Export citation and abstract BibTeX RIS
Original content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. Any further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Around the world, water infrastructures continue to evolve as governments and utilities strive to enhance the accessibility of clean water to their citizens. Existing water infrastructures are generally designed to have an equal access specification, which is derived from projections of daily per capita water consumption estimates. However, this approach implicitly assumes that all populations have identical needs. If we are to guarantee fair and equitable access (equity) of water to all populations, we must re-evaluate the traditional frameworks and concepts that have been and continue to be used to build and manage water infrastructures. The term water equity and its supporting literature have gained significant traction in the recent decade. The focus on equity bridges the critical gap of limited recognition of diverse needs in the current water infrastructure domain by incorporating principles from social and justice theories. Evaluating the concept of water equity in detail by investigating its various terminologies and concepts, analyzing its scholarly literature, and examining the aspects that affect its operationalization can engender its better adaptation in a global context. From this perspective, in the following sections we have evaluated the existing definitions of water equity, explored their foundations in different theories, and highlighted the limitations within the water equity literature landscape. We have also identified and discussed the issues that present a barrier to operationalizing equity in water infrastructure systems globally and, subsequently, proposed a consistent definition for water equity that builds upon existing definitions and integrates the discussed concepts.
1. Existing definitions of water equity
The term used to describe 'fairness and impartial treatment'—equity—varies according to the context in which it is defined. In healthcare, for instance, equity is defined as a 'state in which everyone has a fair and just opportunity to attain their highest level of health' [1]. In racial studies though, scholars precisely refer to equity as the 'process of eliminating racial disparities and improving outcomes for everyone' [2]. The realm of water research, however, continues to remain without a unified and consistent definition for equity. The existing definitions of water equity in some way or another contain aspects such as fair and just access, affordability, higher level of service to the people served, health (clean and sufficient quality), policy, and governance (limit environmental risks and amplify benefits). The ambiguity that surrounds the definition and usage of the term water equity may be traced to researchers' tendency of using it to denote a variety of things (depending on the context), in addition to its similarity to terms like 'water right,' 'water equality,' and 'water parity.' In the past, scholars widely used 'water equity' interchangeably with 'water equality' [3]. Today, however, a clear distinction has been drawn between the two terms. Water equality (synonymous with horizontal equity) implies only an equal distribution of resources and services; it gives no consideration to the needs and limitations of vulnerable and challenged communities [4, 5]. When city planners/utility managers design water infrastructures based solely on equality, the result in some communities is an undue advantage over others. These other communities lack similar opportunities, socio-economic status, privilege, and physio-geographic advantages to access clean, safe, and affordable water. To address this shortcoming, the water community has started to use 'water equity' to denote vertical equity. Vertical equity considers the challenges and limitations listed above while providing clean water to all the communities and populations that are served by the water infrastructure.
It was not until 2014 that researchers developed the first noticeably distinct characterization of the term water equity. Calow and Mason in 2014 described water equity as a 'fair share in access and entitlement to water and its benefits' [6]. In the same year, Goff and Crow argued water equity could be best conceived as a 'set of capabilities and freedom made possible by access to water' [7]. Building on this, the National Environmental Health Association in 2016 defined water equity as the 'proportional and equitable distribution of water related to environmental benefits and risks among diverse economic and cultural communities' [8]. In 2017, the US Water Alliance further characterized water equity by attaching to it terms such as 'just and fair inclusion' and 'opportunity to participate and prosper' [9]. The more widely used definitions developed by the World Health Organization in 2019 and Osman and Faust in 2021 have refined the definition to entail 'equitable access to adequate water for all members of the population' and 'provision of a consistent minimum quality and quantity,' respectively [5, 10]. The problem with the existing definitions is that each of them is distinct and focused on varying aspects such as access, freedom, and proportional distribution. This problem gives rise to the challenge of developing consistent scales for measuring equity.
2. Roots of water equity in justice theories
The existing definitions of water equity as well as the scales used to measure the equitability of water infrastructure systems were developed from the same source—justice theories. The roots of defining water equity grow from distributive justice: an approach to fair and just allocation of resources, goods, and opportunities. The core ideas of water equity resonate with distributive justice's concept of eliminating barriers that prevent some vulnerable communities from accessing resources and services. Indeed, the notion driving water equity is aimed at improving infrastructure, public services, and deconstructing discriminatory policies.
The idea of water equity is also built on another justice theory—procedural justice. Procedural justice has as its foundation fairness in the processes used for decision-making and resource allocations. Procedural justice is the source of the following aspects of water equity: the development of equitable and just water supply allowance, rates, supply frequencies, level of service (quantity and quality), infrastructure maintenance, and grievance resolution. Recently, the tendency of researchers to use the term water justice as a synonym for water equity is increasingly observed [11]. After all, the definition of water justice was developed based on principles of fairness, participation, and equity. However, water justice and water equity are clearly distinguishable in the following way. While water justice centers on politics, advocacy, anti-privatization, and the democratization of water; water equity limits its focus to socio-technical aspects, solutions, and incorporation of public perspectives and feedback into the design and operation decisions water infrastructures (i.e. provide/improve safe and equitable access of clean water to the end-users).
3. Water equity literature landscape
The inconsistencies in developing a consistent and globally relevant definition for water equity may be attributed to gaps in the water equity literature. The existing body of work (figure 1) on water equity is heavily accumulated in Western developed countries. This would suggest that the concept of equity is neither widely used nor well documented globally [12]. For instance, the United States (US) alone accounts for ∼26% of the documented water equity studies (figure 1(a)), followed by the United Kingdom (8%), Australia (6%), and Canada (5%). A key reason for this could be that Western developed countries, particularly Europe and North America, have already achieved about 95.9% 'safely managed' and 98.3% 'at least basic' service levels in urban and rural areas, respectively (figure 1(d)) [13]. As water utilities in these countries have accomplished their equal access goals in most regions (measured by achieved service level targets), the governments here channel their funds and resources to improve the equitability of their water infrastructures.
Figure 1. Inventory of documented water equity studies (between 1938 and 2022) and global access to water. (a) Representation of the country-wise split of water equity studies as a percentage number of studies; (b) spatial distribution of water equity studies represented on a relative scale ranging between 0 and 1; (c) temporal distribution of water equity studies from the year first documented in the literature; (d) global accessibility to drinking water with six different levels of service as percentage of the population in the eight classified UNICEF regions; (e) representation of the overlaps and linkages between ten key focus areas in documented water studies highlighting the relative fraction of water equity studies in the literature; (f) representation of specific overlap of water equity studies with ten key focus areas in the water research literature.
Download figure:
Standard image High-resolution image
Developing countries, on the other hand, have yet to meet their water-supply goals (targets or agendas) and are still striving to supply safe, and sometimes even decently safe, water ('basic service' in figure 1(d)) to their people. This can be observed by looking at Sub-Saharan Africa (figure 1(d)). Here, only 53.5% of the people in urban areas have access to safely managed water and ∼50% of the population in rural areas continue to not have even basic levels of service. This also signals that the efforts and initiatives of global organizations like the United Nations should prioritize water equity research in these regions. The absence of proper documentation of the equity challenges faced by people in developing countries creates a geographic and socio-demographic bias in the water equity literature (figures 1(e) and (f) highlight the different focus areas in the documented water research publications). This particularly affects the development of globally relevant infrastructure solutions and interventions, as well as challenges the creation of consistent scales and metrices for measuring water equity.
4. Obstacles to operationalizing water equity
4.1. Socio-economic disparity
Of all challenges, socio-economic disparity is a distinct obstacle that can be attributed to the cause of water inequities globally. In both the developing and developed worlds, some key drivers of water inequity include social disparity caused by differences in opportunities, low-income levels, access to education, healthcare, and housing. In developed countries, water equity challenges are particularly exacerbated by systemic underfunding and targeted policies against some marginalized communities (e.g. disproportionately locating toxic contaminant disposal sites in some neighborhoods) [14]. In developing countries, however, these challenges are compounded by other social inequities, and one's economic status plays a crucial role in determining whether a person has access to clean and safe drinking water. For example, women and children living in low-income urban and rural areas and under the poverty line in developing countries are impacted by water accessibility issues more; even if 'improved water provisions' (public tap or standpipe) are present, these women and children can often not access them because these sources may be controlled by large scale vendors or organized crime [7].
Government agencies in most developed countries administer or oversee water utilities and treat access to water as a right. Even if access to water is not guaranteed as a right and water is treated as a commodity, agencies here (e.g. the US) still regulate the water prices and tariffs and ensure water is accessible to the end user at an affordable rate. As a result, the majority of the population in developed countries is guaranteed access to safe and affordable water. Water in developed countries is either maintained and monitored in centralized water infrastructures or through subsidized decentralized sources (in regions that cannot be connected to a centralized network) that are required to adhere to higher quality standards. In developing countries, on the other hand, water systems continue to rely more on traditional and decentralized water sources [15]. In many instances, individuals are responsible for sourcing their water. Here, access to water is dictated by being able to afford to dig a borewell, buy water from a truck, or install rainwater-harvesting infrastructure in the household. (Even so, this water is likely to be of relatively lower quality and may not meet basic drinking water quality standards) [15, 16]. Interestingly, similar water challenges are also documented in many rural, marginalized, and low-income communities in developed countries. The nature of the problem, however, is different, and the approaches needed to resolve them are, therefore, unique [5].
4.2. Policy limitations
Existing water policies in most countries are not sufficiently comprehensive [17] and, in many instances, water inequities go undocumented even when those inequities are quite visible. In contrast, developed countries over the past four to five decades have adopted several policies (amended every few years) backed by exhaustive socio-technical surveys and analyses that make their water infrastructures equitable, though they were intentionally not designed for equity. To develop water resource infrastructures, for instance, the US adopted the following Congressional acts: (1) the Clean Water Act (1972)—to regulate pollutants in surface water, (2) the Safe Drinking Water Act (1974)—to establish national standards for drinking water, and (3) the Water Resources Development Act (2022)—to develop and strengthen water infrastructures [18]. Similarly, the European Union (EU) adopted a set of holistic policies including the following: (1) the Drinking Water Directive (1998)—to establish quality standards, (2) the Water Framework Directive (2000)—to establish a framework to protect and manage surface water, and (3) the Ground Water Directive (2006)—to protect and manage groundwater and aquifer systems [19]. In both the US and EU, there are several controls at both federal and state levels, and the member states are required to monitor, assess, and report the performance of their achieved objectives, which help them amend their policies to better serve the people. However, it is important to be cautious concerning these existing frameworks, surveys, and analyses as they are not designed for equity. To remedy this omission, recent research in the US is centered around systemically developing metrices and tools to specifically study and quantify the performance of the equitability of water infrastructures [10]. Similar extensive acts or frameworks in the rest of the world (apart from a few other developed and some developing countries) are absent—either entirely or partially—due to a scarcity of expertise, economic and technical resources, institutional machinery, financial capital, and progressive policymaking. Owing to these limitations, water inequity challenges faced by people in some regions are consequently contained by suppressing advocacy and restricting freedom of speech to maintain stability.
4.3. Infrastructure challenges
Though policies can exacerbate water inequities, the primary driver of water inequity can be the absence of tools and resources (including physical, economic, and social) to create basic water infrastructures. While the issue above is not absent from developed countries, it is more pronounced in the developing world with its unique set of challenges that require focused attention. Most poor and middle-income countries cannot afford to create vital infrastructures such as dams, canals, treatment facilities, and water-supply pipelines and are dependent on funds, aid, and loans from developed countries and global organizations [20]. In many cases, even if developing countries are capable of securing funds, they lack the technology and technical expertise to construct and maintain their infrastructures without external support from developed nations. These problems, particularly in the global south, have roots in colonialism, imperialism, and racial capitalism, a legacy that continues to impact people's right to water and other basic resources [10]. Climate change is only complicating the possibility of creating equitable access to safe drinking water, as the impacts of climate change affect most directly vulnerable populations in low- and middle-income countries. Another obstacle in developing countries is retrofitting existing water infrastructures to increase climate resiliency (e.g. increasing storage capacities or accommodating surges in the water supply schemes). Indeed, developed countries themselves are struggling to secure funds and resources to create climate-resilient mitigatory and precautionary infrastructure solutions.
5. Conclusions
If we are to overcome the water inequity challenges globally and operationalize water equity, then policymakers at both international and domestic levels must develop effective policies, frameworks, monitoring schemes, and economic infrastructure solutions. In water projects, decision-makers need to emphasize not equality but equity as early as the design phase. They also need to establish better monitoring mechanisms for assessing the performance and equitability of the developed infrastructure. To improve the equitability of existing and upcoming water infrastructure systems, it is vital to acknowledge and accept the system-scale challenges and physical limitations while creating new infrastructure solutions. The gap in the water equality landscape, which has a limited focus on developing regions, must be filled, and inclusive equity models, frameworks, and tools developed. Switching emphasis to alternate infrastructure options like nature-based solutions by adopting new technologies (e.g. sensors) and improving the monitoring and assessment systems could enable the revamping and retrofitting of existing water infrastructures without causing a huge financial burden. This could help improve water utilities in both developed and developing countries, making them more equitable, as such solutions are relatively viable, require fewer resources, and are more likely to be widely adopted. Most importantly, utilities and agencies need to be able to measure outcomes of the achieved equity outcomes at all levels, 'from design to operation.' To do this, researchers should help decision-makers develop metrics and indicators that can measure the equitability of water utilities' performance quantifiably. One step in this direction would be to adopt a definition of water equity that accounts for all variables that affect the equitability of water infrastructures and is applicable in both developing and developed countries alike. Having a unified definition and framework for water equity could aid in the development of much-needed global metrices (e.g. a metric to measure the level of water service end-users receive) and policy tools to enable its wider operationalization. Hence by building on all the existing definitions and considering all the water equity challenges discussed in this article, we propose the following definition for water equity—'the provision of a proportional and equitable distribution of consistent quantity and quality of affordable water ensuring sustainable, fair, and inclusive access to all individuals absent of any discrimination.'
Data availability statement
No new data or materials were generated in this study.
Funding
This study did not receive any external funding.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.