water issues

24 AUGUST 2012 VOL 337 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org 914

POLICYFORUM

A n estimated 80% of the world’s popu-

lation faces a high-level water secu-

rity or water-related biodiversity risk

( 1). The issue of water security—defi ned as

an acceptable level of water-related risks to

humans and ecosystems, coupled with the

availability of water of sufficient quantity

and quality to support livelihoods, national

security, human health, and ecosystem ser-

vices ( 2, 3)—is thus receiving considerable

attention. To date, however, the majority of

academic research on water security is rela-

tively poorly integrated with the needs of

policy-makers and practitioners; hence,

substantial changes to funding, education,

research frameworks, and academic incentive

structures are required if researchers are to be

enabled to make more substantive contribu-

tions to addressing the global water crisis.

Key Issues Driving Recent Interest

More than 400 peer-reviewed publications

on water security have appeared across the

social, natural, and medical sciences in the

past 20 years (more than 50% of which have

been published in the past 5 years) ( 4) (see

the graph), and several universities have

recently launched water security initiatives.

Water security—the focus of the 2013 Stock-

holm World Water Week and the next World

Water Forum in 2015—has also attracted

considerable attention from policy-makers,

practitioners, and government organizations,

including the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency and National Intelligence Council,

the Australian government, the World Eco-

nomic Forum, the Global Water Partnership

(GWP), the World Bank, the North Atlantic

Treaty Organization (NATO), the G8, and

the United Nations [e.g., the World Water

Assessment Program (WWAP)] ( 5– 10).

This increase in research and policy activ-

ity refl ects growing concerns—particularly

among practitioners, who have been at the

vanguard of this agenda—over water-related

human and ecosystem vulnerability, notably:

(i) threats to drinking water supply sys-

tems [e.g., from contamination, human

impact on aquatic ecosystems and lack of

water access ( 11), or terrorist attacks ( 12)],

implying the need for enhanced monitor-

ing and emergency preparedness, as well

as investment to meet the needs of the more

than 1 billion people worldwide without

access to safe drinking water ( 10, 11);

(ii) threats to economic growth and

human livelihoods from water-related haz-

ards (e.g., fl oods and droughts), water stress,

and water scarcity, notably with respect to

food security ( 13) and energy security ( 9),

implying the need for technological innova-

tion and water conservation ( 14);

(iii) threats to water-related ecosystem

services due to point- and non–point source

pollution as well as increased water con-

sumption ( 3), associated with increased use

of ecosystem services and biodiversity loss

( 1, 15), implying the need to comanage water

for human and ecosystem needs, particularly

given potential “tipping points” in socioeco-

logical systems ( 16);

(iv) increased hydrological variability

( 17) in the context of climate change (nota-

bly increased amplitude and frequency of

droughts and fl oods), implying the need to

develop innovative strategies for dealing

with uncertainty ( 18) that move “beyond

infrastructure” ( 19) to include gover-

nance and social learning as key strategies

for more effective water management ( 20).

A central theme of these water security

threats is the challenge of balancing human

and environmental water needs while safe-

guarding essential ecosystem services and

biodiversity. Water security research thus

incorporates and extends key aspects of

Integrated Water Resources Management

( 21), notably an emphasis on linkages

between land-use change and hydrological

systems, between ecosystems and human

health, and between political and scientifi c

aspects of water management ( 1, 11). Inno-

vative aspects of the water security agenda

include a conceptual focus on vulnerability,

risk, and resilience; an emphasis on threats,

shocks, and tipping points; and a related

emphasis on adaptive management given

limited predictability.

Notably, water security research also

emphasizes a policy challenge: Achieving

economic goals and sustainable develop-

ment objectives (e.g., the Millennium Devel-

opment Goals) may require contentious

trade-offs—notably between agriculture, the

largest water user globally, and other sec-

tors—that generate both violent and nonvio-

lent confl icts ( 22), as demonstrated by recent

debates over water-related implications of

the global “land grab” ( 23). This underscores

the need for robust, polycentric governance

mechanisms designed to resolve (or at least

mitigate) confl icts between users, sectors,

and nation-states ( 20).

Challenges for Water Security Research

The water security research agenda is faced

with three challenges that represent potential

opportunities for synergies among research-

ers, policy-makers, and practitioners:

(i) Multiple, and at times incommen-

surate, def initions of water security are

used by academics and practitioners ( 4).

It is unsurprising that multiple defi nitions

of water security exist, given that perspec-

tives vary between academic specializa-

tions (and indeed between stakeholders and

sectors). Specialization has its advantages;

however, effective water management and

policy-making require shared conceptual

common ground as a prerequisite to inter-

disciplinary analyses of the complex interac-

Water Security: Research Challenges and Opportunities

WATER MANAGEMENT

Karen Bakker

New strategies for analyzing water security

have the potential to improve coordination

and generate synergies between researchers,

policy-makers, and practitioners.

C R

E D

IT : K

. J . K

O L B

/ / W

IK IM

E D

IA C

O M

M O

N S

Director, Program on Water Governance, Department of Geography and Institute for Resources, Environment, and Sustainability, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z2, Canada. E-mail: [email protected]

Drought on the Colorado River. Drought has

reduced water levels in Lake Mead, behind the

Hoover Dam.

Published by AAAS

o n Ju

n e 2

9 , 2

0 1 7

h ttp

://scie n ce

.scie n ce

m a g .o

rg /

D o w

n lo

a d e d fro

m

www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL 337 24 AUGUST 2012 915

POLICYFORUM

tions between humans, ecosystems, and the

hydrological cycle ( 24). Promising exam-

ples do exist, such as the emerging subdis-

cipline of socio-hydrology (or eco-socio-

hydrology) ( 25– 27). Fully developing this

(and other, similar conceptual frameworks)

requires new approaches to research funding,

research design [e.g., the Global Water Sys-

tem Project ( 28)], and student training [e.g.,

Harvard’s Water Security Initiative, which

trains water-related researchers as “special-

ized integrators” across a broad range of dis-

ciplines ( 29)].

(ii) Analyzing the socio-environmental

implications of the changes now under way

in the global water cycle in support of sci-

ence-informed policy ( 30) requires inter-

disciplinary, collaborative research, tran-

scending “broad” versus “narrow” and “aca-

demic” versus “applied” distinctions, in line

with the integrative defi nition of water secu-

rity provided above. As with other examples

of “sustainability science,” this requires

engagement with “peer expert” networks

that bring together both practitioners and

academics ( 31). Such research strategies

currently face substantial barriers, including

disciplinary biases, funding constraints, and

institutionalized incentives for tenure and

promotion. Thus, the growing emphasis by

research funders on collaboration with—and

“impact” on—practitioners [e.g., the UK’s

Water Research and Innovation Framework

and the U.S. National Science Foundation’s

(NSF’s) Science, Engineering, and Educa-

tion for Sustainability program] is welcome,

although this should be complemented by

changes to incentive structures within uni-

versities. In addition, project-based funding

should be complemented by the creation of

long-term networks [e.g., Oxford Universi-

ty’s Water Security Network] and research

units that bring together interdisciplinary

researchers and practitioners on a longer-

term basis ( 32), e.g., NSF’s Decision Cen-

ter for a Desert City, which bridges science

and policy to create analytical tools used in

water decision-making.

(iii) Researchers in different disciplines

tend to conduct water security research at

distinct scales ( 4) (e.g., whereas hydrolo-

gists tend to focus on the watershed, political

scientists tend to focus on the nation-state),

mirroring—and perhaps reinforcing—the

“scalar mismatch” that characterizes on-

the-ground water governance. This situa-

tion is unsatisfactory for several reasons:

the inherently multi scalar nature of intersec-

toral food–energy–water security trade-offs

( 19); the increasing importance of “virtual

water” fl ows, particularly those associated

with global trade ( 32); the need to redress

poor governance often generated by the “sca-

lar mismatch”; and the fact that subsurface

hydrological gradients may not correspond

with surface topography ( 33). Accordingly,

a river basin–focused approach, although

important, must be complemented by anal-

yses at other scales, in support of water-

related decision-making and the develop-

ment of adaptation strategies ( 34). Risk

analysis frameworks are promising in this

regard, because they can incorporate mul-

tiple, nested spatial and temporal scales. An

additional potential advantage arises from

the fact that the concept of risk is deployed

across the biological, social, physical, and

medical sciences, and is hence compatible

with an interdisciplinary approach to analyz-

ing water security, specifi cally with respect

to trade-offs between multiple and compet-

ing objectives ( 18, 35).

Conclusion

Interdisciplinary research on water secu-

rity faces considerable challenges, given

the complexity of analyzing interrelation-

ships between vulnerability, risk, and resil-

ience across scales, sectors, and disciplines

in the context of limited predictability. Addi-

tional challenges arise from current barriers

to creating constructive synergies between

policy-makers, practitioners, and research-

ers. Promising examples exist of poten-

tially useful innovations in funding, research

design, institutional incentives, and gradu-

ate education; these must be systematically

tested, refi ned, and replicated if researchers

are to make more effective contributions to

addressing global water insecurity.

References 1. C. J. Vörösmarty et al., Nature 467, 555 (2010). 2. D. Grey, C. Sadoff, Water Policy 9, 545 (2007). 3. M. Zeitoun, Global Policy 2, 286 (2011). 4. C. Cook, K. Bakker, Glob. Environ. Change 22, 94 (2012). 5. GWP, Towards Water Security: A Framework for Action

(GWP, Stockholm, 2000). 6. Offi ce of the Director of National Intelligence, Global

Water Security (ODNI, Washington, 2012). 7. A. Scozzari, B. El Mansouri, Water Security in the Mediter-

ranean Region (NATO Science for Peace and Security Series, Springer, London, 2011).

8. United Nations Environment Program, Water Security and Ecosystem Services: The Critical Connection (UNEP, Nairobi, 2009).

9. World Economic Forum, Water Security: The Water-Food- Energy-Climate Nexus (Island Press, Washington, DC, 2011).

10. WWAP, Water for People, Water for Life (WWAP, Geneva, 2003).

11. World Health Organization, Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Health Synthesis (WHO, Geneva, 2005).

12. J. B. Nuzzo, Biosecur. Bioterror. 4, 147 (2006). 13. J. Rockström et al., Water Resour. Res. 45, W00A12

(2009). 14. P. Gleick, Water Int. 25, 127 (2000). 15. World Resources Institute, United Nations Millennium

Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-

Being: Wetlands and Water Synthesis (WRI, Washington, DC, 2005).

16. J. Rockström et al., Nature 461, 472 (2009). 17. P. C. Milly et al., Science 319, 573 (2008). 18. WWAP, Managing Water Under Uncertainty and Risk:

World Water Assessment Report (WWAP, Geneva, 2012). 19. M. A. Palmer, Nature 467, 534 (2010). 20. C. Pahl-Wostl et al., Ecol. Soc. 13, 24 (2008). 21. J. G. Hering, K. M. Ingold, Science 336, 1234 (2012). 22. J. Priscoli, A. Wolf, Managing and Transforming Water

Confl icts (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2009). 23. L. Mehta et al., Water Alternatives 5, 193 (2012). 24. J. Braden et al., Water Resour. Res. 45, W11301 (2009). 25. M. Falkenmark, J. Rockstrom, Balancing Water for

Humans and Nature: The New Approach in Eco-Hydrology (Earthscan, London, 2004).

26. M. Sivapalan, H. H. G. Savenije, G. Blöschl, Hydrol. Processes 26, 1270 (2012).

27. E. Swyngedouw, J. Contemp. Water Res. Educ. 142, 56 (2009).

28. J. Alcamo, C. J. Vörösmarty, R. J. Naiman, D. P. Lettenmaier, C. Pahl-Wostl, Environ. Res. Lett. 3, 010202 (2008).

29. J. Briscoe, Innov. Technol. Govern. Global. 4, 3 (2009). 30. C. J. Vörösmarty et al., Eos 85, 509 (2004). 31. J. Bogardi et al., Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 4, 35 (2011). 32. J. A. Allan, Water Int. 28, 106 (2003). 33. M. Sophocleous, Hydrogeol. J. 10, 52 (2002). 34. J. Warner, P. Wester, A. Bolding, Water Policy 10, (S2),

121 (2008). 35. R. Hope et al., Water Security, Risk, and Society: Find-

ings, Gaps, and Opportunities for Social and Economic

Research (Oxford Univ. Water Security Network, Oxford, 2012); www.water.ox.ac.uk/events/water-security-risk-and- society/conference-reports/.

Year

P u b li c a ti

o n s

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1 9 9 2

1 9 9 3

1 9 9 4

1 9 9 5

1 9 9 6

1 9 9 7

1 9 9 8

1 9 9 9

2 0 0 0

2 0 0 1

2 0 0 2

2 0 0 3

2 0 0 4

2 0 0 5

2 0 0 6

2 0 0 7

2 0 0 8

2 0 0 9

2 0 1 0

2 0 1 1

2 0 1 2

Water security publications (1992–2012). Updated from ( 4), based on methods described in ( 4). Data from Web of Science, accessed 15 June 2012; http://wokinfo.com/products_tools/multidisciplinary/webofscience/.

10.1126/science.1226337

Published by AAAS

o n Ju

n e 2

9 , 2

0 1 7

h ttp

://scie n ce

.scie n ce

m a g .o

rg /

D o w

n lo

a d e d fro

m

Water Security: Research Challenges and Opportunities Karen Bakker

DOI: 10.1126/science.1226337 (6097), 914-915.337Science

ARTICLE TOOLS http://science.sciencemag.org/content/337/6097/914

PERMISSIONS http://www.sciencemag.org/help/reprints-and-permissions

Terms of ServiceUse of this article is subject to the

is a registered trademark of AAAS.Science licensee American Association for the Advancement of Science. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. The title Science, 1200 New York Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20005. 2017 © The Authors, some rights reserved; exclusive

(print ISSN 0036-8075; online ISSN 1095-9203) is published by the American Association for the Advancement ofScience

o n Ju

n e 2

9 , 2

0 1 7

h ttp

://scie n ce

.scie n ce

m a g .o

rg /

D o w

n lo

a d e d fro

m