Addressing Water Security An Overview PDF

sustainability
Review
Addressing Water Security: An Overview
Juliana Marcal 1,2 , Blanca Antizar-Ladislao 3,4 and Jan Hofman 1,2, *
1 Water Innovation and Research Centre (WIRC), Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Bath,
Bath BA2 7AY, UK; [email protected]
2 Water Informatics in Science and Engineering (WISE) Centre for Doctoral Training, University of Bath,
Bath BA2 7AY, UK
3 Isle Utilities Ltd., 2nd Floor, 89 Albert Embankment, Vauxhall, London SE1 7TP, UK;
[email protected]
4 Department of Civil, Environmental and Geomatic Engineering, University College London,
London WC1E 6BT, UK
* Correspondence: [email protected]
Abstract: For the last two decades, water security has been in the spotlight as a key concept for
sustainable development. However, due to its wide interpretation range, the understanding of what
water security is and what it encompasses can change considerably with different perspectives. By
means of a review of both academic and grey literature, this paper presents an in-depth global
overview of what water security means and how assessment is being carried out. These aspects are
put together in the present work with the aim to facilitate access to this complex concept for academics
but also policymakers and other stakeholders involved in water management and governance.
Aiming to provide a groundwork for water security understanding, we examine definitions, scales of
application, frequent approaches and methodologies used to study water security. We also present

indicators and aspects being included in water security frameworks. A summary of important actions
towards water security improvement is also presented. As a dynamic and multi-faceted concept,
Citation: Marcal, J.; Antizar-Ladislao, water security requires an equally multi-dimensional and flexible interpretation. Understanding and
B.; Hofman, J. Addressing Water measuring are key to improving water security levels. Bringing attention to how climate change,
Security: An Overview. Sustainability environmental needs, demographics, economics and governance are linked to water security can
2021, 13, 13702. https://doi.org/ boost impact by prompting science, policies and innovation to come together.
10.3390/su132413702
Keywords: water security; assessment; sustainable development; policymaking; water governance;
Academic Editor: Luis innovation; climate change
Jesús Belmonte-Ureña
Received: 8 October 2021

Accepted: 9 December 2021
1. Introduction
Published: 11 December 2021
Water security is about managing too much, too little and/or too polluted water.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
Water security is about the increasing importance of sustainable management of water
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
resources, drinking water and human well-being and protection of life and property from
published maps and institutional affil- water-related disasters. Water security is about the health of ecosystems and economic
iations. development. Water security and creating a water-smart society—where water has its
true value recognised and is therefore managed in ways to avoid pollution and optimize
resource efficiency [1]—are key conditions for sustainable development, and Sustainable
Development Goal (SDG) 6 Clean Water and Sanitation is in a central position for achieving
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
the Agenda 2030 [2–4].
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
Water is underpinning our economy and its growth, and it forms an essential compo-
This article is an open access article
nent for creating and maintaining jobs in sectors depending on water: agriculture, forestry,
distributed under the terms and fishery, energy, industry, recycling, building and transport. More than three out of four
conditions of the Creative Commons jobs depend on water to varying extents [5]. Sustainable water management and providing
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// infrastructure for access to safe water supply and adequate sanitation contribute to achiev-
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ ing better living standards, increasing social inclusion and creating jobs. Neglecting water
4.0/). issues will have negative impacts on the economy and ultimately jeopardize livelihoods.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 13702. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132413702 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2021, 13, 13702 2 of 18
The pressures on global water resources could put at risk 45% of the global gross domestic
product and 40% of the grain production [6] with predictions that by 2050, 4 billion people
will be living in severely water-stressed areas [7]. It also greatly increases the risks for
extremely high costs due to natural disasters and setting back development. Costs for
inaction on key environmental areas can be much larger than investing in mitigation and
adaptation measures [8]: impacts from water risks, for instance, can be five times higher
than the cost of addressing them with mitigating actions [9].
Urbanization and rapid population growth in several continents [10] will increase
the pressure on water security as more water is needed for water supply, agriculture
and business. One-quarter of the world’s population today lives in 17 countries where
extremely high water stress is experienced, withdrawing more than 80% of their available
resources to supply water for agriculture, industries and municipalities [11,12]. These
pressures are not equally distributed around the globe, 12 of these countries for example
are located in the Middle East and North Africa [11] (please refer to the Supplementary
Materials for more information). Urban growth and industrial activities are also the cause
of increasing pollution, increasing health risks and deterioration of water resources making
them unfit for other uses. Climate change is exacerbating water security challenges by
intensifying droughts and changing precipitation patterns, often leading to water-related
disasters [13]: over the last 20 years, 90% of the natural disasters were water-related [14].
Around the world, different regions face unique challenges as a function of geographi-
cal, social, political and economic characteristics [15–17] (please refer to the Supplementary
Materials for more information). In Brazil, a country with overall low water stress [11], Sao
Paulo faced the driest year in history in 2014, in an unprecedented water crisis, explained
not only by climate change but also environmental and managerial factors [18,19]. The
United States, a nation rich in natural and economical resources, is very vulnerable to
natural hazards and extreme weather, with disasters having a huge impact on the envi-
ronment, agriculture and people’s livelihoods [14,20,21]. Jordan, located in a region with
limited water resources, has made efforts to treat and reuse wastewater, nonetheless, the
country also faces, alongside high population growth, a high influx of Syrian refugees,
threats and sabotage of their water infrastructure and resources, making water security
an extremely political challenge [18]. It may be clear from the above that water security
is a broad concept with many dimensions and acting on different scales. Over the years,
many definitions of the concept of water security have emerged [2,22–24], some of them
covering only one or two dimensions. To operationalize and quantify the concept of water
security, it is necessary to develop frameworks that enable the assessment of the level of
water (in)security or the performance of water management tasks to achieve or improve
water security. Assessment and quantifying are the basis for incentivising improvement
actions. Many assessment frameworks have been developed, with focus on different scales,
different dimensions and in different levels of details [7,24–27].
As an emerging concept since the 1990s [28,29], water security has been the subject of
several reviews focusing on definition [29,30], use and focus on different disciplines [29],
application to scales and geographic regions [31] and assessment tools [32]. Cook and
Baker [29] reviewed the literature around water security from 1990–2010, exploring defi-
nitions, analytical approaches and scales, proposing great insights on the importance of
an integrative approach for the study of water security. Nonetheless, the study does not
investigate the assessment of water security in terms of aspects included or indicators.
A later study by Garrick and Hall [33] proposed a risk perspective overview of water
security, including analysis of definitions, indicators, indices and how they vary at different
scales. This very valid perspective is, however, not the only existing and adopted one
when looking at water security. A recent paper by Octavianti and Staddon [32] reviewed
assessment tools, including themes and scale analysis, comparing approaches and argu-
ments used to define measures. This paper, focused on the stages of development of the
assessment frameworks, instead of what was actually included—that was expressed as
general dimensions.
The complexity of the concept, associated with the issuing research interest and the
consequent large body of literature, makes a comprehensive yet graspable overview of the
theme, a challenge to be met. To our knowledge, an overview of the definitions of water
security, different dimensions, assessment frameworks and its indicators has not yet been
produced. In this paper, we review for the first time all these aspects of water security with
the intention of being as straightforward as possible in conveying its intricacy without
compromising intelligibility.
Water security is at the heart of our society and is, therefore, an important asset for
creating prosperity and well-being. It is connected to many other sectors that use water as
a resource. By providing an overview of the current state of knowledge on water security,
including recent insight in science on how to assess water security and creating action
perspectives to improve it, we hope to provide easier access to the complex concept to
policymakers and other stakeholders involved in water management and governance.
Here, we also aim at identifying gaps in knowledge, hoping that this can support policy
development and innovation in the field.
2. Methods
This paper provides an overview of how water security is being defined and assessed
in the literature. The review was carried firstly by collecting documents from multiple
databases (Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar) and grey literature.
Using keywords such as water security, framework, assessment, documents were re-
trieved and selected based on relevance to the subject and analysed. Citation tracing was
also employed to include important documents that did not feature in the databases. This
was especially important to include grey literature. From that, papers and reports exploring
concepts such as water resilience, water insecurity, water sustainability, water governance were
included in the review sample.
From the review sample, a total of 120 references were submitted to a qualitative anal-
ysis. These documents were selected because they could be examined in terms of features
related to spatial and temporal scales, methodology and aspects included in assessment
frameworks. The data extraction was carried out using a full-text review. For each paper,
we first determined the scale and what the authors called the concept to be assessed, such
as water security, sustainability, or resilience. This allowed grouping and filtering the
papers for further collection of information. Additional content analysis included noting,
depending on availability: case study location, conceptual and normalisation methodology,
implementation process, stakeholder participation, challenges observed, main conclusions,
action perspectives and finally the aspects and indicators included in the assessment
framework.
For the analysis of the literature and development of the paper, we defined aspects as
terms describing or explaining a broader idea associated with water security, for instance,
long-term droughts. Factors were considered to be circumstance or influence elements, such
as water availability; and indicators as characteristics or variables that measure the state
or level of something, for example, water stress level calculated as freshwater withdrawal
as a proportion of available freshwater resources [6]. These were organized based on
similarity and divided into categories following the UN water security definition and
infographic [34,35].
3. Water Security Definitions

Water security was first articulated as a policy challenge at the World Water Forum in
2000 in the United Nations (UN) Ministerial Declaration of The Hague on Water Security
in the 21st Century and it has remained on the agenda of international organizations since
then [36]. The Ministerial Declaration led to wide use of the term in global policy, develop-
ment and science agendas over the past 20 years and developed into a multi-dimensional
concept that has widely differing interpretations [37]. Definitions have proliferated, gen-
erating both convergence and confusion about the concept and options for measuring
Water security was first articulated as a policy challenge at the World Water Forum
in 2000 in the United Nations (UN) Ministerial Declaration of The Hague on Water
Security in the 21st Century and it has remained on the agenda of international
organizations since then [36]. The Ministerial Declaration led to wide use of the term in
global policy, development and science agendas over the past 20 years and developed into
a multi‐dimensional concept that has widely differing interpretations [37]. Definitions
have proliferated, generating both convergence and confusion about the concept and
options for measuring and managing water security [29]. Detailed analyses on how water
and managing water security [29]. Detailed analyses on how water security is defined by
security is defined by different authors can be found in the literature [29–31]. Well‐known
different authors can be found in the literature [29–31]. Well-known and accepted water
and accepted water security definitions, such as the one proposed by the Global Water
security definitions, such as the one proposed by the Global Water Partnership [23], Grey
and Sadoff [22] at the World Water Forum in 2006, UN-Water [34], UNESCO [38] and
Partnership [23], Grey and Sadoff [22] at the World Water Forum in 2006, UN‐Water [34],
OECD [7] (for definitions, please refer to Supplementary Materials), vary in origin, scale
UNESCO [38] and OECD [7] (for definitions, please refer to Supplementary Materials),
and emphasis,
vary in origin, engagement with issues
scale and emphasis, and concepts
engagement and
with the way
issues and they address
concepts different
and the way
dimensions
they address (Figure 1). This
different suggests that
dimensions consensus
(Figure onsuggests
1). This the definition of water security,
that consensus on the
while important, is unlikely (Figure 2).
definition of water security, while important, is unlikely (Figure 2).
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 19

Figure 1. Water security definitions.
Figure 1. Water security definitions.

Figure 2. Water security: risks
Figure [33], [39].
2. Water security: risks [33,39].
Nonetheless, an effort to adopt a holistic definition can enrich and broaden studies
around water security. Therefore, we suggest the adoption of the UN definition (Figure 3),
around water security. Therefore, we suggest the adoption of the UN definition (Figure
also the one we are embracing for the purpose of this paper. However, it should be noted
3), also the one we are embracing for the purpose of this paper. However, it should be
that such an all-encompassing definitiondefinition
noted that such an all‐encompassing presents disadvantages, such as the
presents disadvantages, difficulty
such as the
difficulty of operationalising it and in identifying a suitable set of indicators that might be
used to measure the current situation and changes over time [39].

Figure 2. Water security: risks [33], [39].
around water security. Therefore, we suggest the adoption of the UN definition (Figure
3), also the one we are embracing for the purpose of this paper. However, it should be
noted that such an all‐encompassing definition presents disadvantages, such as the
difficulty of operationalising it and in identifying a suitable set of indicators that might be
of operationalising it and in identifying a suitable set of indicators that might be used to
used to measure the current situation and changes over time [39].
measure the current situation and changes over time [39].

Figure 3. UN-Water [34] definition.
Figure 3. UN‐Water [34] definition.
4. Water Security Assessment
4. Water Security Assessment
Assessing water security allows understanding of the current situation and identifying
Assessing
challenges water
and areas security
that allows understanding
need attention. It is an essentialof the
step to current
prioritisesituation
and addressand
identifying challenges and areas that need attention. It is an essential step to prioritise and
issues, inform planning and implement and monitor water security actions. It is, therefore,
address issues, inform planning and implement and monitor water security actions. It is,
crucial to know how to evaluate water security.
therefore, crucial to know how to evaluate water security.
4.1. Overview
4.1. Overview
From the academic, private and governmental and non-governmental organizations,
frameworks, approaches and tools have been developed over the years aiming to assess
From the academic, private and governmental and non‐governmental organizations,
and study water security on different scales.
frameworks, approaches and tools have been developed over the years aiming to assess
Because water security is a wide notion and a fairly recent one, many tools developed
and study water security on different scales.
the years assessing concepts such as water resilience, water insecurity, water sustain-
over Because water security is a wide notion and a fairly recent one, many tools developed
ability, water
over the governance
years provide
assessing evaluation
concepts such for
as aspects encompassed
water resilience, water byinsecurity,
the concept of
water
water security. Notable frameworks such as City Blueprint Approach [40], Sustainable
sustainability, water governance provide evaluation for aspects encompassed by the concept
Cities Water Index [20] and many others consider similar dimensions to the ones incor-
of water security. Notable frameworks such as City Blueprint Approach [40], Sustainable
porated by theIndex
Cities Water concept of and
[20] watermany
security. Frameworks
others focusingdimensions
consider similar on the performance of
to the ones
water and sanitation services [41–43] also carry important water security features,
incorporated by the concept of water security. Frameworks focusing on the performance such as
guaranteeing access to water and adequacy of wastewater treatment efficiency. Alternative
initiatives such as the Utility of the Future Program [43] allow benchmarking and support
a process of performance improvement for the water industry, which can mean significant
improvements in water and energy use efficiency and provide alternatives to current water
challenges.
Although designed for different notions, these evaluation methods are often comple-
mentary. Van Ginkel et al. [27] compared the results from their water security assessment
framework to the assessment outcomes of two other well-known index systems: the Sus-
tainable City Water Index from Arcadis [20] and the City Blueprint from KWR [40]. Their
results showed good correspondence despite conceptual differences [27]. While these three
frameworks were designed for city scale, it is likely that other frameworks designed for
different scales or concepts could provide consistent additional information when applied
to the same area. It is, therefore, suggested that future work could include a study of how
these evaluation methods compare to and complement each other.
Examples of different frameworks assessing water-related concepts are presented
in Figure 4. This figure does not present an exhaustive list of the existing frameworks,
but simply provides an illustration of the diversity of concepts and assessment methods
around water issues.
could include a study of how these evaluation methods compare to and complement each
other.
Examples of different frameworks assessing water‐related concepts are presented in
Figure 4. This figure does not present an exhaustive list of the existing frameworks, but
simply provides an illustration of the diversity of concepts and assessment methods
around water issues.

Figure 4.Figure 4. Examples
Examples of frameworks
of frameworks for different
for assessing assessing different
water relatedwater related
concepts: concepts:
Water securityWater
[26,44];security
Water gov-
ernance [26,44]
[45,46]; ; Water
Water sustainability [45,46]Water
governance [20,40]; ; Water sustainability
resilience [20,40]
[47,48]; Water [49,50] [47,48]
; Water resilience
risk/insecurity ; Water
and Utilities perfor-
risk/insecurity [49,50] and Utilities performance [41,43].
mance [41,43].
4.2. Scales of Application
4.2. Scales of Application
From the household to the global scale [23], water security is a local, regional, national
From the household to the
and global issue. Due global scale
to water [23], having
security water asecurity is a local,
broad definition, it hasregional,
been interpreted
over the years at different scales.
national and global issue. Due to water security having a broad definition, it has been
The boundary of a framework can be assumed at different levels and contexts, chang-
interpreted over the years at different scales.
The boundary of focus
ing the of the water
a framework security
can assessment.
be assumed Nevertheless,
at different levels these
and boundaries
contexts, are not
absolute and as scales are connected, the aspects included for different scales can also be
changing the focus of the water security assessment. Nevertheless, these boundaries are
associated or shared. Community or household water security for instance can bear differ-
ent aspects for rural or urban contexts [51–54]. Within the city or urban scale, frameworks
focusing on utilities’ performance [41–43,55] convey aspects such as guaranteeing access to
water, improving water usage efficiency, adequacy of wastewater treatment, prevention of
pollution incidents among others. Those, although measured for the water industry, will
provide results that surpass the boundaries for which the framework was developed and
represent improvements for the community or city. Examples of frameworks designed for
different scales are presented in Table 1.
The differences in contexts show that water security is a complex problem and a single
way to evaluate it would not be adequate to all scales. The spatial scale of water security
allows us to focus on specific problems and challenges. Although different levels can be
considered they are all connected since improving water security is a response to local,
regional and global challenges with multi-level implications.
The study of different scales is also associated with the context in terms of the level of
development and specific geographic challenges. The African continent for instance has
experienced a rapid urbanization process, linked to migration from rural to urban areas [51]
and population growth. This leads to experiences of water stress, scarcity and inequality of
water services access in cities. This has fuelled not only studies at the city scale but also at
the domestic level to investigate the household experience of water security in urban and
peri-urban areas [51,56–58].
Table 1. Water security assessment: scales of application.
Scale Examples and Considerations

Global water security assessment was carried out by Vorosmarty et al. [59], considering human and
biodiversity perspectives: drivers and impacts related to catchment disturbance, pollution, water resource
Global
development and biotic factors were quantified at a global scale. Gain et al. [26] also provided a global
assessment using the Global Water Security Index, using indicators based on SDG 6.
Usually encompassing all four dimensions from the UN definition [35], frameworks such as the National
Water Security Index [25,44] from the Asian Development Bank, the Water Security Scorecard [60] from the
National/
Australian Water Association and others developed by scholars such as Dou et al. [61], Marttunen et al. [62],
Country
Su et al. [63], Lautze et al. [64] look at water security at a national scale. The National Blueprint Framework
[65], although not designed for water security specifically, provides indicators to measure progress on SDG 6.
With a focus on water quantity aspects such as availability, utilisation and scarcity resources, frameworks at
this scale also bring attention to climate change aspects and governance since watershed or basins do not
Basin/ follow administrative boundaries of cities or states, with concerns over the surface and groundwater quantity
Watershed and quality at this scale often requiring transboundary cooperation. Works developed by scholars such as
Babel et al. [66], Yin et al. [67], Xiao et al. [68] Norman et al. [69], Jia et al. [70] provided frameworks for basins
of watersheds. Notably, the use of hydrological models is often used, providing valuable predictions.
An intermediate between the city and national context, studies at a regional scale usually follow
administrative boundaries of regions or provinces, sometimes comprising several basins and smaller regions.
Regional Encompassing not only urban areas but also areas of different land uses, considerations around agricultural
activities, ecological and environmental aspects are present. Scholars such as Liu et al. [71], Li et al. [72],
Zhang et al. [73] provided regional evaluations.
The urban level frameworks tend to incorporate many aspects regarding availability, access and reliability of
water services, governance, water hazards, etc. One of the key dimensions of the National Water Security
City/
Index by the ADB [25], notable frameworks such as the City Blueprint Approach (KWR) [40], Sustainable City
Urban
Water Index (Arcadis) [20] and the City Water Resilience Index (ARUP) [47] are city-specific. As are works
from scholars such as Van Ginkel et al. [27], Jensen et al. [39], Ghosh et al. [74] and Romero-Lankao et al. [75].
At this scale, frameworks show concern with management strategies, governance and other social aspects. The
Canadian Water Sustainability Index (CWSI) [76] was developed to assess the well-being of communities with
Community respect to water. The WaterAid [24] framework highlights the importance of a participatory process involving
the community. Authors such as Wutich et al. [52], Shrestha et al. [77], Norman et al. [69] and Dickson et al.
[78] considered communities as the scale to assess water issues.
Focus on essential needs (access to water and sanitation) and aspects related to health and hygiene, social and
gender inequality, emotional stress and food security are present at this scale. One key dimension of the
Household/ National Water Security Index by the ADB [25], and sometimes described in terms of water insecurity, this
Individual level has also been assessed by scholars such as Jepson [79], Hadley and Wutich [80], Wutich [81], Brewis et al.
[82], Webb [83] and Tsai et al. [84], among others. The HWISE-RCN by Young et al. [50] is notably
investigating experiences, causes and outcomes of water insecurity at the household level.
4.3. Time Dependence

Along with considerations of spatial scale, the temporal variation is equally important
in the interpretation and assessment of water security. Temporal distribution of water
resources, seasonal effects, climate change, water governance, seasonal demand and demo-
graphic variation, amongst other factors, will influence and change water security in space
and time.
The application of an assessment framework, as thorough as can be, will invariably
represent a moment (or a snapshot) of the evaluated concept. Therefore, as parameters do
change over time in the real world, it is crucial to consider the time dependence of water
security. To provide a good picture—or a ‘dynamic picture’—of water security, elements
such as long-term droughts, changes in precipitation, flood frequency, temperature fluctu-
ation, demand growth and demographic changes, among many other factors or aspects
used for water security assessment, need to be interpreted over time.
Research has recurrently pointed out the importance of considering the temporal scale
in water security for the identification of needs and persisting problems [26]. The temporal
021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 19
Water security assessment may be guided by different perspectives. Focus on specific
water security aspects may be guided by the discipline. For instance, in the engineering
scale has already been included in the assessment of water security in the literature [61,67]
domain, studies on water security give emphasis to flood protection infrastructure and
highlighting
water supply, while the importance
environmental of such
studies will consideration in scenario
focus on water investigation.
quantity, To acknowl-
quality and
edge the variety of indicators due to climate change, seasonal effects, anthropic influence
hydrological variability [28]. Different disciplines will also tend to evaluate certain scales:
and other natural changes over time in the analysis of water security is crucial to plan for
development studies often study the national scale while hydrologic ones will focus on a
the future (which is in itself every day more unpredictable) and ensure long-term water
catchment scale and social studies on the community scale. In addition to being guided
security. Thus, innovations related to remote monitoring, modelling, simulation and trend
by the discipline, other viewpoints such as problem‐ or goal‐oriented, integrated or policy
analysis are important tools to study the temporal variability of water security variables.
perspectives can guide the analysis of water security assessment [28].
The time dependence of water security also calls for an ongoing re-evaluation in a
Approaches region,
such city,
as risk‐based,
or community. systemic, metabolism
Water security approach,
assessment frameworksPressure‐State‐
should be applied as
part of an improvement cycle [24] in order to account
Response (PSR), Driver‐Pressure‐State‐Impact‐Response (DPSIR) among others for changes brought by(see
interventions
or pressures. This allows stakeholders to understand the full potential
Figure 5), are ways to contemplate the problem of water security and decide on the of actions and
the update of priority actions, indicators thresholds and
considerations and aspects for a subsequent evaluation. These conceptual models are not goals providing incentives for
improvements and new adjustments.
exclusive and are often combined by authors to provide a comprehensive evaluation
framework. 4.4. Approaches and Methodologies for Water Security Assessment
The risk‐based Due approach was adopted
to the complexity by the
and different OECD [7]
interpretations for water
of the instance when
security concept, there
interpreting water security as a risk management problem for which the improvement is
is no standard evaluation method. There are however many approaches, perspectives and
due to knowing, targeting and managing acceptable levels of risks for the society and the
methodologies that can be used to translate water security into metrics or frameworks that
can help evaluate and provide information on how to improve it.
environment. A risk perspective is also adopted by the Sustainable Water Partnership [85]
Water security assessment may be guided by different perspectives. Focus on specific
for their proposed water security improvement framework based on the identification of
water
potential hazards and security aspects may
vulnerabilities be guided
and focused byon
the critical
discipline. For related
risks instance,to
in the engineering
water
domain, studies on water security give emphasis to flood protection infrastructure and
security. In this framework, a system thinking approach is also applied to relate the causes
water supply, while environmental studies will focus on water quantity, quality and
of the risks. Three main sub‐systems are considered—water resources, risk to water
hydrological variability [28]. Different disciplines will also tend to evaluate certain scales:
security and water management.
development studies The
often systemic approach,
study the national scaleanother common ones
while hydrologic method
will focus on a
applied to water security assessment, is based on the idea of sub‐systems and elements
catchment scale and social studies on the community scale. In addition to being guided
and the relationship
by theand feedback
discipline, otherinteractions
viewpoints suchbetween them. orConsidering
as problem- goal-oriented,the broad or policy
integrated
perspectives can guide the analysis of water security assessment [28].
nature of the concept of water security, the value of this approach is understandable: the
Approaches such as risk-based, systemic, metabolism approach, Pressure-State-Response
possibility of separating a complex notion into smaller dimensions makes it more easily
(PSR), Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) among others (see Figure 5), are
comprehensible and easier to work with. Authors have considered different subsystems
ways to contemplate the problem of water security and decide on the considerations and
when evaluating water security such as economy and society, water resource and
aspects for a subsequent evaluation. These conceptual models are not exclusive and are
ecosystem [61] or water resources, water environment and water disasters [67].
often combined by authors to provide a comprehensive evaluation framework.

Figure 5. Approaches applied in water security evaluation.
Figure 5. Approaches applied in water security evaluation.
The risk-based approach was adopted by the OECD [7] for instance when interpreting
The Pressure‐State‐Response (PSR),
water security as a risk used by
management the OECD
problem to the
for which structure its work
improvement is dueon
to knowing,
environmental policies [86] and the Driving Forces‐Pressures‐State‐Impacts‐Responses
targeting and managing acceptable levels of risks for the society and the environment.
A risk perspective is also adopted by the Sustainable Water Partnership [85] for their
(DPSIR) developed by the European Environmental Agency [87] and adopted by the US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) [88] are conceptual models based on systems
thinking approach and thus highlighting cause‐effect relationships. Applied to the study
of water security they allow the identification of key indicators, considering that the
proposed water security improvement framework based on the identification of potential

hazards and vulnerabilities and focused on critical risks related to water security. In this
framework, a system thinking approach is also applied to relate the causes of the risks.
Three main sub-systems are considered—water resources, risk to water security and water
management. The systemic approach, another common method applied to water security
assessment, is based on the idea of sub-systems and elements and the relationship and
feedback interactions between them. Considering the broad nature of the concept of water
security, the value of this approach is understandable: the possibility of separating a
complex notion into smaller dimensions makes it more easily comprehensible and easier to
work with. Authors have considered different subsystems when evaluating water security
such as economy and society, water resource and ecosystem [61] or water resources, water
environment and water disasters [67].
The Pressure-State-Response (PSR), used by the OECD to structure its work on envi-
ronmental policies [86] and the Driving Forces-Pressures-State-Impacts-Responses (DPSIR)
developed by the European Environmental Agency [87] and adopted by the US Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) [88] are conceptual models based on systems thinking
approach and thus highlighting cause-effect relationships. Applied to the study of water
security they allow the identification of key indicators, considering that the driving forces
are the factors that motivate human activities that exert pressures on natural resources and
the environment changing its state (quantity or quality of resources). The change of state
will have an impact on society that will then respond to these changes through actions in
management, behaviour and awareness. These approaches, and variations of this approach,
are frequently used by authors as a conceptual model to define indicators [27,66,67,89].
5. Water Security Indicators

Very commonly used as a basis for water security evaluation, indicators are often
gathered in an index system to convey the different aspects of the concept. At a national
level, the Water Security Index by the Asian Development Bank [25] adopts an index system
divided into five dimensions (household, economic, urban, environmental, water-related
disasters) to a calculated final water security index. Among others, the National Blueprint
Framework also adopts a set of indicators to measure the progress on water-related devel-
opment goals. At the urban scale, notably the City Blueprint [40], the Sustainable Cities
Water Index [20] and the City Water Resilience Index [47] also use a set of indicators that
can be compared between different countries as well as allowing progress monitoring.
Many other studies found in the literature have adopted an index system as part of their
proposed water security assessment framework. Although the use of indicators or index
systems is very common it is not exclusive. Some conceptual frameworks, such as the water
security framework from the OECD [7] provide, instead of a set of indicators, a process to
be followed step-by-step in order to evaluate water security according to the local context.
Indicators are sometimes considered under certain dimensions or groups. However,
due to the complexity and interconnectivity between different aspects of water security,
authors do not always agree on the same categories or even consider the same dimensions
of water security. This depends on the scale, context as well as on the definition of water
security and methodology adopted. Similar indicators are sometimes adopted into different
dimensions: wastewater collection or improved sanitation for instance is sometimes con-
sidered as an indicator under an environmental dimension for some authors [90,91], while
others consider it under health and wellbeing [47,92] or access to infrastructure [26,65].
This demonstrates that water security assessment is, naturally, a problem as complex as
its definition. An important point in the choice of indicators is data availability that is up
to date, transparent and reliable. This will also help to determine not only the selection
of variables but also the temporal and spatial boundaries of the framework. Populating
indicators for water security assessment can require large sets of data and these should be
preferably publicly available and especially verifiable to ensure a transparent evaluation.
A survey of water security assessment frameworks was carried out to investigate

how the different aspects of water security are being incorporated. There is a variety
of indicators that, based on the UN definition [35], were divided into four dimensions,
as seen in Figure 6. As a holistic and well-accepted definition, the UN interpretation of
water security has been used in the literature to establish dimensions or sub-systems to
the development of assessment frameworks [51,93,94]. The work developed by Aboelnga
et al. [93] for instance, adopts the four dimensions from the UN framework on11 water
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW of 19

security [35] for the development of a holistic urban water security metric based on the
SDG6 and the human rights on water and sanitation.

Figure 6. Water security dimensions based on the UN definition [34]
Figure 6. Water security dimensions based on the UN definition [34]..
Here, the four dimensions from the UN definition are adopted and, within them,
Here, the four dimensions from the UN definition are adopted and, within them,
aspects and indicators considered in different water security framework assessments in the
aspects and indicators considered in different water security framework assessments in
literature were divided into categories as seen in Table 2. Differently from studies that have
the literature were divided into categories as seen in Table 2. Differently from studies that
proposed metrics for water security, we gather, through the review process, what has been
have proposed metrics for water security, we gather, through the review process, what
employed in the literature to measure water security. This provides a summary of what
has been employed in the literature to measure water security. This provides a summary
can possibly be adopted to measure the different dimensions, illustrating the complexity
of what can possibly be adopted to measure the different dimensions, illustrating the
and amplitude of this concept. As previously stated, the final choice of what to consider
complexity and amplitude of this concept. As previously stated, the final choice of what
in a metric will depend on methodology, scale, perspective, data availability amongst
to consider in a metric will depend on methodology, scale, perspective, data availability
other factors.
amongst other factors.
These categories and dimensions can be directly or indirectly related to the SDGs, in
These categories and dimensions can be directly or indirectly related to the SDGs, in
particular to Goal 6: Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for
particular to Goal 6: Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for
all [6]. The indicator 6.1.1 Proportion of population using safely managed drinking water services
all [6]. The indicator 6.1.1 Proportion of population using safely managed drinking water services
for instance can be associated to the category Access to water services and with indicators
for instance can be associated to the category Access to water services and with indicators
related to access to improved drinking water sources and access to piped water/water
related
supply to access to improved
connection. drinking
Other references water
also usedsources
relatedand access to
indicators piped
such as water/water
accessibility
supply connection. Other references also used related indicators such as accessibility of
of water points and affordability. The category Access to water services is also related
water points sanitation
to improved and affordability. The category
and wastewater Access
collection andto therefore
water services
can be is associated
also related to
with
improved sanitation and wastewater collection and therefore can be associated with SDG
SDG 6.2.
6.2. Some authors use and reference the indicators from the Global Sustainable Devel-
opmentSome authors framework
indicators use and reference the indicators
[65,93]. Notably, from Blueprint
the National the Global Sustainable
Framework [65]
Development indicators framework [65,93]. Notably, the National Blueprint Framework
was based on the SDG 6 to provide a framework to monitor the progress of water-related
[65] was based on the SDG 6 to provide a framework to monitor the progress of water‐
sustainable development in Europe. The work from Assefa et al. [51] also focuses on SDG
related sustainable development in Europe. The work from Assefa et al. [51] also focuses
6 for evaluating water security in terms of supply, sanitation and hygiene.
on SDG 6 for evaluating water security in terms of supply, sanitation and hygiene.
Table 2. Water security aspects found in water security frameworks.
Dimension Categories Indicators/Aspects

Water availability, adequate quantity for basic needs, demand and consumption;
Water quantity diversity of sources; precipitation and water balance; water storage; exploitation
of resources; water stress and usage efficiency.
Quality of water for human consumption (meeting standards); aesthetic,
Quality
perception and quality acceptability; water treatment practices.
Access to improved drinking water source; improved sanitation; piped water or
Drinking water and Access to water
water supply connection; accessibility of water points; affordability of services;
human well‐being services
wastewater collection/sewage connection.
Asset management and maintenance; infrastructure condition/age and capacity;
Table 2. Water security aspects found in water security frameworks.
Dimension Categories Indicators/Aspects

Water availability, adequate quantity for basic needs, demand and consumption;
Water quantity diversity of sources; precipitation and water balance; water storage; exploitation of
resources; water stress and usage efficiency.
Quality of water for human consumption (meeting standards); aesthetic, perception and
Quality
quality acceptability; water treatment practices.
Access to improved drinking water source; improved sanitation; piped water or water
Access to water services supply connection; accessibility of water points; affordability of services; wastewater
Drinking water and collection/sewage connection.
human well-being Asset management and maintenance; infrastructure condition/age and capacity;
Infrastructure reliability reliability (complaints/blockages/interruptions); service level; service continuity (hours
of service); water leakage, non-revenue water.
Reuse/ Water/wastewater reuse; energy or nutrient recovery; rainwater harvesting; solid
recycling waste/recycling.
Hygiene and Water-related diseases; incidence of diarrhoea; adequacy of water for housework and
public health hygiene; other health problems.
Emotional stress, fear, frustration; safety or dispute; deprivation or lost opportunity;
Wellbeing
recreational opportunities.
Surface and groundwater water quality; river health; wastewater generated and
adequacy of wastewater treatment; biodiversity; environmental flows; environmental
Environment
protection actions; pollutants discharge (harmful substances, pollution loading); soil
Ecosystems
erosion; wildfires; vegetation cover and land use.
Energy use/efficiency; renewable energy; sustainable natural resources use; sustainable
Sustainability
water use; water sensitive urban design.
Floods (frequency, affected area and population, hazard and vulnerability, protection
Water-related hazards infrastructure); droughts (frequency/vulnerability/area affected); economic loss;
Water hazards landslides; prevention, preparedness and response; water pollution accidents.
and Climate change Climate change response; greenhouse gas emissions; salination and seawater
Climate change intrusion; temperature.
Water for agriculture, manufacturing; commerce, energy production; broad economic
Economic
activities development; water-related business opportunities; food production and demand; water
footprint; water use/GDP or GDP/water use.
Economic Activities and Institutional organization and capacity; accountability and corporate governance; data
Development availability, multi-level and multi-stakeholder participation/engagement;
Governance communication and transparency; investment/funding and financial management; legal
and regulatory aspects; science, knowledge and innovation; strategic planning;
transboundary and international collaboration.
Education and awareness; GDP; income/unemployment rate; informal dwellings;
Socio-economic aspects
population density; social and cultural aspects; urbanization rate.
Nevertheless, water security is much broader than SDG 6 alone (please refer to the
Supplementary Materials for more information). The link between the SDG goals supports
and legitimate the inclusion of other aspects such as governance, climate change, economic
development, inequality, among others, when addressing water security.
Therefore, many water security indicators can also be associated with the other SDGs.
SDG 3. Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages [6] for instance includes the
target of reducing the number of deaths and illnesses from water pollution and contamina-
tion (Goal 3, Target 3.9) and the indicator 3.9.2 Mortality rate attributed to unsafe water, unsafe
sanitation and lack of hygiene (exposure to unsafe Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for All
(WASH) services). Similar indicators such as water-related disease incidence are included
in several water security assessment frameworks [20,25,27,76,92,93]. SDG 8 Promote sus-
tained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and
decent work for all, is represented in the economic activities and development dimensions;
SDG 13 targets action to combat climate change and its impacts and SDG 1 End poverty in
all its forms everywhere includes a target on building the resilience of the poor and reduce
their exposure and vulnerability to climate-related extreme events and other disasters, can
be directly associated with the water hazards and climate change dimension and indicators.
Basic water drinking and water and sanitation services are indicators of SDG1; food secu-
rity and the promotion of sustainable agriculture are part of SDG2 and, safety, resilience
and sustainability of cities, including an indicator on the proportion of the population
living in informal settlements, are counted in SDG 11. The list goes on since all SDG are
interconnected and may be connected to the different dimensions of water security.
6. From Paper to Action: Measuring Progress, Achieving Goals and Improving

Water Security
Indicators play an important role in describing the complexity of a system, dissem-
ination of information and translating important aspects of a complex system into an
accessible format that can be understood and monitored by different stakeholders. As a
useful tool to identify critical problems, they have the potential to guide governments and
decision-makers in developing action plans and making informed political interventions to
tackle areas that need attention in order to improve water security.
The possibility of benchmarking results is an important point when evaluating water
security since it has the potential to provide information and share experiences between
evaluated areas. The use of indicators can provide not only a way to perceive the evolution
of an area in terms of water security but also has the potential to compare cities, countries
or areas assessed. It also creates incentives for policymakers and politicians to improve
their water management strategies and learn from their best practices since a high or
improved score can display the benefits of certain public policies and help promote their
administration.
From water security assessment, case studies, experiences, observations, consultations,
etc., authors in the literature have gathered a range of experiences allowing identification
of solutions, suggestions or interventions that could help improve water security. From
these, certain actions with the potential to help achieve water security goals have been
identified (see Figure 7). Sharing these actions is as important as measuring and
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW
aiming
14 of 19
for water security since the only way to achieve goals and improve water security is going
from paper to action and implementing measures.

Figure 7. Summary of actions with potential to improve water security.
Figure 7. Summary of actions with potential to improve water security.
Water connects
Changing the geophysical,
the traditional social,and
perspective ecological and
adopting an economic
approach systems [95] and
that considers
asinnovative
consequence,
solutions to the multiple and integrated uses of water is pointed in way
an integrated approach is considered in the literature as the best the to
balance the competing water demands—human and environmental [23,29,59]. Integration
literature as key to sustainability and water security improvement [20,25]. Optimization
isof water usage efficiency, incorporation the natural assets and environmental values in
key not only in terms of the water cycle but also water sector planning with other
sectors such as land use and energy. With the potential to reduce the fragmentation of
the design of water infrastructure [22,96] and multi‐purpose and tailored solutions [20]
for instance are pointed in the literature as key developments for a flexible and resilient
policies, integrating goals, needs and responsibilities across sectors requires clear national
approach towards water security.
policies on integrated water management, appropriate institutions, effective legislation,
Information is indispensable for good management. Assessing and monitoring
water, environmental, social and economic indicators allow informed and optimized
management actions [20,25,90,97]. Therefore, enhancing the knowledge base and
consolidating the science‐policy interface is imperative to provide policymakers with the
best available information when putting in place policies to address water security
engagement of local communities and collaboration between stakeholders to set priorities

and take action [23].
Changing the traditional perspective and adopting an approach that considers inno-
vative solutions to the multiple and integrated uses of water is pointed in the literature
as key to sustainability and water security improvement [20,25]. Optimization of water
usage efficiency, incorporation the natural assets and environmental values in the design of
water infrastructure [22,96] and multi-purpose and tailored solutions [20] for instance are
pointed in the literature as key developments for a flexible and resilient approach towards
water security.
Information is indispensable for good management. Assessing and monitoring water,
environmental, social and economic indicators allow informed and optimized manage-
ment actions [20,25,90,97]. Therefore, enhancing the knowledge base and consolidating
the science-policy interface is imperative to provide policymakers with the best available
information when putting in place policies to address water security challenges [5]. Fur-
thermore, a strong knowledge base and science-policy communication can provide the link
between innovation and application [38].
Innovative solutions, integrated policies, monitoring, communication as many other
of the actions seen in Figure 7 have been facilitated by the use of ICT (Information Com-
munications and Technology) solutions. Research and application of machine learning,
modelling and many other smart technologies and tools have shown great potential to
accelerate actions and promote more efficient water strategies [1,98].
Better water governance is needed to face water security challenges but also to main-
tain political stability, economic equity and social justice [95]. Policies and regulations
supported by a reliable knowledge base and promotion of dialogue between sectors are
some points to consider in order to enable knowledge sharing, cooperation and better
water governance to cities [25]. Promoting dialogue and sharing information also help
promote awareness, changing the way water challenges and policies are perceived [5,90].
As part of good governance, planning is an important aspect. Even cities with high lev-
els of water security and development will face uncertain future conditions [20]. Integrating
climate change adaptation on investments and adopting flexible and adaptive planning are
crucial for improving water security. Another important point is the implementation of
inclusive policies. This is important to identify disparities in water security and make sure
that the responses and interventions are tailored to the local realities [25]. Investment in
water infrastructure is also crucial. Ensuring that water infrastructure is reliable and robust
enough to face water security challenges is essential to economic development and poverty
reduction [25,38].
7. Conclusions
Adopting the UN definition for water security, this paper provides an overview of
what water security is, how it is being assessed and what can be done to improve it.
Through different scales and approaches, the evaluation of water-related concepts, in
particular water security, is an important step into achieving the SDGs. Although different
definitions and frameworks have been proposed in the last decades, research questions
around water security, and how to improve it, are still of great relevance. Like the concept
itself, water security challenges are multifaceted and facing them depends not only on
research and innovation but also on policies, management strategies and governance.
The development of frameworks and the potential to measure water security allows a
wider and clearer vision view of water challenges. Investigating water security provides
crucial information on this ever-changing, multi-faceted concept, allowing to produce
the best possible information on needs and challenges. This fuels research to develop
means to better measure and improve water security. The search for higher levels of water
efficiency and safety at different scales has guided researchers over the last decades to
propose innovative solutions in terms of management strategies, assessment methods,
modelling and simulation, smart systems, low cost and water-efficient technologies, remote
monitoring and many other fields that can be applied to the improvement of water security.
The scientific output needs to be associated with governance and planning, so these
novelties can help face real water challenges and meet needs. The advantages brought by
new technologies combined with the possibility to measure the needs and the progression
of water security have the potential to influence policies. Information on the relationship
between innovation and measured improvement of water security can help to highlight
the impact of certain measures and inform stakeholders, thus providing arguments and
incentives to policymakers to take action. Furthermore, understanding the interconnection
between water security and all that it embodies is crucial to contemplate the impact that
these actions have. Climate change, policies, economic activities, population growth,
among many others, when subject to planning and efficient actions, will influence water
security at different scales.
Integration appears as a key word when approaching water security improvement.
Integrating the water cycle, policies, sectors, etc. shows undeniable advantages when facing
the current water challenges. Therefore, one could expect that integrating assessment and
monitoring would provide a wider vision of water challenges while still accounting for
differences in scales and context. As all the scales are connected, the aspects evaluated
by different concepts such as sustainability, resilience or water security also fit together.
This integration should not be limited to the metric but should also include science-policy
exchange: consultation with stakeholders from different levels, dissemination of research
output to policymakers and scientific involvement in policymaking, etc. Moving forward,
it would be valuable to investigate how integrating assessments could help build an even
stronger knowledge base for policy development and water management actions.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10

.3390/su132413702/s1, S1. Water security challenges around the world; S2. Water security definitions.
Author Contributions: Conceptualisation, J.M., B.A.-L. and J.H.; methodology, J.M.; validation, J.M.,
B.A.-L., J.H.; formal analysis, J.M., B.A.-L.; writing—original draft preparation, J.M.; writing—review
and editing, J.M., B.A.-L., J.H.; visualisation, J.M., B.A.-L. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This study was conducted as part of the Water Informatics Science and Engineering (WISE)
Centre for Doctoral Training (CDT), funded by the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research
Council, Grant No. EP/L016214/1. Juliana Marcal is supported by a research studentship from
this CDT.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The original contributions presented in the study are provided in the
article/Supplementary Materials. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to acknowledge the members of the Working Group
on Water Security of Water Europe for their valuable discussions on the topic which led to writing
this paper. We also acknowledge the Department of Chemical Engineering at the University of Bath,
Isle Utilities Ltd. and University College London for allowing time to the authors for developing
this review.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Water Europe. WssTP. Water Vision 2030. The Value of Water. Multiple Waters, for Multiple Purposes and Users—Towards a Future Proof
Model for a European Water-Smart Society; WssTP—The European Technology Platform for Water: Brussels, Belgium, 2017; p. 32.
2. UN General Assembly. Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; UN: New York, NY, USA, 2015.
3. Romano, O.; Akhmouch, A. Water Governance in Cities: Current Trends and Future Challenges. Water 2019, 11, 500. [CrossRef]
4. Makarigakis, A.K.; Jimenez-Cisneros, B.E. UNESCO’s Contribution to Face Global Water Challenges. Water 2019, 11,
388. [CrossRef]
5. United Nations World Water Assessment Programme. The United Nations World Water Development Report 2016: Water and Jobs;
UN-WWAP: Paris, France, 2016.
6. UN-Water. SDG 6 Synthesis Report 2018 on Water and Sanitation; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2018; p. 195.
7. OECD. Water Security for Better Lives; OECD: Paris, France, 2013; Volume 12.
8. OECD. Costs of Inaction on Key Environmental Challenges; OECD: Paris, France, 2008.
9. CDP. CDP Global Water Report 2020. A Wave of Change: The Role of Companies in Building a Water-Secure World; CDP Worldwide:
London, UK, 2020; p. 39.
10. UN-DESA. World Population Prospects 2019: Highlights; United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs—Population
Division: New York, NY, USA, 2019.
11. WRI—World Resources Institute. 17 Countries, Home to One-Quarter of the World’s Population, Face Extremely High Water
Stress. Available online: https://www.wri.org/insights/17-countries-home-one-quarter-worlds-population-face-extremely-
high-water-stress (accessed on 2 November 2021).
12. FAO. The State of Food and Agriculture 2020. Overcoming Water Challenges in Agriculture; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2020. [CrossRef]
13. UNESCO World Water Assessment Programme. The United Nations World Water Development Report 2019: Leaving No One Behind;
UNESCO: Paris, France, 2019; p. 186. ISBN 9789231003097.
14. CRED—Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters; UNISDR—UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. The Human Cost
of Weather-Related Disasters 1995–2015; UNISDR: Geneva, Switzerland, 2015.
15. Aboelnga, H.T.; El-Naser, H.; Ribbe, L.; Frechen, F.-B. Assessing Water Security in Water-Scarce Cities: Applying the Integrated
Urban Water Security Index (IUWSI) in Madaba, Jordan. Water 2020, 12, 1299. [CrossRef]
16. Gu, A.; Zhang, Y.; Pan, B. Relationship between Industrial Water Use and Economic Growth in China: Insights from an
Environmental Kuznets Curve. Water 2017, 9, 556. [CrossRef]
17. Hoekstra, A.Y.; Chapagain, A.K. Water footprints of nations: Water use by people as a function of their consumption pattern.
Water Resour. Manag. 2006, 21, 35–48. [CrossRef]
18. UNESCO i-WSSM. Global Water Security Issues Case Studies; UNESCO i-WSSM: Daejeon, Korea, 2019.
19. Gesualdo, G.C.; Oliveira, P.T.; Rodrigues, D.B.B.; Gupta, H.V. Assessing water security in the São Paulo metropolitan region
under projected climate change. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2019, 23, 4955–4968. [CrossRef]
20. Arcadis. Sustainable Cities Water Index. Which Cities are Best Placed to Harness Water for Future Success? Arcadis: Amsterdam, The
Netherlands, 2016; p. 40.
21. Meehan, K.; Jurjevich, J.R.; Chun, N.M.J.W.; Sherrill, J. Geographies of insecure water access and the housing–water nexus in US
cities. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2020, 117, 28700–28707. [CrossRef]
22. Grey, D.; Sadoff, C.W. Sink or Swim? Water security for growth and development. Hydrol. Res. 2007, 9, 545–571. [CrossRef]
23. Global Water Partnership. Towards Water Security: A Framework for Action; GWP Secretariat: Stockholm, Sweden, 2000.
24. WaterAid. Water Security Framework; WaterAid: London, UK, 2012.
25. Asian Development Bank (ADB). Asian Water Development Outlook 2016: Strengthening Water Security in Asia and the Pacific; Asian
Development Bank: Mandaluyong, Philippines, 2016; p. 66.
26. Gain, A.K.; Giupponi, C.; Wada, Y. Measuring global water security towards sustainable development goals. Environ. Res. Lett.
2016, 11, 124015. [CrossRef]
27. Van Ginkel, K.C.H.; Hoekstra, A.Y.; Buurman, J.; Hogeboom, R.J. Urban Water Security Dashboard: Systems Approach to
Characterizing the Water Security of Cities. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. 2018, 144, 04018075. [CrossRef]
28. Hoekstra, A.Y.; Buurman, J.; van Ginkel, K.C.H. Urban water security: A review. Environ. Res. Lett. 2018, 13, 053002. [CrossRef]
29. Cook, C.; Bakker, K. Water security: Debating an emerging paradigm. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2012, 22, 94–102. [CrossRef]
30. Allan, J.V.; Kenway, S.J.; Head, B.W. Urban water security—What does it mean? Urban Water J. 2018, 15, 899–910. [CrossRef]
31. Gerlak, A.K.; House-Peters, L.; Varady, R.G.; Albrecht, T.; Zuniga-Teran, A.; de Grenade, R.R.; Cook, C.; Scott, C.A. Water security:
A review of place-based research. Environ. Sci. Policy 2018, 82, 79–89. [CrossRef]
32. Octavianti, T.; Staddon, C. A review of 80 assessment tools measuring water security. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Water 2021, 8,
e1516. [CrossRef]
33. Garrick, D.; Hall, J.W. Water Security and Society: Risks, Metrics, and Pathways. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2014, 39,
611–639. [CrossRef]
34. UN-Water. Water Security and the Global Water Agenda: A UN-Water Analytical Brief ; UNU-INWEH, UN University: Hamilton, ON,
Canada, 2013; p. 38.
35. UN-Water. What is Water Security? Infographic. Available online: https://www.unwater.org/publications/water-security-
infographic/ (accessed on 2 September 2021).
36. World Water Council. Ministerial Declaration of the Hague on Water Security in the 21st Century; World Water Council: Hague, The
Netherlands, 2000.
37. De Loë, R.; Varghese, J.; Ferreyra, C.; Kreutzwiser, R. Water Allocation and Water Security in Canada: Initiating a Policy Dialogue for
the 21st Century; Report prepared for the Walter and Duncan Gordon Foundation; Guelph Water Management Group, University
of Guelph: Guelph, ON, Canada, 2007.
38. UNESCO. International Hydrology Programme—Eighth Phase: Water Security: Responses to Local, Regional, and Global Challenges;
UNESCO: Paris, France, 2014.
39. Jensen, O.; Wu, H. Urban water security indicators: Development and pilot. Environ. Sci. Policy 2018, 83, 33–45. [CrossRef]
40. Van Leeuwen, C.J.; Frijns, J.; Van Wezel, A.; Van De Ven, F.H.M. City Blueprints: 24 Indicators to Assess the Sustainability of the
Urban Water Cycle. Water Resour. Manag. 2012, 26, 2177–2197. [CrossRef]
41. Krause, M. AquaRating: An international standard for assessing water and wastewater services. Water Intell. Online 2015,
14. [CrossRef]
42. Danilenko, A.; van den Berg, C.; Macheve, B.; Moffitt, J.L. The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Blue Book 2014: The International
Benchmarking Network for Water and Sanitation Utilities Databook; The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2014.
43. Lombana Cordoba, C.; Saltiel, G.; Sadik, N.; Penalosa, F.P. The Utility of the Future Diagnostic Assessment and Action Planning
Methodology; Working Paper; World Bank Group: Washington, DC, USA, 2021.
44. Asian Development Bank (ADB). Asian Water Development Outlook 2013: Measuring Water Security in Asia and Pacific; Asian
Development Bank: Mandaluyong, Philippines, 2013; pp. 1–128.
45. OECD. OECD Water Governance Indicator Framework. Implementing the OECD Principles on Water Governance: Indicator Framework
and Evolving Practices; OECD: Paris, France, 2018; pp. 49–105. [CrossRef]
46. Koop, S.H.A.; Koetsier, L.; Doornhof, A.; Reinstra, O.; Van Leeuwen, C.J.; Brouwer, S.; Dieperink, C.; Driessen, P. Assessing
the Governance Capacity of Cities to Address Challenges of Water, Waste, and Climate Change. Water Resour. Manag. 2017, 31,
3427–3443. [CrossRef]
47. ARUP. City Water Resilience Assessment: Methodology; Arup Global Water: London, England, 2019; p. 137.
48. Milman, A.; Short, A. Incorporating resilience into sustainability indicators: An example for the urban water sector. Glob. Environ.
Chang. 2008, 18, 758–767. [CrossRef]
49. IWaSP—International Water Stewardship Programme. Water Resources Risk & Action Framework: Tackle your water risks
collaboratively. Available online: https://ceowatermandate.org/water-risk-action-framework/ (accessed on 9 September 2021).
50. Young, S.L.; O Boateng, G.; Jamaluddine, Z.; Miller, J.D.; A Frongillo, E.; Neilands, T.B.; Collins, S.M.; Wutich, A.; E Jepson,
W.; Stoler, J. The Household Water InSecurity Experiences (HWISE) Scale: Development and validation of a household water
insecurity measure for low-income and middle-income countries. BMJ Glob. Health 2019, 4, e001750. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
51. Assefa, Y.T.; Babel, M.S.; Sušnik, J.; Shinde, V.R. Development of a Generic Domestic Water Security Index, and Its Application in
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Water 2018, 11, 37. [CrossRef]
52. Wutich, A.; Ragsdale, K. Water insecurity and emotional distress: Coping with supply, access, and seasonal variability of water in
a Bolivian squatter settlement. Soc. Sci. Med. 2008, 67, 2116–2125. [CrossRef]
53. Stevenson, E.G.J.; Ambelu, A.; Caruso, B.A.; Tesfaye, Y.; Freeman, M.C. Community Water Improvement, Household Water
Insecurity, and Women’s Psychological Distress: An Intervention and Control Study in Ethiopia. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0153432.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
54. Schur, E.L. Potable or Affordable? A Comparative Study of Household Water Security Within a Transboundary Aquifer Along
the U.S.-Mexico Border. J. Lat. Am. Geogr. 2017, 16, 29–58. [CrossRef]
55. Iribarnegaray, M.A.; Copa, F.R.; D’Andrea, M.L.G.; Arredondo, M.F.; Cabral, J.D.; Correa, J.J.; Liberal, V.I.; Seghezzo, L. A
comprehensive index to assess the sustainability of water and sanitation management systems. J. Water Sanit. Hyg. Dev. 2012, 2,
205–222. [CrossRef]
56. Benebere, P.; Asante, F.; Appiah, D.O. Hindrances to adaptation to water insecurity under climate variability in peri-urban Ghana.
Cogent Soc. Sci. 2017, 3, 1394786. [CrossRef]
57. Kangmennaang, J.; Bisung, E.; Elliott, S.J. ‘We Are Drinking Diseases’: Perception of Water Insecurity and Emotional Distress in
Urban Slums in Accra, Ghana. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 890. [CrossRef]
58. Aihara, Y.; Shrestha, S.; Kazama, F.; Nishida, K. Validation of household water insecurity scale in urban Nepal. Hydrol. Res. 2015,
17, 1019–1032. [CrossRef]
59. Vörösmarty, C.J.; McIntyre, P.B.; Gessner, M.O.; Dudgeon, D.; Prusevich, A.; Green, P.; Glidden, S.; Bunn, S.E.; Sullivan, C.A.;
Liermann, C.R.; et al. Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity. Nature 2010, 467, 555–561. [CrossRef]
60. Australian Water Association (AWA). Water Security for all Australians: Discussion Paper; Australian Water Association: St Leonards,
NSW, Australia, 2016; p. 19.
61. Dou, M.; Shi, Y.X.; Li, G.Q. Optimized urban water security regulation schemes driven by industrial development pattern. Hydrol.
Res. 2019, 21, 676–691. [CrossRef]
62. Marttunen, M.; Mustajoki, J.; Sojamo, S.; Ahopelto, L.; Keskinen, M. A Framework for Assessing Water Security and the
Water–Energy–Food Nexus—The Case of Finland. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2900. [CrossRef]
63. Su, Y.; Gao, W.J.; Guan, D.J. Integrated assessment and scenarios simulation of water security system in Japan. Sci. Total. Environ.
2019, 671, 1269–1281. [CrossRef]
64. Lautze, J.; Manthrithilake, H. Water security: Old concepts, new package, what value? Nat. Resour. Forum 2012, 36,
76–87. [CrossRef]
65. Essex, B.; Koop, S.H.A.; Van Leeuwen, C.J. Proposal for a National Blueprint Framework to Monitor Progress on Water-Related
Sustainable Development Goals in Europe. Environ. Manag. 2019, 65, 1–18. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
66. Babel, M.; Shinde, V.R. A framework for water security assessment at basin scale. APN Sci. Bull. 2018, 8, 27–32. [CrossRef]
67. Yin, S.; Dongjie, G.; Weici, S.; Weijun, G. Integrated assessment and scenarios simulation of urban water security system in the
southwest of China with system dynamics analysis. Water Sci. Technol. 2017, 76, 2255–2267. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
68. Xiao, S.-C.; Li, J.-X.; Xiao, H.-L.; Liu, F.-M. Comprehensive assessment of water security for inland watersheds in the Hexi
Corridor, Northwest China. Environ. Earth Sci. 2007, 55, 369–376. [CrossRef]
69. Norman, E.S.; Dunn, G.; Bakker, K.; Allen, D.M.; De Albuquerque, R.C. Water Security Assessment: Integrating Governance and
Freshwater Indicators. Water Resour. Manag. 2012, 27, 535–551. [CrossRef]
70. Jia, X.; Li, C.; Cai, Y.; Wang, X.; Sun, L. An improved method for integrated water security assessment in the Yellow River basin,
China. Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess. 2015, 29, 2213–2227. [CrossRef]
71. Liu, H.; Jia, Y.W.; Niu, C.N.; Gan, Y.D.; Xu, F. Evaluation of regional water security in China based on dualistic water cycle theory.
Hydrol. Res. 2017, 20, 510–529. [CrossRef]
72. Li, Z.Z.; Dong, M.J.; Wong, T.B.; Wang, J.; Kumar, A.J.; Singh, R.P. Objectives and Indexes for Implementation of Sponge Cities—A
Case Study of Changzhou City, China. Water 2018, 10, 623. [CrossRef]
73. Zhang, Y.X.; Xu, Z.S.; Liao, H.C. Water security evaluation based on the TODIM method with probabilistic linguistic term sets.
Soft Comput. 2018, 23, 6215–6230. [CrossRef]
74. Ghosh, R.; Kansal, A.; Venkatesh, G. Urban Water Security Assessment Using an Integrated Metabolism Approach—Case Study
of the National Capital Territory of Delhi in India. Resources 2019, 8, 62. [CrossRef]
75. Romero-Lankao, P.; Gnatz, D.M. Conceptualizing urban water security in an urbanizing world. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain.
2016, 21, 45–51. [CrossRef]
76. National Government. Canadian Water Sustainability Index (CWSI); Policy Research Initiative; National Government: Ottawa, ON,
Canada, 2007; p. 27.
77. Shrestha, S.; Aihara, Y.; Bhattarai, A.P.; Bista, N.; Kondo, N.; Futaba, K.; Nishida, K.; Shindo, J. Development of an objective water
security index and assessment of its association with quality of life in urban areas of developing countries. SSM Popul. Health
2018, 6, 276–285. [CrossRef]
78. Dickson, S.E.; Schuster-Wallace, C.J.; Newton, J.J. Water Security Assessment Indicators: The Rural Context. Water Resour. Manag.
2016, 30, 1567–1604. [CrossRef]
79. Jepson, W. Measuring ‘no-win’ waterscapes: Experience-based scales and classification approaches to assess household water
security in colonias on the US–Mexico border. Geoforum 2014, 51, 107–120. [CrossRef]
80. Hadley, C.; Wutich, A. Experience-based Measures of Food and Water Security: Biocultural Approaches to Grounded Measures
of Insecurity. Hum. Organ. 2009, 68, 451–460. [CrossRef]
81. Wutich, A. Intrahousehold Disparities in Women and Men’s Experiences of Water Insecurity and Emotional Distress in Urban
Bolivia. Med Anthr. Q. 2009, 23, 436–454. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
82. Brewis, A.; Workman, C.; Wutich, A.; Jepson, W.; Young, S.; Adams, E.; Ahmed, J.F.; Alexander, M.; Balogun, M.; Boivin, M.; et al.
Household water insecurity is strongly associated with food insecurity: Evidence from 27 sites in low- and middle-income
countries. Am. J. Hum. Biol. 2019, 32, e23309. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
83. Webb, P.; Iskandarani, M. Water Insecurity and the Poor: Issues and Research Needs. SSRN Electron. J. 1998, 2, 3316741. [CrossRef]
84. Tsai, A.C.; Kakuhikire, B.; Mushavi, R.; Vořechovská, D.; Perkins, J.M.; McDonough, A.Q.; Bangsberg, D.R. Population-based
study of intra-household gender differences in water insecurity: Reliability and validity of a survey instrument for use in rural
Uganda. J. Water Health 2015, 14, 280–292. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
85. Sustainable Water Partnership (SWP). Water Security Assessment-Toolkit #2; Sustainable Water Partnership: Arlington, VA, USA,
2017; p. 28.
86. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. OECD Environmental Indicators—Development, Measurement and
Use—Reference Paper; OECD: Paris, France, 2003; p. 37.
87. European Environment Agency. Environmental Indicators: Typology and Overview; Technical Report No 25; EEA: Copenhagen,
Denmark, 1999; p. 19.
88. Bradley, P.; Yee, S. Using the DPSIR Framework to Develop a Conceptual Model: Technical Support Document; EPA/600/R-15/154; U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development: Washington, DC, USA, 2015.
89. Chen, L.; Shi, J. Analysis and predication of urban water security: A case study of Chengdu City, China. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth
Environ. Sci. 2016, 39, 012027. [CrossRef]
90. Yomo, M.; Mourad, K.A.; Gnazou, M.D.T. Examining Water Security in the Challenging Environment in Togo, West Africa. Water
2019, 11, 231. [CrossRef]
91. Shao, D.G.; Yang, F.S.; Xiao, C.; Tan, X.Z. Evaluation of water security: An integrated approach applied in Wuhan urban
agglomeration, China. Water Sci. Technol. 2012, 66, 79–87. [CrossRef]
92. Khan, S.; Guan, Y.; Khan, F.; Khan, Z. A Comprehensive Index for Measuring Water Security in an Urbanizing World: The Case of
Pakistan’s Capital. Water 2020, 12, 166. [CrossRef]
93. Aboelnga, H.T.; Ribbe, L.; Frechen, F.-B.; Saghir, J. Urban Water Security: Definition and Assessment Framework. Resources 2019,
8, 178. [CrossRef]
94. Babel, M.S.; Shinde, V.R.; Sharma, D.; Dang, N.M. Measuring water security: A vital step for climate change adaptation. Environ.
Res. 2020, 185, 109400. [CrossRef]
95. Bogardi, J.J.; Dudgeon, D.; Lawford, R.; Flinkerbusch, E.; Meyn, A.; Pahl-Wostl, C.; Vielhauer, K.; Vörösmarty, C. Water security
for a planet under pressure: Interconnected challenges of a changing world call for sustainable solutions. Curr. Opin. Environ.
Sustain. 2012, 4, 35–43. [CrossRef]
96. Qi, Y.; Chan, F.K.S.; O’Donnell, E.C.; Feng, M.; Sang, Y.; Thorne, C.R.; Griffiths, J.; Liu, L.; Liu, S.; Zhang, C.; et al. Exploring
the Development of the Sponge City Program (SCP): The Case of Gui’an New District, Southwest China. Front. Water 2021, 3,
41. [CrossRef]
97. Carden, K.; Armitage, N.P. Assessing urban water sustainability in South Africa—Not just performance measurement. Water SA
2013, 39, 345–350. [CrossRef]
98. Gourbesville, P. ICT for Water Efficiency. In Environmental Monitoring; Ekundayo, E., Ed.; InTech: Rijeka, Croatia, 2011; p. 18.

Addressing Water Security An Overview PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Addressing Water Security An Overview PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Addressing Water Security An Overview PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability

Received: 8 October 2021

Sustainability 2021, 13, 13702. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132413702 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

3. Water Security Definitions

Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 19

Table 1. Water security assessment: scales of application.

Scale Examples and Considerations

4.3. Time Dependence

Sustainability 2021, 13, 13702 8 of 18

proposed water security improvement framework based on the identification of potential

5. Water Security Indicators

A survey of water security assessment frameworks was carried out to investigate

Dimension Categories Indicators/Aspects

Table 2. Water security aspects found in water security frameworks.

Dimension Categories Indicators/Aspects

6. From Paper to Action: Measuring Progress, Achieving Goals and Improving

engagement of local communities and collaboration between stakeholders to set priorities

Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10

You might also like