Environmental Science and Policy 82 (2018) 79–89

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Science and Policy

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envsci

Water security: A review of place-based research T

a,b,⁎ c a b
Andrea K. Gerlak , Lily House-Peters , Robert G. Varady , Tamee Albrecht ,
Adriana Zúñiga-Terána, Rafael Routson de Grenadea, Christina Cookd, Christopher A. Scotta,b
a
University of Arizona, Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, United States
b
University of Arizona, School of Geography and Development, United States
c
California State University, Long Beach, Department of Geography, United States
d
Future Earth Montreal Global Hub and the Centre for Socio-Legal Studies, Oxford University, United States

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Water security has emerged as a major framing template in environmental governance and resource manage-
Water security ment. The term and underlying concepts have attracted the attention of governmental and nongovernmental
Community organizations, private industry, and the academy in policy and practice. Notwithstanding the palpable rise in its
Case studies use, a comprehensive understanding of how water security is conceptualized and employed in different contexts
Narratives
around the world is limited. We aim to address this gap, by assessing how water security is considered, ar-
Governance
Definitions
ticulated, and operationalized in place-based studies. We employ a two-part methodological approach that in-
Indicators cludes (1) a systematic analysis of 124 articles, books, and book chapters published between 2010-2015 using a
standardized coding framework to examine trends and patterns in place-based water security research, and (2)
an analysis of the treatment of governance as a subset of this body of research to reveal how water governance is
framed and understood in place-based water security scholarship. We find broad diffusion of water security
across geographic regions and scales, expansive framing of water security, and evolving approaches to indicator
formulation. The narratives around future pathways for governance practices include the promotion of parti-
cipatory processes, solutions that engage both quantitative and qualitative methods, and a mix of both hard- and
soft-path approaches to achieve water security. The persistent diversity in perspectives and applications of water
security suggests that scholars adapt the concept to the contexts of the cases they are studying. The variation in
how water security is utilized in different regions and spatial scales underscores the importance of incorporating
community context in how we understand and employ water security. By empirically assessing the diversity and
utility of water-security analyses, highlighting regional differences, and tracing evolving conceptions over time,
our research can inform future project design, policy-making, and management from the international to the
local levels.

1. Introduction scope and extent of these examinations is limited. This review provides
needed insight to understand the utility of place-based water security
Since the 1990s, the concept of water security has served to ar- research for communities and other stakeholders.
ticulate concern about issues such as reliability, quality, quantity, safe A systematic review and comparative approach can complement
and equitable access, and environmental provisioning of water supplies. earlier research and reveal new lessons about the application of water
The notion has been increasingly employed in policy circles, from the security around the world. To appreciate these trends across geographic
World Wildlife Fund and the World Economic Forum to the United space, we devise and employ methods to understand how water security
Nations (UN) (WWF, 2009; UNEP, 2009; WEF, 2011; UN-Water, 2013; is considered, articulated, and operationalized in peer-reviewed re-
UNESCO, 2013). Alongside the surge in policy usage, researchers have search. We seek to determine how different authors employ the term
increasingly adopted water security as a framing device and worked to “water security” in situ, and how their analyses and interpretations vary
further define and apply the concept in peer-reviewed research (e.g., according to the geographic regions they are studying and the aims of
Cook and Bakker 2012, 2016; Gerlak and Mukhtarov, 2015; Zeitoun their research. Our data analysis, drawing on previous research, is
et al., 2016). Despite recognition of the growing use of water security as guided by the proposition that water security definitions have been
conceptual scaffolding in case-study research, understanding of the found to vary by geographic region, with particular definitions arising

⁎
Corresponding author at: University of Arizona, Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, 803 E. First St., Tucson, AZ 85719, United States.
E-mail address: [email protected] (A.K. Gerlak).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.01.009
Received 21 October 2017; Received in revised form 12 January 2018; Accepted 13 January 2018
1462-9011/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A.K. Gerlak et al. Environmental Science and Policy 82 (2018) 79–89

in contexts with acute water security concerns (Cook and Bakker, containing “water security.” From the larger sample, we selected em-
2012). Here we further expand to consider geographic and scalar pirically-based studies, and then filtered these results using three se-
variability in the metrics of water security. lection criteria: (1) Is water security a fundamental frame for the case
We analyze place-based case studies that use an explicit water-se- study?; (2) Is there an application of water security in a specific place?;
curity frame — and that acknowledge this in the title, abstract, in- and (3) Do empirical data exist? Articles, books, and book chapters that
troduction, or other direct exposition—within the architecture and did not meet all three criteria were excluded. The final sample selected
design of their studies. In geographical literature, “place” is important for the systematic analysis included 124 place-based water security
to how people experience and understand both society and nature (e.g., cases, or 21% of total texts found in the search (Appendix A presents
Agnew, 1989; Jessop et al., 2008). Place and context are also re- further details on our methodology and Appendix B provides a com-
cognized as key to understanding the practice and politics of water plete listing of the studies included in this analysis).
governance (e.g., Ingram, 2011; De Boer et al., 2013).
We systematically analyze an ensemble of peer-reviewed studies 2.2. Coding of cases and data analysis
from 2010 to 2015 (N = 124) to assess patterns and trends in place-
based water security research. Employing a standardized coding fra- To analyze the cases and assess the application of water security
mework, we interrogate the geographical context, and associated around the world, we developed a codebook and coding instructions
themes and scales of the studies. We ask: How is water security defined? (Appendix C describes our intercoder reliability process). In the quan-
At what geographical and spatial scales? Water security for humans or titative analysis, we calculate descriptive statistics (count [N], fre-
ecosystems? What sources of water? How is water security measured? quency, and percent). Contingency tables provide information about
How is water governance understood? emerging scholarship trends over time and identify significant re-
To answer these questions, in the Methods section below, we detail lationships between variables, such as the presence of definitions and
our analytical criteria and methodology. In Sections 3 and 4 we present indicators to measure water security, and geographic location and
our findings. Based on recommendations of social-science scholars, we spatial scale (Appendix D summarizes statistics of coded items).
expect authors assessing place-based water security case studies to pay
attention to defining concepts (Gerring, 2012). Earlier research has 3. The expanding landscape of place-based research on water
highlighted water security as a contested concept (Pahl-Wostl et al., security
2016), open to multiple interpretations (Zeitoun et al., 2013) and
meanings across disciplines and methodological approaches (Cook and Next, we present our findings of place-based research on water se-
Bakker, 2012). Following, we anticipate contestation in how water se- curity. How water security is framed and operationalized through
curity is interpreted, conceptualized, and operationalized across place- specific definitions, metrics, and scales, serves to influence how the
based studies and how water governance is framed and understood in concept is pragmatically applied on-the-ground making some futures
this body of research. In Section 5, we discuss how place-based water actionable, while precluding others. The scale at which water security is
security research is contextualized and in Section 6, we offer conclu- operationalized, the indicators used to measure it, and its object (i.e.
sions on the operationalization of water security and connect to broader humans/environment) also influence who is invited to the table as
water governance and water security debates. The persistent diversity decision-makers and stakeholders, whose interests are considered le-
in perspectives and applications of water security that we uncover gitimate and whose are excluded or ignored. Surveying the diverse
suggests that scholars adapt the concept to the contexts of the cases mobilization and conceptualization of water security (i.e. the defini-
they are studying. This variation in how water security is utilized in tions, metrics) across distinct geographies makes important contribu-
different regions and spatial scales underscores the importance of in- tions to wider debates around water security.
corporating community context in how we understand and employ water
security. 3.1. How is water security defined?

2. Methods By design, water security is central to all 124 studies examined. But
while the concept may be central, the understanding of what water
We conduct a systematic review of case-study literature, adopting security means or how it is used as a framing mechanism is not uni-
an explicit search protocol, to investigate patterns and trends in place- versally shared or even articulated. We reviewed the literature to
based water security case research (Cox, 2015). After reporting the identify the most prominent definitions (Table 1). We recognize that
findings from our large-N study (N = 124), we conduct an additional these characterizations have been developed primarily by scholars and
analysis of the treatment of governance as a subset of this body of re- development organizations—rather than by on-the-ground practi-
search (N = 31) to reveal how water governance is framed and un- tioners. These formal definitions tend to accrete attributes over time,
derstood in place-based water security scholarship. suggesting a progression of thinking. In reality, what is happening is
that as the topic becomes more central to water management and
2.1. Data source and case selection criteria policy, discourse over its nature is expanding and becoming more di-
verse. The evolution of the definitions themselves may not necessarily
To review the use and application of water security in peer-re- capture the core meaning or influence of the discourse itself. Still, in-
viewed research, we searched for empirically based water-security sofar as there exists a suite of such definitions, we considered it im-
studies using Scopus, the search engine database. We used Scopus be- portant to look closely at the ideas they encapsulate (Table 2) and to
cause a) it offers significantly wider coverage of journals than Web of determine which of those are cited in the studies in our sample.
Science and b) it identifies peer-reviewed studies, which are the focus of We learned that nearly half (56 or 45%) of the studies fail to offer an
our analysis. We recognize that Google Scholar − often prioritized by actual definition of how the concept is understood or employed. The
social sciences (Mongeon and Paul-Hus, 2016) − may cast a wider net remaining 55% (68 studies) employ a variety of definitions that gen-
(Cox, 2015), but the focus of our study is on the scholarly literature. We erally share core attributes, but add specific ones according to re-
also recognize that our sample may be limited by the fact that we levance. Of the studies articulating a definition, about 60% (41 studies)
searched for publications in English only. present ones by that study’s author(s) thereby, ignoring established and
We queried the database with the keyword phrase “water security” previously-cited definitions. The remaining 40% (27 studies) use defi-
for articles, books, and book chapters published between 2010 and nitions formulated by other authors in earlier research. In the papers
2015. The search returned 520 articles and 63 books or chapters reviewed, Grey and Sadoff’s (2007) definition of water security is the

80
A.K. Gerlak et al. Environmental Science and Policy 82 (2018) 79–89

Table 1
Water-security definitions referenced in place-based water security studies.*

Source Definition Number times cited in 124

studies

Grey and Sadoff (2007) “The availability of an acceptable quantity and quality of water for health, livelihoods, ecosystems and production, 7
coupled with an acceptable level of water-related risks to people, environments and economies”
GWP (2000) “Sustainable use and protection of water resources, safeguarding access to water functions and services for humans and 4
the environment, and protection against water-related hazards (flood and drought)”
Norman et al. (2010) “Sustainable access, on a watershed basis, to adequate quantities of water of acceptable quality to ensure human and 4
ecosystem health”
Bakker (2012) “Acceptable level of water-related risks to humans and ecosystems, coupled with the availability of water of sufficient 4
quantity and quality to support livelihoods, national security, human health, and ecosystem services”
UN-Water (2013) “Capacity of a population to safeguard sustainable access to adequate quantities of acceptable quality water for 3
sustaining livelihoods, human well-being, and socio-economic development, for ensuring protection against water-
borne pollution and water-related disasters, and for preserving ecosystems in a climate of peace and political stability”
Scott et al. (2013) “Water security constitutes the sustainable availability of adequate quantities and qualities of water for resilient 2
societies and ecosystems in the face of uncertain global change”

* In addition, definitions by FAO (1996), UNEP (2009), and OECD (2011) were cited once each.

Table 2
Comparing definitions of water security by thematic attribute.

Source/Attribute FAO GWP Grey and Sadoff UNEP Norman et al. OECD Bakker UN-Water Scott et al. Total #
(1996) (2000) (2007) (2009) (2010) (2011) (2012) (2013) (2013)

Quantity X X X X X X X X 8
Quality X X X X X X X X X 9
Health X X X X X 5
Economic Growth X X X X X 5
Access X X X X 4
Time X 1
Preference X 1
Ecosystems X X X X X X X X 8
Sustainable X X X X X 5
Risk/hazards X X X X 4
Livelihoods X X X 3
Sanitation X 1
Food/energy X 1
Industrial resources X 1
Transport X 1
Watershed X 1
Policy X 1
Peace/ national X X 2
security
Global Change X 1
Resilience X 1
Uncertainty X 1
Total 7 6 7 7 7 7 7 10 9 64

most frequently cited (7 studies). We note that highly-cited definitions operation and Development (OECD, 2011) added a policy aspect.
of water security in our peer-reviewed case study sample arise from Bakker (2012) incorporated peace/national security; and in 2013, Scott
peer-reviewed articles but also policy documents, like those from the et al. further added global change, resilience, and uncertainty to the
Global Water Partnership (GWP) and the UN, who engage actively in definition. Tracing this lineage suggests that conceptions of water se-
water security debates. curity are expanding and evolving, but not necessarily uniformly. None
These referenced definitions offer an array of attributes. Table 2, of the definitions include every one of these themes, though all defi-
presented chronologically,1 depicts the changing aggregation of char- nitions do include quality, and all but one, quantity (Table 2).
acteristics that have defined water security. From 1996 to 2013—per- Most of the studies that provide original definitions of water security
haps in fits and starts—two things seem to have happened: (1) in some (not previously cited in the literature) also include some of the themes
instances, the actual concept of water security broadened, while (2) identified in the table above. The prevailing themes considered in these
over the years, new, encompassing terms (such as risk, hazard, and newly-introduced definitions are access (N = 20), ecosystems (N = 19),
resilience) came into use to define water security. The earliest defini- quality (N = 19), quantity (N = 17), and risk/hazards (N = 11). The fre-
tion considered (FAO, 1996) included seven themes: access, quality, quent occurrence of quantity, quality, and ecosystems corresponds to
quantity, health, economy, time, and preference. The GWP added sus- their prevalence also in the often-cited definitions (Table 2). Other con-
tainable development, ecosystems, and hazards in 2000. In 2007, Grey cepts introduced include reliability (N = 13) understood as guaranteed,
and Sadoff included livelihoods (also later adopted by the GWP). In ensured water, sustainability (N = 8), health (N = 8), and livelihoods
2009, UNEP incorporated sanitation, food/energy, industrial resources, (N = 7). New attributes of water-security definitions include safe (N = 9),
and transportation. In 2010, Norman et al. introduced the scale of adequate (N = 8), affordable (N = 6), and equitable (N = 5).
watersheds; and a year later, the Organisation for Economic Co- Additionally, 17 of the studies chose an alternate, contrapositive
approach: instead of focusing on water security, they refer to water
insecurity—that is, the absence of security, either explicitly or im-
1
With the caveat that mere chronology may not reflect actual influence. plicitly. Table 3 reports how in these studies, reducing water

81
A.K. Gerlak et al. Environmental Science and Policy 82 (2018) 79–89

Table 3
Attributes and strategies to reduce water insecurity in place-based water security studies.

Attributes of water insecurity Strategies to reduce water insecurity References

Location and scale factors inherent in Account for remote, rural, urban/periurban, household- Wellman (2012); Assayed et al. (2013); Sinyolo et al. (2014); Srinivasan
water insecurity scale (2015)
Sociocultural and political drivers of Improve public health, address power relationships Hofmeijer et al. (2013); Boelens and Seemann (2014); Daley et al. (2014);
water insecurity Jepson (2014); Sinyolo et al. (2014); Basu et al. (2015); Magsig (2015)
Inadequacy of coping strategies Promote water transfers, cooperation over shared waters, Kane (2012); Sojamo et al. (2012); Wellman (2012); Yang et al. (2012); Scott
infrastructure, management, resilience et al. (2013); Cinturati (2014); Magsig (2015); Wegerich et al. (2015)

Fig. 1. Geographic regions of place-based water security case studies, representing the number of studies per country (2010–2015).

insecurity—seen as the ultimate objective—is addressed via a few di- such as MENA or Australia within Oceania, attention is given to solutions
verse strategies. that diversify water sources, including reclaimed water and desalination.
In Oceania, compared to other regions, studies more frequently describe
water security in terms of economic frameworks and water governance,
3.2. What is the geographical context and spatial scale of place-based water and lack an explicit definition of water security and indicators to measure
security research? water security. East Asia and Oceania both have a higher percentage of
city-scale studies than do other regions, and together account for more
3.2.1. Geographic region and spatial scale than half of all studies focused on urban water security.
The geographic regions most studied are fairly equally distributed In terms of geographic scale, we find that most case studies are
across North America, South Asia/Southeast Asia, East Asia, and conducted at the city (22%), regional (which can include a watershed,
Oceania. In contrast, we find fewer studies in Sub-Saharan Africa, the province or state) (28%), or national (19%) scale (total of 69%); with
Middle East and North Africa (MENA), South America, Europe, and studies fewer at the two extremes—community or transboundary scale.
Russia/Central Asia. (Fig. 1). Community scale studies (14%) are found in rural areas, where research
Overall, our results confirm persistent regional typologies of how focuses on small communities of people; or in urban areas, where at-
water security is employed (Cook and Bakker, 2012, 2016), while also tention is to a sub-city neighborhood-scale. Transboundary studies,
revealing new trends. For example, we find an increasing interest in defined here as those that cross national borders, account for 12%.
water-security operationalization in North America, and a steady pro- Although uncommon overall, transboundary studies have become more
duction of studies in Australia and China. While much 1990s literature prevalent in recent years; all transboundary studies included in this
on water security emerged from the geopolitical-security concerns as- research were published in the period 2013–2015.
sociated with MENA water scarcity, our results include only a small In two of the regions with relatively fewer studies—South America
number of MENA cases. and Sub-Saharan Africa—the majority of cases focused at a regional or
Studies addressing water security in East Asia tend to use mathema- more local scale. In South America, regional studies were prominent
tical or hydrological models, employ quantitative indicators, and focus on and key issues included operationalization of water security as quantity
cities. In arid areas and areas that have experienced prolonged drought,

82
A.K. Gerlak et al. Environmental Science and Policy 82 (2018) 79–89

Fig. 2. Number of place-based water security studies

that focus on humans versus humans and the en-
vironment.

or supply, as well as access and availability. In contrast, the Sub- 3.2.3. What sources of water for water security?
Saharan Africa studies addressed water security mostly at the commu- A diversity of water sources is important to achieve water security;
nity scale, with primary concerns of quantity, quality, and water for many of the case studies emphasize more than one source of water.
agriculture. Across the 124 studies, we find 248 unique references to sources. These
sources are of 13 unique types, within the broad categories of: surface
water, groundwater, direct capture of precipitation, and reused water.
3.2.2. Water security for humans—or for the environment?
Most commonly, studies address surface water (101 cases, 41% of total
In addition to broadly examining geographic region and scale, we
references), followed by groundwater (56 cases, 22% of total). From
honed in on the focus of water security − humans or the environment
2013 onward, three water sources—stormwater, desalination, and
− and the sources of water studied. In examining whether studies
groundwater—are increasingly promoted to achieve water security.
distinguish water security for humans versus the environment, we find
The distribution of case studies highlighting three most common
that more than half (59%, or 73 texts) address water security in terms of
sources of water—surface water, rainwater, and groundwater—differs
human systems. The remaining studies (41%, or 51 texts) consider both
across the geographic regions. As shown in Fig. 3, in every region, we
humans and the environment. Surprisingly, no study in our sample
found studies that dealt with both surface water and groundwater;
dealt solely with water security for the environment. As Fig. 2 shows,
however, in many regions including North America, South America,
the trend is for case studies to increasingly address water security for
South Asia/Southeast Asia, East Asia, and Oceania, the attention to
both humans and the environment. This trend aligns well with the in-
surface water far outweighs that accorded to groundwater. Oceania is
troduction in 2000 of “ecosystems” to the definition of water security,
the only region with more case studies analyzing rainwater than
as displayed in Table 2.
groundwater, reflecting a regional trend in research that examines
Studies that do consider water security for both humans and the
rainwater capture, retention, and detention systems, in particular as an
environment are more likely to have been conducted at large geo-
adaptive response to drought.
graphic scales. The majority of studies at the community scale (75%, or
The MENA, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Oceania regions comprise the
12 cases) and city scale (68%, or 19 cases) focus solely on human water
most diverse sources of water analyzed—including surface water,
uses. In contrast, at the transboundary scale, more than half of the
groundwater, desalinated water, rainwater, and effluent. Reliance on
studies incorporate environmental uses (54%, or 7 cases). At the re-
multiple sources is a sensible response in arid environments accustomed
gional and national scales, human-focused studies and human and en-
to prolonged drought. These results suggest that although surface water
vironment studies are split nearly evenly (47%, or 16 cases, and 50%,
still dominates the diversions used to meet water-security goals
or 13 cases, respectively).
worldwide, there is an emerging inclination to diversify water sources
For certain geographic locations-in particular Canada (78%, or 7
that may depend on a region’s aridity.
cases), Australia (56%, or 10 cases), and China (50%, or 11 cases)—we
Cases concerned with water security for humans often direct their
note that attention to water for the environment has disproportionately
attention to water sources that are different than those of studies dealing
penetrated the water-security scholarship. In Canada, attention to water
with water security for both humans and the environment. For example,
for the environment is a function of multiple factors, including a ten-
studies on desalination are much more likely to consider human water
dency to define water security broadly to explicitly incorporate the
security solely (11 cases, 79% of all cases focused on desalination),
environment and a primary focus of research at the watershed scale
whereas studies that consider effluent (8 cases, 57% of all effluent cases)
(45% of total Canada cases). In Australia, most studies that include
or stormwater as a source (5 cases, 71% of all stormwater cases) address
water security for the environment also take aim at governance mea-
water security for both humans and the environment.
sures, in particular the impacts of water reforms focused on ensuring
water allocations for the environment. In China, incorporation of the
environment lies primarily in the indicators used to measure and model 3.3. How is water security measured?
water security and the focus of water security research on the urban
scale (45%), reflecting growing concern over environmental health in Slightly fewer than half of the case studies (46%, N = 57) proposed
rapidly growing and industrializing cities. indicators, which the authors attempt to apply, measure, and discuss in
the case-study context. The majority of these texts (89%, N = 51) were

83
A.K. Gerlak et al. Environmental Science and Policy 82 (2018) 79–89

Fig. 3. Relationship between source of water and

geographic region in place-based water security
studies.

published in 2013–2015; this suggests increasing empirical measure- security were uncommon (3 cases, 2% of texts). Indicators related to
ment and modeling studies of water security. Nearly half of these stu- water quantity included sustainability and reliability of supply (e.g.,
dies (48%, N = 28) used quantitative metrics, one-fifth (21%, N = 12) Shao et al., 2012; Chen et al., 2013), as well as the risk of floods and
discussed qualitative descriptors, and nearly a third (31%, N = 18) sea-level rise, for which indicators are primarily found in the cases that
combined qualitative and quantitative indicators. All used multiple deal with climate-change impacts using hydroclimatic modeling tools
variables to assess sub-components of water security, for example, (e.g., Yang et al., 2012; Xiao et al., 2015).
quantity, quality, or accessibility. Across the case studies, the presence of indicators that engage with
We present specific water-security indicators, ranked in declining governance concepts, such as institutions and effective water manage-
order of the number of studies considering each variable (Table 4). For ment, were the fourth most common (21 studies), following the three
example, the majority of studies that adopt indicators (91%, N = 52) key indicators of quantity, quality, and accessibility (see Table 4). We
identified sufficient quantity as an indicator contributing to water se- tend to see studies measuring the governance indicators, “effective
curity, and just more than half (51%, N = 29) identified acceptable management institutions” and “presence/absence of conflict,” invoked
quality, and so on. alongside other indicators such as reliable and sustainable supply; ac-
The principal dimensions of water-security indicators are sufficient ceptable cost of water supply; sufficient quantity; acceptable quality;
quantity, acceptable quality, and accessibility of water supply. Nearly accessible supply; and considers ecosystems. Although many of the
all studies included sufficient quantity (91%, or N = 52 of 57 texts with studies rely on qualitative indicators, we do find an increase in the
indicators); those that did not identify quantity explicitly or implicitly development of quantitative governance indicators (e.g., Araral and
considered either water quality for instream habitat (e.g., Sithirith, Wang, 2015).
2015; Xie et al., 2015) or safety against sabotage (e.g., Cinturati, 2014). Partly due to the quantification of economic variables and the
Despite concerns in the press and in water-security literature concerned availability of data to assess these, several monetary indicators featured
with military security (e.g., U.S. Intelligence Community Assessment prominently, including the presence of (and reliance on) infrastructure
2012), only one study identified this as an indicator (Cinturati, 2014). and associated cost, water cost and affordability, and economic output
In our research, studies linking water security with conflict or national and development. Related to infrastructure, for example, we see

Table 4
Water-security indicators in place-based water security studies, qualitative, quantitative, and combined.

Specific water-security indicator Total (%) N = 57 Quantitative (%) N = 28 Qualitative (%) N = 11 Combined (%) N = 18

Sufficient quantity 52 (91) 26 (93) 11 (100) 15 (83)

Acceptable quality 29 (51) 10 (36) 7 (64) 12 (67)
Accessible supply 22 (42) 6 (21) 9 (82) 9 (50)
Effective management, institutions 21 (37) 8 (29) 3 (27) 10 (56)
Considers ecosystems, environmental flows 19 (33) 9 (32) 3 (27) 7 (39)
Reliable, sustainable supply 18 (32) 7 (25) 6 (55) 5 (28)
Infrastructure reliance, cost 13 (23) 8 (29) 2 (18) 3 (17)
Acceptable cost of water supply 10 (18) 7 (25) 1 (0) 2 (11)
Diminished risk of floods (and/or sea-level rise) 10 (18) 6 (21) 1 (9) 3 (17)
Enhanced economic output, development 9 (16) 5 (18) 0 (0) 4 (22)
Presence/absence of conflict (community to transboundary) 8 (14) 3 (11) 2 (18) 3 (17)
Equitable supply 7 (12) 0 (0) 4 (36) 3 (17)
Provides spiritual value, human dignity 4 (7) 0 (0) 2 (18) 2 (11)
Considers energy for water supply 1 (2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (6)
Increases safety/security against sabotage 1 (2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (6)

84
A.K. Gerlak et al. Environmental Science and Policy 82 (2018) 79–89

interest in energy requirements for water pumping, conveyance, and transboundary scale, cultural, socioeconomic, and political disparities
treatment (Keeler et al., 2015). Further, linking water security with the may complicate achieving consensus on a single definition of water
water-energy nexus has emerged as a major research stream (e.g., security, or on comprehensive indicators. By contrast, community scale
Jarvie et al., 2015; Jiang, 2015; Wheater and Gober, 2015). studies are more likely to define water security and to include water
Specific consideration of equity as a water-security indicator is security indicators. Additionally, the use of qualitative indicators is
uncommon (7 cases, 12% of texts); instead, notions of equity are fre- most common at the community scale, which likely reflects researchers’
quently entwined with concepts of availability, access, and affordability attempts to incorporate the complexity of community contexts and to
of water. When referenced, equity is described in terms of the human address local water challenges.
right to water (Chenoweth et al., 2013), gender, religion, and disability
(Alhassan and Kwakwa, 2014), socio-economic differences, inter-
4. An analysis of water governance in place-based water security
generational groups (Asthana and Shukla, 2014), education, and par-
research
ticipation in decision-making (Biswas-Tortajada, 2014). In other cases,
equity is recognized as important, but not operationalized in the study
To understand how water governance is framed and understood in
(Gunda et al., 2015), due to the expressed need for advancements in the
place-based water security scholarship, we conduct a narrative analysis
metrics of inclusion and equity (Asthana and Shukla, 2014).
focused on a subset of the place-based water security case studies
The adoption of indicators to operationalize water security varies
(N = 31, 25% of the larger set of case studies) based on the coding for
across geographic scales. We find that about half of the regional- or
type of conceptual framework employed in the study (Appendix E). The
smaller-scale studies include indicators, whereas only about a quarter
31 cases we review all specifically employ a conceptual framework
of transboundary studies include indicators. Furthermore, trans-
rooted in governance.
boundary cases are less likely to define water security, or to offer spe-
Narratives constructed by researchers illuminate important social
cific indicators of water security (Fig. 4). This suggests that at a
and cultural dimensions − here, of water security − and offer more

Fig. 4. Use of indicators in case studies, by geographic scale.

85
A.K. Gerlak et al. Environmental Science and Policy 82 (2018) 79–89

“nuanced accounts” of interconnections and interactions among the 2015; Wheater and Gober, 2015). Brooks and Brandes (2011) argue
scientific, social, economic and political spheres (Bixler, 2013: 276). A that central to the soft path approach is decision-making, which draws
narrative analysis also may reveal alternative perceptions of the pro- attention to role of participation in water management and planning.
blem and set of solutions, and linkages to broader global environmental Just about half, or 16 out of 31 papers, address participation processes
discourses (Adger et al., 2001). An analysis of a discrete set of case as necessary in determining the specific nature of water security
studies in conjunction with narratives can produce a higher level of stressors and strategies to improve water governance.
generalizability (Young et al., 2006), and allows us to examine trends Participatory processes have generated innovative ways of under-
and comparisons with an eye toward what is being studied as well as standing water security complexity, and developing pathways toward
what is not being studied (Romero-Lankao et al., 2012). achieving equitable solutions (e.g., Keeler et al., 2015; Leonard et al.,
2015; Mankad et al., 2015). Several papers use participation as a direct
4.1. What is the geographical context and spatial scale of place-based cases method, whether it is through the use of surveys, scenarios, or planning
that address governance? activities (Gober et al., 2015; Keeler et al., 2015; Leonard et al., 2015;
Magsig, 2015). This includes the need to widen beyond government
In terms of geography, we find the greatest number of studies ad- participation (Norman et al., 2010) to include more local community
dressing water governance in North America (9 cases, 23%), Oceania (8 participation (Patrick, 2011; Sithirith, 2015), and engage broader net-
cases, 20%), and South Asia/South East Asia (6 cases, 15%). Our ana- works of stakeholders in water governance (Kiem, 2013; Barau and
lysis also reveals a focus on transboundary cooperation as a facet of Hosani, 2015; Petersen-Perlman and Wolf, 2015). Engaging diverse
governance for water security. Of the 31 overall cases, 9 (29%) provide actors and stakeholders also serves to reveal the role of power dynamics
transboundary case studies, such as the Tonle Sap Lake, the Orontes, in water security, and to facilitate the incorporation of transparency,
and the Nile River Basins. These cases emphasize the role of multi-state equity, and ethics in the identification of stressors and in the decision-
agreements and institutions in facilitating cooperation and resolving making process (Kane, 2012; Sojamo and Archer Larson, 2012; Sojamo
regional conflict, and promoting shared science, integrated basin et al., 2012; Sinyolo et al., 2014; Steele et al., 2014).
management, and climate-change adaptation tools (e.g., Comair et al.,
2013; Sithirith, 2015). 5. Contextualizing water security
At the city and community scales (6 cases and 3 cases, respectively),
we see a diversity in the set of approaches to studying water govern- This study was motivated by a desire to understand how researchers
ance. These include emphasis on modeling for integrated urban-water are using water security in situ, to determine if these place-based studies
management in Indonesia’s Mamminasata metropolitan region (Kirono speak to the use, utility, and value to communities of the concept, and
et al., 2014), use of constructed-governance scenarios in Phoenix, Ar- serve to expand or reinterpret that concept. In line with earlier analyses
izona, USA, for negotiating tradeoffs and communication about prio- (Cook and Bakker, 2012, 2016; Bakker and Morinville, 2013), we find
rities for water governance (Keeler et al., 2015), and development of a that the ways in which water security is understood, measured, and
household water-security index to link farmer food security to small- evaluated by authors of diverse perspectives vary across geographic
holder irrigation water security in South Africa’s Mzinyathi District scales and regions of the world. The framing of water security, in par-
(Sinyolo et al., 2014). For regional scale water-security case studies, ticular geographic locations, is also connected to and shaped by the
higher-level governance dimensions come into view, such as water local, national, and regional political landscape, including existing
policy, water law, and water administration (Araral and Wang, 2015). water law and environmental legislation, domestic and international
Finally, at the global scale, we see the entrance of powerful industry crises, such as civil war, occupation and the refugee crisis, and the
actors, such as agribusiness, in the water-security conversation (Sojamo political will of ruling governments. Beyond earlier findings, however,
and Archer Larson, 2012). the variability shown in our results underscores the importance of in-
corporating community context. Factoring in this context fully requires
4.2. What are the pathways for governance in place-based water security special effort to consult, listen, and incorporate feedback from a wide
studies? diversity of stakeholders. Only then can we achieve a solid working
understanding of water security and how it can best be employed by
Governance is seen as both a source of insecurity and a pathway to scholars and practitioners in diverse geographic contexts.
achieving water security. Several of the authors see weak governance
and fragmented authorities as a source of insecurity (e.g. Norman et al., 5.1. Interpreting diverse definitions of water security
2010; Feng et al., 2015; Sithirith, 2015; Wheater and Gober, 2015). A
variety of tools are proposed to help address governance gaps and Owing to a growing community of global water experts and ob-
strengthen governance as a path to achieving water security, including servers, emerging ideas on water governance, and widely disparate
the use of Geographic Information Systems, or GIS, and datasets worldviews and perspectives, we find definitions of water security have
(Comair et al., 2013), indicators (Norman et al., 2013; Araral and not converged. Definitional attributes reflect such factors as users’ in-
Wang, 2015), assessments (Nichols and Dyer, 2013; Kirono et al., stitutional agendas, programmatic objectives, disciplinary approaches,
2014), and the use of scenarios to help cities transition to more sus- theoretical leanings, political preferences, views of justice and equity,
tainable water governance (Keeler et al., 2015). and as this article attempts to demonstrate, geographic settings. Earlier
In contrast to more traditional hard path approaches that advance research on Integrated Water Resource Management, or IWRM, sug-
technical and infrastructure-based solutions, we observe that several gests that such a divergence of definitions and framings may suggest the
authors advocate for soft path solutions − that aim to meet demand for sign of an influential discourse where many diverse actors are buying in
water through small-scale, decentralized community-scale systems, (Dewulf et al., 2005; Conca, 2006; Mukhtarov and Cherp, 2014).
water markets, equitable pricing, efficient technologies and demand Indeed, use of the terms “water security” and its obverse, “water
management strategies (Gleick, 2003) − to make long-lasting progress insecurity” are in perpetual flux, with new framings, definitions, in-
toward meeting water security goals. Authors who call for soft-path terpretations, and understandings replacing, displacing, or adding to
approaches focus on flexible water pricing, water-saving incentives, old ones. That definitions keep shifting diffuses their sharpness and
water science, public education, private-sector investment, informed- impedes the effectiveness of the term. To this inherent weakness,
management decisions, sound legal frameworks, innovative policies, Zeitoun et al. (2016) add another caution: to avoid reductionist ap-
and placing technical solutions in a broader governance context (e.g., proaches to water security. According to this view, those approaches
Patrick, 2011; Kirono et al., 2014; Keeler et al., 2015; Leonard et al., that emphasize supply for human consumption and use as a key

86
A.K. Gerlak et al. Environmental Science and Policy 82 (2018) 79–89

component of water security are especially problematic. Our study of highlight the difficulties of reliably measuring and implementing water
place-based water-security case studies reveals that water quantity—- security, and suggest a mix of interventions that can reduce water in-
specifically scarcity in relation to demand—is a dominant framing of security (Lemos et al., 2016).
the concept, one that will likely remain. Despite authors’ difficulties in categorizing the presence or absence
We find that the emphasis on scarcity is not confined geographically of water security, many included illuminating discussions of factors that
to arid and semi-arid regions characterized by acute hydrological would enhance or diminish water security. As earlier experience has
scarcity. Rather, scarcity concerns extend to case studies located in suggested for sustainability indicators more broadly, it may not be the
humid, tropical, and sub-tropical climates where rapid urban growth direct use of water-security indicators that will influence policy. Rather,
(Shao et al., 2012; Srinivasan, 2015), seasonal scarcity and drought more indirect pathways could ultimately serve to shape broader
(Basu et al., 2015; Sahin et al., 2015), and conflict with water-intensive worldviews or influence governance principles (Lehtonen et al., 2016).
economic development (Cashman, 2014; van Soesbergen and Mulligan,
2014) is occurring. Lack of safe drinking water supplies due to con- 5.3. Assessing governance pathways in place-based water security research
tamination from industry, agriculture, and insufficient sanitation in
humid regions create conditions of produced scarcity that also affect In our large-N assessment of place-based water security case studies,
water security (Chenoweth et al., 2013; Alhassan and Kwakwa, 2014; we see governance emerging as both an attribute of water-security
Rodrigues et al., 2014). definitions and as a feature of water-security indicators. As an attribute
Amid the popularity of the notion of water security, we find some of definitions, governance is present in the emphasis on policy by OECD
dissatisfaction with its increased use. Although our analysis uncovered (2011, 2013), as well as with other authors who emphasize the role of
relatively few critiques of water security, the critiques we uncover institutional arrangements in safeguarding supply (e.g., Nichols and
speak to inequities in the application and use of the concept. These may Dyer, 2013), in providing for necessary financial and human resources
result from insufficiently addressing sociopolitical and biophysical as- (WaterAid, 2012; Jägerskog et al., 2016) and in promoting water rights
pects (McEvoy, 2014), by ignoring poor people from both developed (e.g., Sinyolo et al., 2014). Reflected in the multi-faceted nature of
and developing countries (Jepson, 2014), or via a weakening of water water security, governance is expressed in terms of institutions and
security by water rights and the interests of dominant groups (Boelens effective water management. The critical role of governance in
and Seemann, 2014). Although justice and equity demand greater at- achieving or maintaining water security is underscored by the need for
tention—and are necessary to the concept’s utility (WaterAid, 2012; coherence among the multiple dimensions of definitional attributes of
Clement, 2013; OECD, 2013; Loftus, 2015; Zeitoun et al., 2016)—they water security. Governance indicators employed in measuring water
remain in the shadows of more dominant framings of water security. As security highlight the robust and effective institutional arrangements
noted above, when equity is included in the concept of water security, it necessary to effectively negotiate tradeoffs, manage risk, employ in-
is frequently associated with availability and access to water. In part novative tools, share authority, and resolve conflicts among water users
this may be explained by the finding that sustainability, equity, and (Pahl-Wostl et al., 2013; UN-Water, 2013; World Bank, 2015).
justice are not yet seen as potential paths to change the logic of security Through our focused analysis of governance and the oper-
(Varady et al., 2016), and researchers still do not know how to im- ationalization of water security, we interrogated the geographic and
plement these measures (Asthana and Shukla, 2014). spatial scales at which governance is invoked and the governance
pathways that emerge in water security discourse. Across scales, we see
5.2. Measuring water security: an evolving approach to indicator differing approaches and analytical tools to study and approach water
formulation security. A central pathway is the promotion of participatory processes
to achieve water security (e.g., Patrick, 2011; Norman et al., 2013;
Numerous indices have been developed over the past two decades to Barau and Hosani, 2015; Keeler et al., 2015; Leonard et al., 2015).
measure human interactions with water, including water scarcity, These approaches echo ongoing debates in the water governance lit-
water poverty, water vulnerability, and water security (e.g., Molle and erature that emphasize the need for broad stakeholder participation,
Mollinga, 2003; Plummer et al., 2015; Gunda et al., 2015). These in- improved equity and transparency, as features of “good governance”
dices are both quantitative and qualitative (the latter include such (WWAP, 2003) and highlight the importance of policy, law and in-
difficult-to-measure attributes as access, availability, reliability, suffi- stitutions in addressing water resources challenges (Conca, 2006). A
cient quantity, and acceptable quality). From 2010–2012, none of the broad, integrated perspective of water security that extends beyond
studies examined used only qualitative indicators, but between 2013 quantitative measures of water quantity and quality is more conducive
and 2015 the use of qualitative indicators grew (11 cases used quali- of good governance, which can be considered mutually-beneficial to the
tative ones only, while 18 employed both types of indicators). Our re- pursuit of water security (Cook and Bakker, 2012).
view reflects broader debates between reductionist, quantitative ap-
proaches and more holistic qualitative ones (Nilsson et al., 2013; 6. Conclusions
Zeitoun et al., 2016), and highlights the varying dimensions of water
security in diverse settings (Gober et al., 2015) and across institutional Our study reports a growing, diverse, developed, and expansive
contexts (Garfin et al., 2016; Wilder, 2016). Further, the diversity of body of place-based water security research. Water-security case stu-
approaches we observe reflect the need for using multiple conceptual dies, such as the ones we have considered, represent real, on-the-
domains for water security, as described by Jepson (2014). These do- ground engagement with what would otherwise remain a vague notion.
mains reflect the various framings of what is “being secured” (e.g. Diversity is found in the wide range of definitions and indicators and in
household, the environment, a nation-state) and the theoretical ap- expanding geographic coverage: more regions of the world are being
proach employed (e.g. human health, ecosystem services, national se- studied, and at greater variety of spatial scales. The variability shown in
curity) (Jepson (2014): 108). our results underscores the importance of incorporating community
The range of indicators apply to diverse contexts—from small context in how we understand and employ water security.
community water-supply systems to expansive transboundary river In our sample of place-based case studies, water security is si-
basins. They also reflect the variation in water-security definitions. This multaneously a condition to be measured, a framework for decision
complexity complicates attempts to synthesize multiple variables into a making, and a policy objective. Although we see some growing atten-
single indicator. Some recent research suggests that such indicators tion to more critical views of water security, we observe that water
might be best formulated at a community level (Dickson et al., 2016), in quantity—specifically scarcity in relation to demand—remains a
cooperation with potential users (Norman et al., 2013). Others dominant condition of water security. Governance pathways

87
A.K. Gerlak et al. Environmental Science and Policy 82 (2018) 79–89

increasingly emphasize participatory processes. Insights gained from sustainability challenges of seawater desalination industry in the Arabian Gulf.
close analysis of these studies present a window to the larger concept of Environ. Sci. Policy 50, 145–154.
Basu, M., Hoshino, S., Hashimoto, S., 2015. Many issues, limited responses: coping with
water governance as being sensitive to community context (see Norman water nsecurity in rural India. Water Resour. Rural Dev. 5, 47–63.
et al., 2015). Benson, D., Gain, A., Rouillard, J., 2015. Water governance in a comparative perspective:
This research is not without limitation. First, because we relied on from IWRM to a ‘Nexus’ approach? Water Altern. 8 (1), 756–773.
Biswas-Tortajada, A., 2014. The gujarat state-wide water supply grid: a step towards
Scopus as the search engine to select studies, we likely missed some water security. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 30, 78–90.
potentially relevant social science research on water security. Second, Bixler, R.P., 2013. The political ecology of local environmental narratives: power
by limiting our search to place-based case studies, we did not system- knowledge, and mountain caribou conservation. J. Political Ecol. 20, 273–285.
Boelens, R., Seemann, M., 2014. Forced engagements: water security and local rights
atically review the water security grey literature; however, several formalization in Yanque Colca Valley, Peru. Hum. Organ. 73 (1), 1–12.
widely-distributed reports have been included in the interpretation and Brooks, D., Brandes, O., 2011. Why a water soft path, why now, and what then? Int. J.
analysis of our findings. Finally, given the small numbers of studies in Water Resour. Dev. 2, 315–344.
Cashman, A., 2014. Water security and services in the Caribbean. Water 6 (5),
some categories that we stratified by region, we recognize that the
1187–1203.
generalizability of our findings is limited. Further research will be ne- Chen, D., Webber, M., Finlayson, B., Barnett, J., Chen, Z., Wang, M., 2013. The impact of
cessary to further test and interrogate these findings. water transfers from the lower Yangtze River on water security in Shanghai. Appl.
Moving forward, we argue that the tension between narrow and Geogr. 45, 303–310.
Chenoweth, J., Malcolm, R., Pedley, S., Kaime, T., 2013. Household water security and
broad conceptualizations of water security may be best explored the human right to water and sanitation. In: Lankford, B., Bakker, K., Zeitoun, M.,
through comparative studies. Those that considered the most disparate Conway, D. (Eds.), Water Security: Principles, Perspectives, and Practices. Routledge,
locations employed either a combination of quantitative and qualitative New York, pp. 307–318.
Cinturati, F., 2014. The bioterrorism act and water utilities protection: how to proceed
indicators (Hope and Rouse, 2013; Narain et al., 2013), an integrative from policy to practice. J. Appl. Secur. Res. 9, 97–108.
perspective recognizing interdependencies (Benson et al., 2015), or a Clement, F., 2013. From water productivity to water security: a paradigm shift? In:
risk-based approach (Hope and Rouse, 2013; Garrick et al., 2013). This Lankford, Bruce, Bakker, Karen, Zeitoun, Mark, Conway, Declan (Eds.), Water
Security: Principles, Perspectives and Practices. Routledge Publishers, NY.
diversity of approaches suggests that attention to both the broad, in- Comair, G.F., McKinney, D.C., Scoullos, M.J., Flinker, R.H., Espinoza, G.E., 2013.
tegrative perspective and site-specific nature of water security is in- Transboundary cooperation in international basins: clarification and experiences
creasing. Further, we have seen how water security studies oper- from the Orontes River Basin agreement: part 2. Environ. Sci. Policy 31, 141–148.
Conca, K., 2006. Governing Water. Contentious Transnational Politics and Global
ationalize various governance pathways, yet have made limited Institution Building. MIT Press, Cambrduge, MA.
progress in applying certain aspects, such as equity and justice, in Cook, C., Bakker, K., 2012. Water security: debating an emerging paradigm. Global
practice. Environ. Change 22 (1), 94–102.
Cook, C., Bakker, K., 2016. Water Security: critical analysis of emerging trends and de-
In conclusion, our research contributes to the ongoing discourse
finitions. In: Pahl-Wostl, Bhaduri, Gupta (Eds.), Handbook on Water Security. Edward
linking governance and water security. It does so by evaluating how Elgar, Cheltenham UK.
water security is conceptualized and employed in different contexts Cox, M., 2015. A basic guide for empirical environmental social science. Ecol. Soc. 20
around the world, and by explaining some of the contextual specificity (1), 63.
Daley, K., Castleden, H., Jamieson, R., Furgal, C., Ell, L., 2014. Municipal water quantities
that attaches to the idea. Diversity in definitions is not unexpected as and health in Nunavut households: an exploratory case study in coral Harbour,
scholars, planners, managers, and stakeholders are using the concept in Nunavut, Canada. Int. J. Circumpolar Health 73, 1–9.
widely diverging ways, as normative and instrumental framing ele- Water Governance, Policy and Knowledge Transfer: International Studies on Contextual
Water Management. In: De Boer, C., Vinke-de Kruijf, J., Özerol, G., Bressers, H.
ments and as potential benchmarks for reducing insecurity. In most (Eds.), Routledge, Abingdon, UK.
cases, users of the concept are adapting it to fit their own particular Dewulf, A., Craps, M., Bouwen, R., Taillieu, T., Pahl-Wostl, C., 2005. Integrated man-
contexts. The resulting range of understandings of water security re- agement of natural resources: dealing with ambiguous issues, multiple actors and
diverging frames. Water Sci. Technol. 52 (6), 115–124.
quires all users to remain critical about the term, its dimensions, its use, Dickson, S.E., Schuster-Wallace, C.J., Newton, J.J., 2016. Water security assessment in-
and its applications. Our findings suggest that examination of framings dicators: the rural context. Water Resour. Manage. 30, 1567–1604.
of water security and the utility of the concept, especially in a com- Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 1996. In: World Food Summit Plan of Action.
World Food Summit. Rome, Italy. November 13–17.
munity context, will continue to be important, even as the concept itself
Feng, Y., He, D., Wang, W., 2015. Identifying China’s transboundary water risks and
continues to evolve. vulnerabilities –a multidisciplinary analysis using hydrological data and legal/in-
stitutional settings. Water Int. 40, 328–341.
Global Water Partnership (GWP), 2000. Integrated Water Resources Management. TAC
Appendix A. Supplementary data
(Technical Advisory Committee) Background Paper No. 4. GWP, Stockholm, Sweden.
Garfin, G.M., Scott, C.A., Wilder, M., Varady, R.G., Merideth, R., 2016. Metrics for as-
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the sessing adaptive capacity and water security: common challenges, diverging contexts,
online version, at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.01.009. emerging consensus. Special issue, Environmental Change and Assessment. In: In:
Garfin, G., Wilder, M., Merideth, R. (Eds.), Current Opinion in Environmental
Sustainability (COSUST) 21. pp. 86–89.
References Garrick, D., DeStefano, L., Fung, F., Pittock, J., Schlager, E., New, M., Connell, D., 2013.
Managing hydroclimatic risk in federal rivers: a diagnostic approach. Phil. Trans. R.
Soc. A 371 (2002), 20120415.
Adger, W.N., Benjaminsen, T.A., Brown, K., Svarstad, H., 2001. Advancing a political Gerlak, A.K., Mukhtarov, F., 2015. ‘Ways of knowing’ water: integrated water resources
ecology of global environmental discourse. Dev. Change 32, 681–715. management and water security as complementary discourses. Int. Environ.
Agnew, J.A., 1989. The devaluation of place in social science. In: Agnew, J., Duncan, J. Agreements: Politics Law Econ. 15 (3), 257–272.
(Eds.), The Power of Place: Bringing Together Geographical and Sociological Gerring, J., 2012. Social Science Methodology: A Framework, 2nd ed. Cambridge
Imaginations. Unwin Hyman, London, pp. 9–29. University Press, Cambridge.
Alhassan, H., Kwakwa, P., 2014. When water is scarce: the perception of water quality Gleick, Peter H., 2003. Global freshwater resources: soft-Path solutions for the 21 st
and effects on the vulnerable. J. Water, Sanitation, Hygiene Dev. 4 (1), 43–50. century. Science 302 (5650), 1524–1528.
Araral, E., Wang, Y., 2015. Does water governance matter to water sector performance? Gober, P.A., Strickert, G.E., Clark, D.A., Chun, K.P., Payton, D., Bruce, K., 2015. Divergent
Evidence from ten provinces in China. Water Policy 17, 268–282. perspectives on water security: bridging the policy debate. Prof. Geogr. 67 (1), 62–71.
Assayed, A., Hatokay, Z., Al-Zoubi, R., Azzam, S., Qbailat, M., Al-Ulayyan, A., Saleem, Grey, D., Sadoff, C.W., 2007. Sink or swim? Water security for growth and development.
M.A., Bushnaq, S., Maroni, R., 2013. On-site rainwater harvesting to achieve Water Policy 9 (6), 545–571.
household water security among rural and peri-urban communities in Jordan. Gunda, T., Benneyworth, L., Burchfield, E., 2015. Exploring water indices and associated
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 73, 72–77. parameters: a case study approach. Water Policy 17 (1), 98–111.
Asthana, V., Shukla, A.C., 2014. Water Security in India: Hope, Despair, and the Hofmeijer, I., Ford, J.D., Berrang-Ford, L., Zavaleta, C., Carcamo, C., Llanos, E., Carhuaz,
Challenges of Human Development. Bloomsbury Publishing, USA. C., Edge, V., Lwasa, S., Namanya, D., 2013. Community vulnerability to the health
Bakker, K., Morinville, C., 2013. The governance dimensions of water security: a review. effects of climate change among indigenous populations in the Peruvian Amazon: a
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 371, 1–18. case study from Panaillo and Nuevo Progreso. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang. 18,
Bakker, K., 2012. Water security: research challenges and opportunities. Science 337 957–978.
(6097), 914–915. Hope, R., Rouse, M., 2013. Risks and responses to universal drinking water security. Phil.
Barau, A., Hosani, N., 2015. Prospects of environmental governance in addressing Trans. R. Soc. A 371 (2002), 20120417.

88
A.K. Gerlak et al. Environmental Science and Policy 82 (2018) 79–89

Ingram, H., 2011. Beyond universal remedies for good water governance: a political and Plummer, R., de Loë, R., Armitage, D., 2015. A systematic review of water vulnerability
contextual approach. In: Garrido, A., Ingram, H. (Eds.), Water for Food in a Changing assessment tools. Water Resour. Manage. 29 (14), 5015–5035.
World. Routledge, Oxford, pp. 241–261. Rodrigues, D., Gupta, H., Mendiondo, E., 2014. A blue/green water-based accounting
Jägerskog, A., Lexén, K., Clausen, T.J., Engstrand-Neacsu, V. (Eds.), 2016. The Water framework for assessment of water security. Water Resour. Res. 50 (9), 7187–7205.
Report 2016. Report No 37. SIWI, Stockholm Sweden. Romero-Lankao, Patricia, Qin, Hua, Dickinson, Katie, 2012. Urban vulnerability to tem-
Jarvie, H.P., Sharpley, A.N., Flaten, D., Kleinman, P.J., Jenkins, A., Simmons, T., 2015. perature-related hazards: a meta-analysis and meta-knowledge approach. Global
The pivotal role of phosphorus in a resilient water–energy–food security nexus. J. Environ. Change 22, 670–683.
Environ. Qual. 44 (4), 1049–1062. Sahin, O., Stewart, R.A., Porter, M.G., 2015. Water security through scarcity pricing and
Jepson, W., 2014. Measuring ‘no-win’ waterscapes: experience-based scales and classifi- reverse osmosis: a systems dynamics approach. J. Clean. Prod. 88, 160–171.
cation approaches to assess household water security in colonias on the US-Mexico Scott, C.A., Meza, F.J., Varady, R.G., Tiessen, H., McEvoy, J., Garfin, G.M., et al., 2013.
border. Geoforum 51, 107–120. Water security and adaptive management in the arid Americas. Annals Assoc. Am.
Jessop, B., Brenner, N., Jones, M., 2008. Theorizing socio-Spatial relations. Environ. Plan. Geogr. 103 (2), 280–289.
D: Soc. Space 26 (3), 389–401. Shao, D., Yang, F., Xiao, C., Tan, X., 2012. Evaluation of water security: an integrated
Jiang, Y., 2015. China's water security: current status, emerging challenges and future approach applied in Wuhan urban agglomeration, China. Water Sci. Technol. 66
prospects. Environ. Sci. Policy 54, 106–125. (1), 79.
Kane, S., 2012. Water security in Buenos Aires and the Paraná-Paraguay Waterway. Hum. Sinyolo, S., Mudhara, M., Wale, E., 2014. Water security and rural household food se-
Organ. 71 (2), 211–221. curity: empirical evidence from the Mzinyathi district in South Africa. Food Security
Keeler, L.W., Wiek, A., White, D.D., Wang, T., 2015. Linking stakeholder survey scenario 6 (4), 483–499.
analysis, and simulation modeling to explore the long-term impacts of regional water Sithirith, M., 2015. Tonle Sap Lake, Cambodia: a perspective on its transborder hydro-
governance regimes. Environ. Sci. Policy 48, 237–249. logical and resources governance. Lakes Reserv. Res. Manage. 20, 187–205.
Kiem, A.S., 2013. Drought and water policy in Australia: challenges for the future illu- Sojamo, S., Archer Larson, E., 2012. Investigating food and agribusiness corporations as
strated by the issues associated with water trading and climate change adaptation in global water security, management and governance agents. Water Altern. 5,
the Murray-Darling Basin. Glob. Environ. Change 23, 1615–1626. 619–635.
Kirono, D.G.C., Larson, S., Tjandraatmadja, G., Leitch, A., Neumann, L., Maheepala, S., Sojamo, S., Keulertz, M., Warner, J., Allan, J.A., 2012. Virtual water hegemony: the role
Barkey, R., Achmad, A., Selintung, M., 2014. Adapting to climate change through of agribusiness in global water governance. Water Int. 37, 169–182.
urban water management: a participatory case study in Indonesia. Reg. Environ. Srinivasan, V., 2015. Reimagining the past – use of counterfactual trajectories in socio-
Change 14, 355–367. hydrological modelling: the case of Chennai, India. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 19,
Lehtonen, M., Sébastien, L., Bauler, T., 2016. The multiple roles of sustainability in- 785–801.
dicators in informational governance: between intended use and unanticipated in- Steele, W., Sporne, I., Dale, P., Shearer, S., Singh-Peterson, L., Serrao-Neumann, S., Crick,
fluence. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 18, 1–9. F., Choy, D.L., Eslami-Andargoli, L., 2014. Learning from cross-border arrangements
Lemos, M.C., Manuel-Navarrete, D., Willems, B., Diaz Caravantes, R., Varady, R.G., 2016. to support climate change adaptation in Australia. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 57,
Advances in metrics: models for understanding adaptive capacity & water security. 682–703.
Special issue, Environmental Change and Assessment. In: In: Garfin, G., Wilder, M., UN-Water, 2013. Water Security and the Global Water Agenda: A UN-Water Analytical
Merideth, R. (Eds.), Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability (COSUST) 21. Brief. UN University, Hamilton, ON.
pp. 52–57. United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), 2009. Water Security and Ecosystem
Leonard, R., Walton, A., Farbotko, C., 2015. Using the concept of common pool resources Services: The Critical Connection. UNEP, Nairobi.
to understand community perceptions of diverse water sources in Adelaide, South United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), 2013. Free
Australia. Water Resour. Manage. 29 (5), 1697–1711. Flow: Reaching Water Security Through Cooperation. UNESCO and Tudor Rose,
Loftus, A., 2015. Water (in)security: securing the right to water. Geogr. J. 181 (4), Paris.
350–356. Varady, R.G., Zuniga-Teran, A.A., Garfin, G.M., Martín, F., Vicuña, S., 2016. Adaptive
Magsig, B., 2015. Water security in Himalayan Asia: first stirrings of regional coopera- management and water security in a global context: definitions, concepts, and ex-
tion? Water Int. 40, 342–353. amples. Special issue, Environmental Change and Assessment. In: In: Garfin, G.,
Mankad, A., Walton, A., Alexander, K., 2015. Key dimensions of public acceptance for Wilder, M., Merideth, R. (Eds.), Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
managed aquifer recharge of urban stormwater. J. Clean. Prod. 89, 214–223. (COSUST) 21. pp. 70–77.
McEvoy, J., 2014. Desalination and water security: the promise and perils of a techno- van Soesbergen, A.J., Mulligan, M., 2014. Modelling multiple threats to water security in
logical fix to the water crisis in Baja California Sur, Mexico. Water Altern. 7 (3). the Peruvian Amazon using the WaterWorld policy support system. Earth Syst. Dyn.
Molle, F., Mollinga, P., 2003. Water poverty indicators: conceptual problems and policy 5, 55–65.
issues. Water Policy 5, 529–544. World Economic Forum (WEF), 2011. The Water-Food- Energy-Climate Nexus. Island
Mongeon, P., Paul-Hus, A., 2016. The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a Press, Washington, DC.
comparative analysis. Scientometrics 106, 213–228. WWAP (World Water Assessment Programme), 2003. UN World Water Development
Mukhtarov, F., Cherp, A., 2014. The hegemony of integrated water resources manage- Report 1. WWAP, Paris, France.
ment as a global water discourse. River Basin Management in the Twenty-First World Wildlife Fund (WWF), 2009. Understanding Water Risks: A Primer on the
Century: Understanding People and Place. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 3–21. Consequences of Water Scarcity for Government and Business. WWF-UK, Surrey, UK.
Narain, V., Khan, M.S.A., Sada, R., Singh, S., Prakash, A., 2013. Urbanization, peri-urban WaterAid, 2012. Water Security Framework. WaterAid, London, England.
water (in) security and human well-being: a perspective from four South Asian cities. Wegerich, K., Rooijen, D., Van Soliev, I., Mukhamedova, N., 2015. Water security in the
Water Int. 38 (7), 930–940. Syr Darya basin. Water 7, 4657–4684.
Nichols, S.J., Dyer, F.J., 2013. Contribution of national bioassessment approaches for Wellman, K., 2012. Financing and managing urban water. In: Wellman, K., Spiller, M.
assessing ecological water security: an AUSRIVAS case study. Front. Environ. Sci. (Eds.), Urban Infrastructure: Finance and Management. Wiley-Blackwell, UK.
Eng. 7 (5), 669–687. Wheater, H.S., Gober, P., 2015. Water security and the science agenda. Water Resour.
Nilsson, Lena Marie, Destouni, Georgia, Berner, James, Dudarev, Alexey A., Mulvad, Gert, Res. 51 (7), 5406–5424.
Odland, Jon Øyvind, Parkinson, Alan, Tikhonov, Constantine, Rautio, Arja, Evengård, Wilder, M., 2016. Metrics: moving beyond the adaptation information gap—introduction
Birgitta, 2013. A call for urgent monitoring of food and water security based on to the special issue. Special issue, Environmental Change and Assessment. In: In:
relevant indicators for the arctic. Ambio 42 (7), 7816–7822. Garfin, G., Wilder, M., Merideth, R. (Eds.), Current Opinion in Environmental
Norman, E., Bakker, K.J., Cook, C., Dunn, G., Allen, D., 2010. Water Security: A Primer. Sustainability (COSUST) 21. pp. 90–95.
Program on Water Governance, University of British Columbia. World Bank, 2015. Water Security for All: The Next Wave of Tools – 2013/14 Annual
Norman, E.S., Dunn, G., Bakker, K., Allen, D.M., De Albuquerque, R.C., 2013. Water se- Report. World Bank Group, Washington, DC.
curity assessment: integrating governance and freshwater indicators. Water Resour. Xiao, D., Jia, H., Wang, Z., 2015. Modeling megacity drinking water security under a DSS
Manage. 27 (2), 535–551. framework in a Tidal River at the North Pearl River Delta, China. J. Am. Water
Norman, E., Cook, C., Cohen, A., 2015. Negotiating Water Governance: Why the Politics Resour. Assoc. 51, 637–654.
of Scale Matter. Ashgate Press, London. Xie, H., Yao, G., Liu, G., 2015. Spatial evaluation of the ecological importance based on
OECD, 2011. Water Governance in OECD Countries: A Multi-level Approach, OECD GIS for environmental management: a case study in Xingguo county of China. Ecol.
Studies on Water. OECD Publishing. Indic. 51, 3–12.
OECD, 2013. Water Security for Better Lives: A Summary for Policymakers. OECD Yang, F., Shao, D., Xiao, C., Tan, X., 2012. Assessment of urban water security based on
Publishing. catastrophe theory. Water Sci. Technol. 66 (3), 487.
Pahl-Wostl, C., Palmer, M., Richards, K., 2013. Enhancing water security for the benefits Young, O.R., Berkhout, F., Gallopin, G.C., Janssen, M.A., Ostrom, E., van der Leeuw, S.,
of humans and nature − the role of governance. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 5, 2006. The globalization of socio-ecological systems: an agenda for scientific research.
676–684. Global Environ. Change 16 (3), 304–316.
Pahl-Wostl, C., Bhaduri, A., Gupta, J. (Eds.), 2016. Handbook on Water Security. Edward Zeitoun, M., Lankford, B., Bakker, K., Conway, D., 2013. Introduction: a battle of ideas for
Elgar, Cheltenham, UK. water security. In: Lankford, B., Bakker, K., Zeitoun, M., Conway, D. (Eds.), Water
Patrick, R., 2011. Enhancing water security in Saskatchewan, Canada: an opportunity for Security: Principles, Perspectives, Practice. Routledge, London.
a water soft path. Water Int. 36 (6), 748–763. Zeitoun, M., Lankford, B., Krueger, T., Forsyth, T., Carter, R., Hoekstra, A.Y., Taylor, R.,
Petersen-Perlman, J.D., Wolf, A.T., 2015. Getting to the first handshake: enhancing se- Varish, O., Cleaver, F., Boelens, R., Swatuk, L., Tickner, D., Scott, C.A., Mirumachi,
curity by initiating cooperation in transboundary river basins. J. Am. Water Resour. N., Matthews, N., 2016. Reductionist and integrative research approaches to complex
Assoc. 51, 1688–1707. water security policy challenges. Global Environ. Change 39, 143–154.

89