from the headwater basins for various activities [5,6].

In Andean headwaters, water is one of the main ecosystem services (ES), and its conservation could be crucial to ensure the sustainable development of downstream communities. However, questions remain about how watershed protection influences the livelihoods and productive activities of these communities. In rural Andean areas, water is a critical resource for both economic livelihoods and domestic use [7]. Ecosystem conservation not only ensures the availability of this resource, but also enhances the benefits derived from ES. Agriculture and livestock farming, the main economic activities in these communities, depend on an adequate water provision to maintain efficient irrigation systems and ensure animal husbandry [8]. However, challenges such as uneven distribution and limited availability of water continue to affect these water systems, restricting equitable access in rural regions [9].

Despite its importance, knowledge about the benefits derived from ecosystem conservation on the well-being of Andean communities remains limited [10]. There is a significant gap in measuring the impact of conservation at the local and community level. The SDG provide a comprehensive framework for assessing progress towards sustainable development and addressing this critical issue effectively. The 2030 Agenda of Unite Nations, comprising 17 SDG, explicitly recognizes that social development and economic prosperity depend on the sustainable management of ecosystems and water resources [11,12]. There are several studies that attempt to measure how the SDG are being addressed despite their complexity. In [13], indicators of the SDG were used to calculate the progress of the goals through a principal component analysis and structural equation models that allow for measuring through equations of observable variables such as economic income, water consumption and unobservable variables such as human well-being [14]. The SDG can present several limitations at the time of measurement, such as the availability and quantity of data. For example, in some regions, data are incomplete or outdated at small scales, as is the case in rural areas. In addition, some targets lack clear metrics, and many impacts can only be observed over the long term. Reliance on official data can also introduce bias, especially in contexts where statistical capacity is limited [15,16]. This is why Wood et al. [17] aimed to explore how ecosystem services contribute to the SDG through expert perception, due to the lack of global quantitative data and the complexity of these interactions. The author sought to capture qualitative insights to guide decision-making and guide sustainable development policies [18].

Studies linking ecosystem conservation to the SDG tend to focus on broad scales. For example, the relationships between ecosystem services and SDG targets at the global level was explored in [17] by experts using the LSC and IC indexes. The interaction between ecosystem services and SDG was analyzed in China by integrating data from different socio-economic years, geospatial data on soil, vegetation, and climate, and the InVEST model [19]. The study in [19] consisted of a quantitative and spatial assessment of how urban development could affect sustainable development. The contribution of ecosystem services to the SDG in the Aruba Islands was assessed using a structured five-step approach [20]. This approach, applied in [20], incorporated the methodology of [17] in one of the steps, adapting it to the local context. The researchers established a policy-focused objective, identified site-specific SDG targets and associated ES, and integrated their own data to develop socioeconomic and geographic indicators linking ES to the SDG [18]. Finally, the results were used to inform investment and planning decisions, emphasizing the role of ecosystem services in policy-making. A key contribution of this study is that the study site defined its own set of SDG, tailored to its specific social and environmental conditions. However, most of these studies focus mainly on linking ecosystem services with the SDG, overlooking the complexity of how these relationships actually occur in practice.

The relationship between ecosystem services (ES) and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) requires considering human activities and their interactions with the environment. Humans play a central role in shaping this relationship, as their decisions, practices, and values determine how ecosystems are used, conserved, or transformed. Agriculture, livestock farming, entrepreneurship, and daily routines directly influence the availability of ES and their capacity to contribute to sustainable development [21]. As emphasized by [2,22], incorporating human activities as a central component within the ES–SDG framework enhances our understanding of how communities depend on ecosystems to sustain their well-being. However, this dynamic remains poorly understood in rural Andean contexts. Furthermore, the role of ecosystem protection and management in supporting SDG achievement and productive activities in these regions is still unclear. Therefore, integrating social and institutional dimensions becomes essential to design more effective and long-lasting strategies for linking ecosystems and human development [4].

Although water is widely recognized as essential for human well-being, its concrete role in linking community activities SDG in rural Andean contexts has not been clearly established. It remains uncertain to what extent water provision influences local development and which SDG targets are most relevant at the community level. This lack of clarity poses a challenge for development planning: organizations and governments frequently invest in initiatives without a quantified understanding of the water–activities of community–SDG nexus. As a result, decision-making processes are often complex and fragmented, lacking robust tools that capture the importance of water for community development. Addressing this gap is crucial to provide evidence-based guidance for more effective indeed context-specific development strategies.

In light of these gaps, the aim of this study is to analyze the relationship between the water provision service from Andean Forest ecosystems, community activities, and the SDG. Specifically, this study seeks to identify the water provision, its use, and the main issues related to the resource within the community context. Additionally, it aims to explore the relationship between the ecosystem service of water provision, the community’s productive and daily activities, and the SDG targets. To achieve this, we first characterized the study site and identified the productive and daily activities of the community. Second, we assessed the contribution of water provision to these activities and their linkages to the SDG targets using the LSC and IC indices. Finally, we applied a simple network analysis to examine the interconnections among the three components by quantifying the frequency of their co-occurrence. This approach provides insights into the role of ecosystem services in supporting livelihoods and advancing SDG targets at the community level, which can inform political decisions and strengthen sustainable management strategies.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Site

The study area (Figure 1) is the rural community of El Carmen de Jadán located in the southern part of the Ecuadorian Andes, at 2800 m above sea level (m a.s.l.) and 30 km from the city of Cuenca. The community covers an area of 12 km² and is home to approximately 250 families. El Carmen forms part of the parish of Jadán. The population density is low and the access to basic services is limited. The respondents’ community has a high poverty rate of approximately 88.5% and there is a deficiency in the level of education with an illiteracy rate of 42%, particularly affecting women [23].

The only source of water for El Carmen and the surrounding communities is the Aguarongo Protected Forest (APF), located in the upper reaches of the area. The APF is a montane cloud forest covering 20.82 km² at elevations of 2900–3320 m a.s.l. and sits on the headwater divide between two sub-basins—one draining east to the Jadán River and the other west to the Santa Bárbara River [24]. The forest is critical for water provision, comprising roughly 300 water sources, including numerous springs, small streams, and approximately 60 wetlands [25]. The APF is recognized as one of the strongest current examples of community conservation in Andean forests [26]. Historically, however, it has undergone substantial change: a major agricultural expansion occurred in the 1950s; in the 1980s, at the initiative of several institutions including INEFAN (the Ministry of Environment at the time), the area was declared a Protected Area due to the importance of its water sources for local supply; yet pressures persisted. In 1992, NGOs initiated restoration and conservation programs, emphasizing environmental education for local residents [27]. In 2013, those NGOs withdrew and governance was delegated to a committee formed by six parishes surrounding the APF, creating the Aguarongo Consortium. The parish governments collectively allocate an annual budget of USD 7500, but governance challenges emerged in the same year and one parish withdrew from the consortium. In total, 44 small communities benefit directly from APF water sources. Among them, El Carmen is the largest and maintains an effective organization for conservation and restoration: it continues to implement the forest management plan, respects internal boundaries, conducts regular monitoring, applies restoration measures when needed, and promotes stewardship among its members. By contrast, other communities have not fully complied with the plan and some have encroached beyond agreed boundaries [27].

El Carmen operates 12 water intakes that collect water from different springs and streams. Community members undertake biweekly communal work in the forest to safeguard and manage the resource, including maintaining and cleaning intake systems, identifying sites requiring ecological restoration, monitoring anthropogenic disturbances, and participating in training on forest stewardship and environmental education. This collaborative effort reflects an active and sustained community commitment to preserving the forest’s ecological integrity while strengthening local understanding of its environmental significance. About 150 users of drinking and irrigation water are particularly involved in these activities. According to the National Institute of Statistics and Census [23], 60% of the population engages in irrigation and cattle raising; production is destined for trade in nearby cities or within El Carmen, for self-consumption, or both.

2.2. Collection of Information

Data were collected in two sequential phases. Phase 1 characterized the three components analyzed in this study: (i) the ecosystem service of water provision, (ii) the community activities related to water use, and (iii) the SDG targets relevant to respondents’ challenges. To do so, we compiled gray literature (e.g., undergraduate theses and official documents) to reconstruct the historical development of the community and the Aguarongo Protected Forest (APF), conducted site visits to establish contact with leaders and residents and to overcome communication barriers typical of rural settings, and carried out interviews with stakeholders associated with the study site (government authorities, community leaders, forest rangers, and residents). Insights from the literature and fieldwork informed the design of a questionnaire with sections on the forest’s water-provision service, the activities carried out with water, and community challenges/problems (Supplementary Material: Excel S1). All information was synthesized into a chronological storyline that records the year of each event and the milestone that made it relevant for El Carmen, thereby clarifying and delimiting the three components.

Phase 2 elicited and quantified the relationships among these components using two indices described in Section 3.4. The survey operationalized the indices through two matrices: Matrix 1 assessed links between water provision and community activities and measured the Level of Support for Contribution (LSC) with two items—one categorical item with three response options and a second item on a five-point scale—while Matrix 2 assessed links between community activities and SDG targets and measured the Importance of Contribution (IC) with a single item on a four-point scale. Because respondents had no prior knowledge of the SDG, we followed Palacios et al. [20]: we first documented locally perceived problems and potential improvements and then mapped these inputs to specific SDG targets, retaining only those directly relevant to respondents.

The survey targeted water users, defined as individuals registered in the community with a written permit granting access to drinking and/or irrigation water; although the right is registered to a single person, all household members benefit from the resource. Approximately 150 residents in the study area hold water rights; of these, 55 water users (33%) participated, and all reported dual entitlements (irrigation and drinking water). Data collection took place at a regular meeting venue where irrigation and drinking-water system management is discussed; on the survey day, a board meeting of the community water system was being held. Sample size followed Barlett et al. [28]. While a 5% margin of error is commonly assumed, we adopted a 10% margin for feasibility, implying a target of 61 respondents that was nearly reached. A 10% margin is appropriate in exploratory studies and small populations [29], particularly under logistical constraints such as long travel distances between households and limited resources, and it balances statistical representativeness with fieldwork feasibility. After the meeting, the survey was explained to all attendees; participation was voluntary. A team of seven trained surveyors conducted one-on-one administrations, ensured privacy and comprehension, and prevented peer influence; each respondent completed the questionnaire individually, and no copying occurred.

2.3. Component Characterization: Water Provisioning Service, Community Activities, and SDG Targets

A story line about the history of the APF and the El Carmen community was constructed by synthesizing the information collected during the first phase of data collection (Section 3.2). The story line constitutes a characterization method designed to capture the development of the respondents and the history of the forest [30]. This characterization was then used to define the three components analyzed in this study.

The story line was organized around three main themes: (1) the characteristics of the APF, (2) the community activities, and (3) the challenges of the respondents and their relation to the SDG. Within this framework, the evolution of the forest, the use of water resources for productive and daily activities, and the respondents’ challenges were systematically documented. These challenges encompassed aspects such as the need to improve economic income, expand food availability, and preserve forest conditions to ensure a sustainable and consistent water provision.

2.4. Assessment of Interconnections Among Water Provisioning, Community Activities, and SDG Targets

To evaluate the relationship among the three components identified in Section 3.3 (water provision, respondent activities, and SDG targets), a stepwise approach was designed. First, the water provision service was linked to community activities, and subsequently, the activities of respondents were connected to the SDG targets. These two relationships were examined through two indices: the Level of Support for Contribution (LSC) and the Importance of Contribution (IC). The indicators were applied following an approach similar to the methodology proposed in [17], with adjustments to the questions in order to incorporate the three components of this study, while retaining the original evaluation logic. A main distinction from [17] is the selection of SDG targets, which in this case were area-specific and identified through responses gathered during individual interviews, as described in [20].

The survey used to calculate the indices was designed and validated with information obtained during the first phase of interviews. Terminology was carefully adapted to reflect the local context and ensure comprehensibility for respondents. The technical team integrated these adaptations into the survey, which was subsequently tested during the characterization phase.

The LSC index was defined to capture the degree of contribution of one component to another. Specifically, the LSC of water provision to activities and the LSC of activities to SDG targets were considered. This index was structured around three criteria: (i) identification of whether a relationship exists between water provision and activities, and between activities and SDG targets, assessed using a three-point Likert-type scale (“agree,” “disagree,” “don’t know”); (ii) confirmation of a minimum number of affirmative responses to validate the relationship; and (iii) measurement of the perceived strength of the relationship for the well-being of water users, using a five-point scale (1 = “Very low,” 2 = “Low,” 3 = “Moderate,” 4 = “High,” 5 = “Very high”).

For analytical purposes, the outcomes of this index were organized into four categories: strong, weak, uncertain, and not evaluated. A relationship was classified as strong when: (i) it was assessed by five or more respondents; (ii) at least 75% selected “agree”; and (iii) the median importance score was “high” or above. Weak relationships were defined when: (i) fewer than five respondents evaluated it; (ii) 50–75% selected “agree”; and (iii) the median importance was “moderate” or lower. Relationships were deemed uncertain when fewer than 50% selected “agree,” and considered not evaluated when no responses were obtained. Relationships categorized as weak or uncertain were not included in the subsequent analysis stages.

The IC index was considered to quantify the relevance of one component for the achievement of another. In this study, it captured the importance of water provision for the implementation of respondents’ activities and the importance of these activities for achieving SDG targets. The IC was measured with a four-point scale: 1 = “Low,” 2 = “Moderate,” 3 = “Considerable,” and 4 = “High.”

2.5. Network Analysis of Water–Community–SDG Interactions

A network analysis was carried out to examine the co-occurrence of relationships among the three components. The purpose of this analysis was to identify how the water provision service from the forest could be associated with community activities and, in turn, how these activities could be linked to SDG targets through water uses as reported by respondents. This approach was considered relevant for informing decision-making and for developing strategies aimed at optimizing water use in local activities and contributing to the achievement of the SDG by identifying potential synergies [31].

The analysis was constructed exclusively from the survey results. First, the LSC (Link Strength Criterion) and IC (Importance Criterion) indices were calculated. Only those relationships that were assessed by respondents as “Strong” in the LSC index and simultaneously classified as “High Importance” (score = 4) in the IC index were considered. Based on this filtering, the frequency of responses was used to define the weight of each relation. In the network, the thickness of the links corresponds to the number of respondents who reported that relation, while the node size reflects the number of connections (degree) received, that is, how many different relationships link each element with the others.

The network was constructed in Gephi 0.10.1 as a tripartite structure with three types of nodes: water provision, respondents’ activities, and SDG targets. A directed network was employed to represent the flow of relationships, specifically from water provision to respondents’ activities, and from activities to SDG targets [32,33]. The tripartite network consisted of nodes and links, where node size was determined by the number of connections (degree) received, and link thickness was proportional to the number of responses. These structural attributes were calculated within the software to highlight the relative importance of each element. The degree of the nodes, a standard metric in network analysis, was used to quantify the number of connections per node, thus indicating their role within the network [34].

3. Results

3.1. Characterization of Three Components of the Study Site

Table 1. Aguarongo forest and community history narrative. The first column indicates the year of the milestone, the second column presents the milestone information, and the third column is the most important milestone information that allows us to identify the three components: the presence of the water provision, the activities of the respondents, and the challenges and goals of the respondents.

Time	Milestone	Main Information of the Milestone for the Component Analysis
Last century—present day	- The Aguarongo forest provide a variety of ecosystem services to nearby communities, such as water resources.	- Water provision ecosystem service.
1786	- Jadán parish, which includes communities as El Carmen community, was established on 16 December.
1824	- San Bartolomé parish was established.
1836	- San Juan parish was established.
1950	- Collection of firewood and timber - Forest areas were used for pastures and farming. - High migration rate to big cities such as Quito and Guayaquil because they wanted better labor and economic opportunities.	- Activities of firewood and timber that have been discontinued due to changes in the way they cook their food. - Activities of grain, vegetables, tuber and medicinal plants farming. - Animal breeding. - Challenge of migration of community.
1956	- Zhidmad parish was established.
1973	- Agrarian Reform was implemented where small and medium agricultural producers obtained land to carry out their productive activities.	- Activities of vegetables, grain, fruit, tuber, culinary herb, forage and medicinal plants farming. - Animal breeding, animal slaughter, cheese production and milk production.
1980	- New generations received highly degraded lands by inheritance. - Eucalyptus and fruit trees were planted to reforestation.	- Activity of fruit farming.
1985	- Aguarongo forest was declared a “Protected Forest and Vegetation Area” by Ministerial Agreement No. 292, published on 22 August.
1990 to present	- The population of the community has migrated out of the country, specifically to the USA and Spain, due to the economic difficulties (i.e., banking crisis).	- Challenge of migration of community: poverty and lack of food
1985–1991	- The forest continued to face anthropogenic pressure with livestock raising and agricultural expansion.	- Livestock grazing such as animal breeding, animal slaughter, cheese production and milk production and agricultural expansion activities such as activities of vegetables, grain, fruit, tuber, culinary herb, forage and medicinal plants farming.
1992	- NGOs such as “Fundacion Ecologica Mazán” and “Rikcharina” arrived to develop a “Forest Protection Plan”.	- NGOs support for the conservation and restauration of APF.
1993–1995	- A diagnostic of the APF was conducted by NGOs.	- Determine the forest areas affected by the livestock grazing and agricultural expansion frontier.
1996	- The affected forest areas began to be restored with native plants. 12 communities participated in the restauration.	- Sustainable management of the Aguarongo, its recovery through reforestation.
1997	- The APF management plan is being implemented. - Implementation of sustainable agricultural and livestock models. - 2 more communities joined in the management plan.	- Sustainability of agricultural activities such as activities of vegetables, grain, fruit, tuber, culinary herb, forage and medicinal plants farming and livestock activities such as animal breeding, animal slaughter, cheese production and milk production.
2000	- Most communities continue to face low water availability during the summer.	- Challenge of community with lack of water.
2000 to present	- Several communities in the parishes were still invading and exploiting forest territories, with the exception of El Carmen. - El Carmen is the community that shows the most organization and promotes conservation and restoration practices for the Aguarongo forest to this day.
2000	- The Agroecological Association called “Mushuk Pakarina,” was founded in El Carmen community. The association is composed of female ecological agro-producers.	- Agroecological activities such as activities of vegetables, grain, fruit, tuber, culinary herb, forage and medicinal plants farming.
2009	- El Carmen received trainings on water use and optimizing irrigation activities. The trainings were given by entities such as SENAGUA and the NGOs.	- Training on water use and optimizing activities (productive and daily live activities).
2013	- NGOs have transferred the APF management plan to five parishes: Jadán, Zhidmad, San Juan, San Bartolomé y Gualaceo. - Separation of the San Bartolomé parish.
2013 to present	- Formation of the Aguarongo Consortium called Aguarongo Environmental Management Center integrated by the Parish Decentralized Autonomous Governments. - Agreement to contribute USD 7500 per year for conservation and restoration actions
2024	- The intervention of the Consortium for the conservation and restoration of the APF has not been significant according to some people in the communities. - The positive change that has been seen in recent years in the APF has been mostly thanks to the collaboration of the people of the community of El Carmen, because they are an organized community that is ecologically conscious.	- Water provision ecosystem service.

presents the story line with the evolution of the ecosystem service of water provision, as well as the activities that people have carried out and the challenges they have encountered. This story line is the result of the phase 1 interview explained in Section 2.2. A total of four government authorities, five community leaders, three forest rangers and fifteen people living in the community were interviewed.

Since the 20th century the APF has provided a variety of ecosystem services to nearby communities, such as water resources. Water is essential for both crop irrigation and livestock raising, ensuring food production and food security [35]. Water also has a deep cultural significance in many local communities for being part of traditions and spiritual practices [36,37]. The APF is located within the parishes of Jadán, San Juan, Gualaceo, San Bartolomé and Zhidmad founded in 1786, 1836, 1824, 1824 and 1956, respectively. Between all the parishes there are a total of 44 communities that benefit from the forest and are located around the APF [27]. In the 1950s, forest land titles were acquired by farmers in the parishes. In the same decade the local population had a high rate of migration to large cities such as Quito and Guayaquil because they were looking for better labor and economic opportunities [38]. In the 1970s large cattle ranches were established that were tended by the indigenous people. In 1973, Agrarian Reform was implemented, which consisted of generating land redistribution policies. Small and medium agricultural producers obtained land to carry out their productive activities [39]. In the early 1980s, younger generations inherited degraded lands and observed the drying up of some of their water sources. In response, they initiated efforts to restore the area by planting eucalyptus and fruit trees [36]. The eucalyptus trees were introduced into the region; these plantations are not native to the area and therefore did not have a positive effect on forest restoration.

In 1985 the forest was declared a “Protected Forest and Vegetation Zone” by INEFAN (Ecuadorian Institute of Forestry and Natural Areas now the Ministry of the Environment of Ecuador). This declaration was made because the forest has water sources, fertile soil, and vegetation that should be protected, making it unsuitable for agricultural and livestock activities. However, between 1985 and 1991, human intervention continued to affect the APF. In 1992, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as “Fundación Ecológica Mazán” and “Rikcharina” arrived to the area to elaborate a forest management plan with the communities. This plan laid the groundwork with social participation such as 12 communities, water boards, local governments and INEFAN.

The plan was divided into four key components: (a) From 1993 to 1995, a diagnostic assessment of the forest was conducted to identify major issues, including deforestation and the expansion of the agricultural frontier; (b) then, a diagnostic analysis was carried out to determine strategies for forest recovery and sustainable management; (c) reforestation efforts focused on planting native species such as sarar (Weinmannia spp.), myrtle (Eugenia spp.), huabisay (Podocarpus spp.), cedar (Cedrela spp.), alder (Alnus acuminata), laurel (Myrica pubescens), and the gañal bush (Oreocalis grandiflorum); (d) Emphasis was placed on conserving untouched forest areas and improving agricultural practices to reduce environmental impact. The plan developed by the NGOs in conjunction with the Local Governments (GADs that are locally called Decentralized Autonomous Governments) and the communities begins to be implemented [27].

In 2013, the NGOs withdrew from the area, leaving the management of the forest in the hands of the five neighboring parishes creating the Aguarongo Consortium with the objective of giving continuity to the APF management plan. Each parish allocates a fund of USD 7500 per year for the conservation and restoration of the forest [27,36]. However, respondents commented that most communities have not followed the forest management plan correctly, encroaching on forest lands belonging to other communities. According to interviewees, in some places around the APF there has been a reduction in water source levels from 2000 to the present, resulting in reduced water at some times of the year (summer) for the communities. Respondents attributed this lack of water to deforestation and the expansion of the agricultural frontier in some small headwaters of the streams that benefit the villagers. In addition, in 2013, San Bartolomé decided to separate from the consortium because the forest is not its main source of water.

Nevertheless, El Carmen community has maintained the forest management plan, promoting the care of the forest among its inhabitants. In 2009, as part of the APF management plan, the National Water Department (known by its acronym SENAGUA) collaborated with NGOs to provide training on improving irrigation and livestock practices. El Carmen belongs to the parish of Jadán and was founded in the same year as its parish. It has a population of approximately 5000 inhabitants and more than 60% of them are engaged in productive activities related to irrigation and livestock with products for sale in the local and regional market (S), self-consumption (SC) or mixed (M). From 1990 to the present, in some years more than in others, the population of the community has migrated out of the country, specifically to the USA and Spain, due to the economic situation of the country at that time (i.e., banking crisis in Ecuador). The effect of migration has led to the abandonment of farming activities, especially by the men, leaving the women of the community in charge of irrigation and daily activities [23,37]. The “Mushuk Pakarina” Agroecological Association was created in 2000. This is an organization led by women of the community with the objective to produce agriculture implementing sustainable practices.

Currently, the implementation of the plan has improved water availability and the forest landscape of El Carmen. Interviewees commented that the community has not had to ration water for their activities. The community has also organized to ensure the conservation and restoration of the APF. Despite the economic and environmental challenges faced by the people, such as population growth, lack of education, especially environmental education, lack of food, exploitation of their natural areas and the invasion of other communities into the APF, they continue to struggle to improve their conditions and safeguard their resources. The community has been working for more than 30 years to conserve and protect the forest and water because its inhabitants have the vision that nature and its resources are essential for development and human well-being. This vision has been passed down from generation to generation. The older villagers who initiated forest protection and integrated water management have been an example of how to work in a participatory and inclusive way to promote environmental and social change for the benefit of the community [37].

3.2. Key Components Identified Across the Protected Forest and Rural Community

The water provision service, the respondents’ activities and the SDG targets were identified based on the earlier characterization (

Table 2. List of the three components. The code for the activities of respondents and the subclassification is presented in parenthesis (sale = S, self-consumption = SC, and mixed = M).

Components	Results of Components
Ecosystem Service	Water Provision
Activities of respondents	Agriculture ecological:
	Vegetable farming (VF-S, VF-SC, VF-M) Medicinal plant farming (MPFS, MPFSC, MPF-M) Grain farming (GF-S, GF-SC, GF-M) Fruit farming (FF-S, FF-SC, FF-M) Tuber farming (TF-S, TF-SC, TF-M) Culinary herb farming (CHF-S, CHF-SC, CHF-M) Forage farming (FFO-S, FFO-SC, FFO-M)
	Livestock:
	Animal breeding (AB-S, AB-SC, AB-M) Animal slaughter (AS-S, AS-SC, AS-M) Cheese production (CP-S, CP-SC, CP-M) Milk production (MP-S, MP-SC, MP-M)
	Entrepreneur:
	Handicrafts (H) Restaurant (R) Herbal Infusions (HI) Jams (J) Ice cream (IC)
	Cultural:
	Ancestral health practices (AHP)
	Human Consumption:
	Cooking (C) Personal hygiene (PH) Household cleaning (HC) Cleaning community establishments (CCE)
	Others:
	Tree logging (TL) Sawmill operation (SO) Gardening (G) Artisan fishing (AF)
SDG Targets	SDG 1 Target 1.1 Target 1.2 SDG 2 Target 2.1 Target 2.4 SDG 6 Target 6.1 Target 6.4 Target 6.6 SDG 12 Target 12.8 SDG 13 Target 13.3 SDG 15 Target 15.2 Target 15.4

). The water provision service from the Aguarongo forest was considered the most important ecosystem service by the community because it allows territorial development for Ecuadorian rural communities through the agricultural activities. This, in turn, contributes to promoting social equity and ensuring local food sovereignty [38]. Moreover, the APF serves as the primary water source for many of the communities, particularly El Carmen [27,36,39].

A total of 25 activities undertaken by the community members were identified and categorized into six groups: (1) Agroecological agriculture, (2) Livestock, (3) Entrepreneur, (4) Cultural, (5) Human consumption, and (6) Others.

Agroecological agriculture consists of activities with an agroecological approach with crops of diverse local products [40], such as vegetables, fruits, grains, parsley, cilantro, tubers and animal fodder. Livestock activities encompass animal breeding and slaughtering, milk production and cheese making. Entrepreneurial activities include operating restaurants, producing handicrafts, and preparing value-added products such as teas, jams and ice creams. Cultural practices feature an ancestral ritual, predominantly performed by women, which is locally referred to as “curar el espanto”. This is a traditional indigenous medicine to relieve people who suffer from tiredness and insomnia. It is common to use medicinal plants, prayers and ancestral symbols. This activity is currently practiced both within the community and in urban markets, representing an important contribution to the local economy [41]. Human consumption category encompasses the use of treated water for cooking, personal hygiene and household cleaning. The others’ category includes fewer common activities.

Categories 1 and 2 have been further subdivided into sale, self-consumption, and mixed (sale and self-consumption) in order to analyze the distribution of activities aimed at economic purposes and personal consumption. This sub-division increased the total number of activities included in the study to 47. Each activity has been assigned a code for easier identification. The code was created using the first letter of each activity. Additionally, for those activities that were sub-divided in sale, self-consumption and mixed, the initial letter of the word was used in the same way (i.e., vegetable farming for sale = VF-S).

Finally, the goals and challenges faced by the population were identified. Key issues included the need to improve economic income, address of food scarcity, overcome the lack of access to water during the summer and manage the ongoing expansion of the agricultural frontier into the forest. These goals and challenges were subsequently connected to the respondents’ SDG targets.

3.3. Interlinkages Between Water Provisioning, Community Practices, and SDG Targets

A total of 55 water users were interviewed, each completing at least one evaluation of the relationships between water provision and their activities, as well as between community activities and SDG targets. This section first presents the frequency of activities and targets identified by respondents, followed by an analysis of the relationships assessed through the LSC and IC indices.

Table 3. Frequency of relationships between water provision and respondents’ activities as identified by water users. Bold text highlights the activities with the highest response rates for this relationship.

Activities	Frequency	Activities	Frequency	Activities	Frequency
Agriculture Ecological		Livestock		Human Consumption
VF-S	3	AB-S	14	C	52
VF-SC	19	AB-SC	23	PH	51
VF-M	28	AB-M	30	HC	49
MPF-S	2	AS-S	6	CCE	44
MPF-SC	18	AS-SC	8	Others
MPF-M	28	AS-M	12	TL	3
GF-S	3	CP-S	4	SO	0
GF-SC	24	CP-SC	7	G	4
GF-M	25	CP-M	37	AF	1
FF-S	2	MP-S	5
FF-SC	22	MP-SC	15
FF-M	24	MP-M	29
TF-S	3	Entrepreneur
TF-SC	19	H	3
TF-M	25	R	2
CHF-S	3	HI	1
CHF-SC	17	J	4
CHF-M	29	IC	3
FFO-S	5	Cultural
FFO-SC	30	AHP	28
FFO-M	17

summarizes the relationships reported between water provision and community activities. The most frequently cited were those associated with human consumption (C, PH, HC, and CCE), with response frequencies ranging from 44 to 52. These were followed by mixed livestock activities (CP-M, AB-M, MP-M), with 29 to 37 responses, and the self-consumption activity (AB-SC), which received 23 responses. Additionally, several mixed agroecological activities (VF-M, MPF-M, CHF-M, GF-M, FF-M, TF-M) were identified, with frequencies ranging from 24 to 29 responses. Self-consumption activities (FF-SC, FFO-SC) also stood out, with 24 and 30 responses, respectively.

Regarding the relationships between community activities and SDG targets, the most frequently identified were again those related to human consumption, with response frequencies ranging from 346 to 416. These were followed by mixed livestock activities (CP-M, AB-M, MP-M), which accumulated between 220 and 427 responses, and mixed agroecological activities (VF-M, MPF-M, CHF-M, GF-M, FF-M, TF-M), with frequencies ranging from 253 to 308 responses. Cultural activities (AHP) were also significant, with 286 responses. These values are presented in

Table 4. Frequency of the relation between respondents’ activities and SDG targets. The text in bold are those with the highest response of this relation.

Activities	Frequency	Activities	Frequency	Activities	Frequency
Agriculture Ecological		Livestock		Human Consumption
VF-S	33	AB-S	152	C	416
VF-SC	175	AB-SC	144	PH	383
VF-M	308	AB-M	427	HC	376
MPF-S	22	AS-S	66	CCE	346
MPF-SC	171	AS-SC	65	Others
MPF-M	308	AS-M	143	TL	11
GF-S	33	CP-S	44	SO	9
GF-SC	220	CP-SC	90	G	38
GF-M	275	CP-M	220	AF	22
FF-S	22	MP-S	44
FF-SC	206	MP-SC	119
FF-M	253	MP-M	302
TF-S	22	Entrepreneur
TF-SC	164	H	33
TF-M	253	R	22
CHF-S	22	HI	22
CHF-SC	153	J	33
CHF-M	308	IC	22
FFO-S	64	Cultural
FFO-SC	226	AHP	286
FFO-M	174

. Furthermore,

Table 5. Frequency relationships between SDG targets selected by water users.

SDG Targets	Frequency
target 1.1	167
target 1.2	167
target 2.1	254
target 2.4	426
target 6.1	461
target 6.4	474
target 6.6	471
target 12.8	442
target 13.3	441
target 15.2	476
target 15.4	465

shows that the most frequently selected SDG targets were those associated with SDG 6, 12, 13, and 15, with response frequencies ranging from 441 to 476.

The results indicate that only 12 out of the 47 activities identified by water users were classified as having a “strong” relationship between forest water provision and community activities, according to the LSC index (Figure 2a). These activities predominantly fall under the agroecological agriculture category, including mixed and self-consumption activities such as VF-M, MPF-M, CHF-M, and FF-SC. Similarly, mixed livestock activities, such as AB-M, CP-M, and MP-M, were also recognized for their strong relationships. In the cultural category, AHP was highlighted due to its significance in community traditions. Within the human consumption categories, like C, PH, HC, and CCE were also identified as having strong relationships. Activities categorized as “weak” or “uncertain” were excluded from further analysis.

Figure 2b presents the evaluation of relationships between the 47 activities and 11 SDG targets. A total of 517 potential combinations were assessed, identifying 17 activities as strongly connected to multiple targets. Among these, 10 activities (VF-M, MPF-M, GF-M, FF-M, TF-M, CHF-M, CP-M, MP-M, AHP) demonstrated strong contributions to all SDG targets, resulting in 110 strong relationships between community activities and the SDG. Additionally, three self-consumption activities (GF-SC, FF-SC, and FFO-SC) exhibited strong connections with most targets, except for 1.1 and 1.2. Human consumption activities (C, PH, HC, CCE) showed strong relationships with targets 2.1, 6.1, 6.4, 6.6, 12.8, 13.3, 15.2, and 15.4, but were not associated with targets 1.1, 1.2, and 2.1.

These findings suggest that water users relate activities of respondents to SDG targets due to a strong ecological awareness rooted in ecosystem management, restoration, and conservation practices. Respondents from El Carmen have adopted sustainable forest management and productive practices that contribute to achieving SDG 1, 2, 6, 12, 13, and 15. Notably, mixed activities—those involving both sale and self-consumption—demonstrated strong associations with all the selected SDG targets.

Water users view productive activities as vital for income generation (SDG 1) and food production (SDG 2). While self-consumption activities showed strong connections with most targets, they were less associated with SDG 1, as this goal emphasizes on economic benefits for respondents. Conversely, human consumption activities demonstrated strong links to most SDG targets, except for SDG 1 and target 2.1 of SDG 2. Although cooking is recognized as essential, it was not perceived to significantly contribute to the goals of ending poverty or achieving zero hunger. This distinction highlights the nuanced perspectives of water users on how different activities contribute to sustainable development goals.

The Importance of Contribution (IC) index assesses the role of water provision in supporting 47 community activities and the relevance of these activities to achieving SDG targets, as shown in Figure 3. In Figure 3a, approximately 90% of respondents rated the relationship between water provision and human consumption activities (PH, C, HC) as highly important, receiving an IC rating of 4. Similarly, 85% of respondents regarded the CCE activity as highly importance. Cheese production activities (CP-M) were rated as highly important by 65% of the respondents. Mixed agroecological activities, including MPF-M, VF-M, AB-M, and MP-M were identified as highly important by 45% of respondents. Ancestral health practices were also highlighted as culturally significant, with 45% of respondents assigning high importance rating. Notably, self-consumption and mixed-use activities were ranked higher in importance compared to activities solely focused on commercial purposes.

Figure 3b highlights on the 12 activities identified as having a “strong” relationship with SDG targets based on the LCS index. These activities represent the most significant contributions according to the respondents’ perspectives (full results are available in Figure A1).

In Figure 3b, 80% of respondents rated human consumption activities as highly important for achieving SDG targets 6, 12, 13, and 15. Target 2.4 was also notable, with 42% of respondents considering it highly important. In contrast, no responses were recorded for targets 1.1, 1.2, and 2.1, which may suggest a perceived disconnect between these targets and everyday human consumption activities.

Livestock activities (AB-M, MP-M, and CP-M) were identified as highly important by 55% of respondents for contributing to targets 15.2 and 15.4, which emphasize the conservation and sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystem. Additionally, between 25% and 45% of respondents considered livestock activities to be highly important for achieving targets related to SDG 2, 6, 12, and 13. Unlike human consumption activities, livestock activities also received high importance rating from 41% of respondents for targets 1.1 and 1.2, underscoring their dual role in providing both food and economic benefits to community.

Furthermore, agroecological farming activities (VF-M, CHF-M, MPF-M, and FFO-SC) were also highlighted for their contribution to SDG targets. Between 40% and 50% of respondents rated the first three activities (VF-M, CHF-M, and MPF-M) as highly important for achieving these targets. In comparison, 25% to 30% of respondents identified FFO-SC as highly important for SDG 2, 6, 12, 13, and 15. However, only 10% of respondents considered this activity to be of high importance in contributing to SDG 1, reflecting its limited perceived economic impact.

3.4. Network Structure of Water Provisioning–Community–SDG Relationships

The interactions between water supply, community activities and SDG targets are depicted in the network diagram shown in Figure 4. This analysis focused on combinations classified as having a “Strong” relationship in the LSC index, along with those rated as “High” in importance according to the IC index. The diagram’s nodes represent the study components: water provision service (top), respondents’ activities (middle), and SDG targets (bottom). Each activity is linked to the water provision node with a single connection, resulting in uniform node sizes. In contrast, the nodes connecting respondents’ activities to SDG targets vary in size, reflecting the number of responses associated with each activity and its relevance to the SDG targets.

According to respondents, activities most frequently linked (between 38 and 48 responses) to the water provision service are those categorized under human consumption (C, PH, HC, CCE). Water users emphasized the critical role of water in these daily activities, which require a constant supply. Livestock activities (AB-M and MP-M) and agroecological agriculture (VF-M, MPF-M, CHF-M) were also frequently mentioned, highlighting the importance of water for food security and economic development (between 24 and 34 and 21–26 responses, respectively).

Additionally, respondents identified forest management and community organization in El Carmen as activities benefiting from the water provision service. Ancestral cultural health practices (AHP), primarily carry out by women, also emerged as a notable activity, with 25 responses. These practices involve the cultivation of medicinal plants for traditional healing and have recently expanded beyond to include economic objectives, reflecting their evolving role in supporting livelihoods.

The activities with the fewest responses are the agroecological activity FFO-SC and the livestock activity CP-M, both linked to water provisioning. Although less frequently mentioned, these activities are notable for their connections to all SDG targets.

On the right side of Figure 4, the thicker links highlight that water users consider water provision highly important (between 41 and 53 responses) for human consumption activities and associated SDG targets, namely 2.4, 6.1, 6.4, 6.6, 12.8, 13.3, 15.2, and 15.4. In contrast, no responses linked these activities to targets 1.1, 1.2, or 2.1. This absence is likely because respondents perceive these as routine activities that do not directly contribute to broader goals such as Zero Hunger or End Poverty. For water users, access to water is primarily tied to objectives more closely aligned to water supply and ecosystem management.

On the left side of the graph, livestock and agricultural activities show links to all SDG targets, although the connections are represented by thinner lines, indicating fewer responses (12–35 for livestock activities and 18–26 for agricultural activities). Respondents associated these activities with food production, economic benefits from animal sales and agriculture, and ecosystem conservation, as reflected in the SDG. In particular, livestock management practices, such as avoiding grazing in high forest areas to prevent grassland expansion, were identified as significant contributors to ecosystem conservation. Water users also emphasized sustainable practices, like reusing water and whey from cheese production for livestock hydration, aligning with targets 6.1, 6.4, and 6.6. These measures additionally support target 12.8 through efficient activity management and sustainable production, and targets 13.3, 15.2 and 15.4 by supporting ecosystem conservation and adaptation strategies. These synergies showcase how the responsible use of water enhances interactions between the components of the study, such as integrating cheese production with sustainable waste management.

Enhancing irrigation and agricultural practices was identified as a key pathway for achieving SDG targets Respondents emphasized that agroecological products offer added value due to their sustainable farming methods, contributing to both economic and environmental objectives. Although activities such as AHP had fewer responses (18–24 responses), their connections to all SDG targets underscore their cultural, ecological, and economic importance. Similarly, the FFO-SC activity, which is primarily self-consumption-oriented, demonstrated links to most SDG targets except 1.1 and 1.2 (15–21 responses), reflecting its non-economic nature.

4. Discussion

The connection between nature and humans is undeniable. However, the use of ecosystem services is often understood in a unidirectional way, where humans exploit natural resources without giving anything back to the ecosystem [42]. A study conducted in Itu, Nigeria, highlights the consequences of forest loss when society fails to implement mechanisms for ecosystem care, with a 20% reduction in water bodies between 1986 and 2013 [43]. This example illustrates how inadequate forest conservation led to the degradation of natural resources. Similarly, the results of Section 3.2 reveal that local Andean communities in our study site have relied heavily on the Aguarongo forest for decades, resulting in the overexploitation of its resources. This overuse has reduced water availability from springs, adversely impacting productive activities, causing economic losses, and increasing the risk of unemployment. However, the respondents of El Carmen recognized the diminishing water resources in their springs and took action to prioritize forest conservation, fostering a bidirectional relationship between humans and nature. The APF stands out as an exceptional example of community-driven conservation and restoration in the Ecuadorian Andean forests, presenting a stark contrast with the vase in Nigeria. This initiative showcases the potential for communities to actively restore balance and sustainability in their ecosystems.

Despite its potential, community-based conservation faces notable challenges in its implementation. For instance, a case study in indigenous communities in Veracruz, Mexico, highlights issues such as insufficient governmental support for rural areas, which often leads to political obstacles [44]. Furthermore, internal factors such as lack of expertise in sustainable natural resource management and limited collective decision-making capacity within communities create additional barriers [45]. Similarly, the community of El Carmen has faced these political challenges alongside internal disagreements among its members. Nevertheless, the community has made remarkable progress in organizing and advancing its conservation initiatives, demonstrating resilience and determination in the face of these challenges.

The water provided by the forest is crucial for the respondents of El Carmen. For years, the users of water have relied on productive activities such as ecological agriculture and cattle ranching. The intensification of ecological agricultural practices not only enhances productivity but also supports the regulation of essential ecosystem services like water provision while reducing negative environmental impacts [46]. Similarly, a study conducted in the Andes highlights shows that agricultural activities, such as the cultivation of corn and tuber crop resulted in 30% increase in yields, while watershed reforestation improved water regulation and protected water sources [47]. Respondents in our study also reported comparable outcomes, observing significant improvements in forest conditions and increased the productivity within their community.

Traditional health practices, predominantly carry out by women play, a significant role in El Carmen. These practices not only contribute to economic benefits but also hold deep cultural significance. This aligns with the findings that emphasize women often possess the most extensive ancestral knowledge of traditional medicine, a pattern widely observed in Andean regions [48,49].

According to the LSC and IC indices, water users primarily associate water with human consumption, organic farming, livestock, and cultural activities. This finding aligns with a study conducted in rural Senegal, where three-quarters of the population particularly women depend on water for agriculture and livestock [50]. Similarly, in [51] reports that increased water productivity contributes rural development. However, their study does not explicitly link sustainable agroecological practices to SDG, unlike our findings. Respondents in El Carmen identified connections between their activities and several SDG targets, notably SDG 1, SDG 2, SDG 6, SDG 12, SDG 13, and SDG 15.

In contrast, a study in Iowa (USA) demonstrated that farmers involved in watershed management prioritized improving water quality and agricultural productivity. Showing the diverse realities of water-related practices and goals. Although the respondents were not directly aware of the SDG, they were still able to relate their activities to the selected SDG targets based on their specific challenges and goals. A similar approach was documented in [16], where researchers pre-selected SDG based on United Nations guidelines and linked them to the goals of community using the methodology of Wood et al. [17] to connect ecosystem services with SDG. In contrast to this study, we extracted the targets from the community itself. This was carried out following the recommendations of the study in [20], addressing the common disconnect between global targets and the priorities of rural communities.

The three components were water provision, respondents’ activities, and SDG interconnect based on water users’ perceptions, displaying varying degrees of connection (Figure 4). Human consumption was the most frequently assessed category, contributing primarily to SDG targets 6, 12, 13, and 15, but showing no connection to SDG targets of SDG 1 and 2. While there is no definitive explanation for this gap, it has been noted that many people lack knowledge about how certain activities contribute to food security and poverty reduction [52,53]. In rural Andean areas, this lack of understanding may be due to limited education on the broader implications of their practices.

Our findings address the knowledge gap identified in the introduction, demonstrating that water supply is not only essential for sustaining daily and productive activities, but is also closely linked to specific SDG targets. This study is particularly relevant because it was developed based on the community’s own goals and needs, reflecting their local reality and their direct relationship with water resources. Previous literature highlighted the difficulty of quantifying such relationships, often remaining at broader scales. By providing empirical evidence at the community level, this study reduces the uncertainty in decision-making processes and highlights the potential for water-focused strategies to strengthen development planning in rural Andean contexts.

Conversely, mixed agricultural and livestock activities showed connections to all targets, including SDG 1 and 2, albeit with weaker associations. Respondents highlighted the role of irrigation in fostering economic stability and community well-being [18]. However, these activities accounted for only 35% of respondents’ employment. Rural youth are often less inclined to engage in agriculture due to its perceived lack of educational and economic opportunities compared to urban areas [54,55]. Similarly, low seasonal productivity and market prices often make agricultural activities financial there unsustainable [56]. Economic pressures have led many El Carmen residents to seek employment outside their community. Work and mobility have been common in these areas of the country where men tend to work in construction or carpentry in the cities, also often migrate abroad, while women are engaged in domestic work [56,57]. These work and mobility which account for 65% of responses, are not new but have persisted over time. Meanwhile, neighboring communities continue to encroach on APF territory, potentially due to poor resource management or temporary migration trends [58].

Proper management of water provision and activities of respondents is critical for achieving SDG targets. Mismanagement can lead to resource overuse and reduced benefits. Understanding these interactions enables policymakers to design balanced policies that optimize community benefits while supporting SDG achievement [59]. According to [60], ecosystem conservation is essential for meeting SDG targets, particularly SDG 13 and 15, which in turn contribute to ecosystem services and human well-being [61].

Despite the insights gained from this research, several limitations should be noted. Respondents were selected based on availability and accessibility, potentially introducing bias. However, the people who openly participated in the surveys have a direct relationship with water in relation to their various activities. Additionally, the study assessed water provision in relationship to individual activities of respondents without considering interactions between them, limiting the ability to predict how such interactions might affect SDG achievement. Finally, the scope of the study focused only on SDG targets directly related to community challenges, excluding potential links to other targets.

Future research should incorporate quantitative and qualitative approaches to monitor changes in water provision, forest conservation, and activities of respondents over time. Expanding these studies can help bridge information gaps and inform strategies for sustainable community development.

5. Conclusions

This study highlights El Carmen as an example of community organization and environmental awareness that promotes the conservation of the APF and the protection of its water sources, ensuring the availability of water for daily and proactive activities. In this context, achieving human well-being and sustainable development has been a central objective, traditionally addressed through the provision of ES. This study achieved the relationship between ecosystem services and the SDG by incorporating the social component, which, as mentioned in the study, is underestimated in research. Through the analysis of the productive and daily activities of people, its influence on the interaction between the water provision service and the SDG was evidenced, highlighting the key role of human actions in this dynamic.

The LSC and IC indices, as well as a network analysis, were included in the study. The results of the indices indicated that water is fundamental for people to carry out their human consumption activities such as cooking food, personal and household hygiene, as well as for their livestock and agricultural activities, specifically those that are for sale and self-consumption (mixed). Most people do not work in the field, i.e., they live in the community but their main work is outside of it. Thus, consumption activities are those most taken into account by people compared to agricultural and livestock activities. The activities they carry out in their community generate economic income, but it is not their main activity. A social factor present in the respondents is migration out of the community and out of the country, with the abandonment of these activities (agriculture and livestock).

Human consumption activities were linked to almost all the SDG targets analyzed in this study, except for SDG 1 and target 2.1. The community’s lack of knowledge about the SDG was evident in both interviews and surveys. It is likely that people perceive water as a basic necessity rather than as a resource connected to development policies or global objectives. Therefore, respondents did not perceive a connection with SDG 1, where safe water access can reduce sanitation costs, nor with SDG 2, specifically target 2.1, which relates to food security in agricultural production. Livestock and agricultural activities were perceived as major contributors to all SDG. Despite being unfamiliar with the SDG, respondents were able to recognize which productive activities could contribute to their achievement.

While it is widely acknowledged that the SDG are globally interconnected, the contribution of this study lies in demonstrating how these connections manifest concretely in a local community through an essential ecosystem service such as water provision. This empirical perspective allows us to see how the goals are reinforced by local water uses. This has been seen from the SDG identified in the community based on its reality (e.g., SDG targets 6.1, 6.4, 6.6, 12.8, 13.3, 15.2, and 15.4) and those that reveal deficiencies (SDG 1 and 2). Such differentiation is relevant because it provides practical evidence for decision-makers, enabling them to detect synergies and underrepresented areas, and to prioritize interventions that optimize water management, improve productive and daily activities, and integrate these practices into public policies, ultimately investing in the well-being of the community. This study contributes a practical tool for quantifying the water provision–activity of community–SDG nexus in rural Andean communities. The fundamental role of water and identifying the most relevant SDG targets, our approach reduces uncertainty in decision-making and offers governments and development organizations an evidence-based foundation to guide investments and strengthen sustainable development strategies.