Water Security and Society: Risks, Metrics, and Pathways Dustin Garrick 1 and Jim W. Hall 2 1 Department of Political Science and Walter G. Booth School of Engineering Practice, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4M4, Canada; email: [email protected]2 Oxford University Centre for the Environment, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3QY, United Kingdom; email: [email protected]Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2014. 39:611–39 The Annual Review of Environment and Resources is online at environ.annualreviews.org This article’s doi: 10.1146/annurev-environ-013012-093817 Copyright c 2014 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved Keywords water insecurity, water access, climate extremes, vulnerability, institutions, infrastructure Abstract Water security is a major challenge for science and society. We review the rapidly growing literature on water security from the perspective of risk science and management. Competing definitions and indicators of water security reflect unsettled conceptual and methodological issues. However, risk concepts have become prevalent in defining water security; measuring it quantitatively; tracking indicators of hazards, exposure, and vulnerability; and informing management options to reduce water-related risks. We ex- amine water security indicators and indices to identify thresholds for water- related risks across multiple dimensions of water security and examine how these vary across different scales and socioeconomic contexts. Water security indicators reveal a disparity in hazards and vulnerability across geographic and political-economic conditions. Recognition of water security as a major societal challenge has been closely followed by a strong commitment to aca- demic, government, development, and policy responses. Pathways to water security capture the sequence of investments in institutions and infrastruc- ture to reduce water-related risks and manage trade-offs. Two well-studied water management case studies illustrate the pathways to water security and the need for more systematic comparative assessment. 611 Annu. Rev. Environ. Resourc. 2014.39:611-639. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org by McMaster University on 10/24/14. For personal use only.
Transcript
EG39CH22-GarrickHall ARI 1 October 2014 15:19
Water Security and Society:Risks, Metrics, and PathwaysDustin Garrick1 and Jim W. Hall21Department of Political Science and Walter G. Booth School of Engineering Practice,McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4M4, Canada; email: [email protected] University Centre for the Environment, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3QY,United Kingdom; email: [email protected]
Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2014. 39:611–39
The Annual Review of Environment and Resources isonline at environ.annualreviews.org
This article’s doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-013012-093817
water insecurity, water access, climate extremes, vulnerability, institutions,infrastructure
Abstract
Water security is a major challenge for science and society. We review therapidly growing literature on water security from the perspective of riskscience and management. Competing definitions and indicators of watersecurity reflect unsettled conceptual and methodological issues. However,risk concepts have become prevalent in defining water security; measuringit quantitatively; tracking indicators of hazards, exposure, and vulnerability;and informing management options to reduce water-related risks. We ex-amine water security indicators and indices to identify thresholds for water-related risks across multiple dimensions of water security and examine howthese vary across different scales and socioeconomic contexts. Water securityindicators reveal a disparity in hazards and vulnerability across geographicand political-economic conditions. Recognition of water security as a majorsocietal challenge has been closely followed by a strong commitment to aca-demic, government, development, and policy responses. Pathways to watersecurity capture the sequence of investments in institutions and infrastruc-ture to reduce water-related risks and manage trade-offs. Two well-studiedwater management case studies illustrate the pathways to water security andthe need for more systematic comparative assessment.
1. WATER SECURITY AS A TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY CHALLENGEFOR SCIENCE AND SOCIETY
Water insecurity poses a threat to human well-being and ecosystem health across a range ofmeasures. Almost 4 billion people are projected to live in severely water-stressed basins by 2050according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)’s baselineenvironmental outlook (1). This is not a distant challenge, however. Eighty percent of the globalpopulation lives in regions experiencing high threats to water security (2). The Millennium De-velopment Goal (MDG) target for water has been met, and access to improved water supplies hasincreased, particularly in China. However, almost 750 million people remain without such access,and billions more lack access to the standards of service provided in the most advanced economies(3–5). The sanitation MDG is unmet. Sixty-four percent of the Indian population—more than800 million people—lacks access to improved sanitation (5). The estimated total economic costsof poor sanitation approach US$9 billion per year (in 2005 prices) and 2% of the combined GDPin the Southeast Asia region comprising Cambodia, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Vietnam (6,7). Sixty-five percent of aquatic habitat associated with continental river discharge is threatenedaccording to a global study of human water security and river biodiversity (2). These chronicpressures reveal the scale of water security threats and their multiple dimensions.
Global change exacerbates these pressures. Food security for a population of more than ninebillion in the 2050s is expected to strain water resources and expose two-thirds of the population
612 Garrick · Hall
Ann
u. R
ev. E
nvir
on. R
esou
rc. 2
014.
39:6
11-6
39. D
ownl
oade
d fr
om w
ww
.ann
ualr
evie
ws.
org
by M
cMas
ter
Uni
vers
ity o
n 10
/24/
14. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly.
EG39CH22-GarrickHall ARI 1 October 2014 15:19
to shortages in the irrigation water supplies needed for reliable food systems (8–10). Water ser-vice provision in cities is already a challenge, particularly at the peri-urban fringe. In the 2050s,approximately two-thirds of the global population is expected to live in cities (11), which raisescorresponding challenges of designing sustainable urban water services. Superimposed on thesechallenges are the impacts of climate variability, extremes, and change. Ninety percent of natu-ral hazards are connected to water with disaster losses over US$110 billion in 2010 alone (12).Hydrological extremes are associated with negative impacts on gross domestic product (GDP)growth (13). These impacts are projected to intensify under global warming; based on scenarioswith a 2◦C increase in global average temperature, the percentage of the global population livingin conditions of absolute water scarcity [<500 m3/(person · year)] will increase from approximately1.5% today to 9% in 2100 (14).
Inadequate institutional capacity and infrastructure increase vulnerability to such threats. TheOECD has defined the global water crisis as a crisis of fragmented governance. Conflict and compe-tition over water between sovereign territories is also a perceived threat to geopolitical stability andpeace (15–17). Inadequate governance and financing have long-term impacts on economic devel-opment and human well-being. For example, the global water infrastructure financing gap to 2030has been estimated at $US11.7 trillion (18), and the cost of meeting the proposed water-relatedSustainable Development Goals has been estimated at approximately 2% of annual GDP (19).
Water security is therefore concerned with both chronic pressures and extreme events. Con-cepts of risk and vulnerability have become increasingly attractive for framing, measuring, andinforming responses to such challenges and for bridging disciplines and scales (20–22). The restof this section tracks the evolution of water security definitions and the emergence of explicit riskframings. In Section 2, we review risk concepts associated with water security. Section 3 exam-ines prominent indicators of water security as well as the emerging evidence on their explanatoryfactors and observed impacts. Sections 4 and 5 review risk management options and pathways towater security across different settings and scales.
1.1. Defining Water Security in Risk Terms
Water security has its roots in 1940s postwar diplomacy to redraw political boundaries of formercolonial empires (15, 23). Interest in water security has expanded since the United Nations (UN)Ministerial Declaration of The Hague on Water Security in the 21st Century was issued at the WorldWater Forum in 2000 (25). The Ministerial Declaration led to wide use of the term in global policy,development, and science agendas over the past 15 years. In response, definitions have proliferated,generating both convergence and confusion about the concept and options for measuring andmanaging water security (24).
The Ministerial Declaration describes the water security challenge as “ensuring that. . .ecosystems are protected and improved; that sustainable development and political stability arepromoted, that every person has access to enough safe water at an affordable cost to lead a healthyand productive life and the vulnerable are protected from the risks of water-related hazards” (25,p. 1). The Declaration recognized the importance of managing risks and using targets and strate-gies to ensure these ends are achieved, and it highlights the growing focus on indicators of watersecurity to track trends and inform management decisions.
The Global Water Partnership (GWP) (26, p. 18) recognized water security “as a commongoal” in 2000 and proposed a framework for action designed to support a “mix [of investmentoptions] tailored to. . .particular circumstances, existing resources and needs” at the local andcountry levels. Similar to the Ministerial Declaration, the GWP also identified targets for 2015 toadopt integrated water resources management (IWRM) in all countries, meet the MDGs for water
www.annualreviews.org • Water Security and Society 613
Ann
u. R
ev. E
nvir
on. R
esou
rc. 2
014.
39:6
11-6
39. D
ownl
oade
d fr
om w
ww
.ann
ualr
evie
ws.
org
by M
cMas
ter
Uni
vers
ity o
n 10
/24/
14. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly.
EG39CH22-GarrickHall ARI 1 October 2014 15:19
and sanitation, increase the productivity of water in agriculture, reduce flood risk, and developand implement national standards for freshwater ecosystem health.
The water security and growth session at the fourth World Water Forum in 2006 was animportant milestone in recent science and policy agendas. Grey & Sadoff (27, 28) examine therelationship between water security and economic development by highlighting the developmentchallenges in regions exposed to high levels of hydroclimatic variability. They hypothesize thata minimum platform of investment in infrastructure and institutions is needed to manage thesechallenges, particularly in economies dependent on rainfed agriculture (13, 29, 30). This yieldeda definition of water security based on water’s productive uses and potential destructive impacts.Water security is the “availability of an acceptable quantity and quality of water for health, liveli-hoods, ecosystems and production, coupled with an acceptable level of water-related risks topeople, environments and economies” (27, p. 548).
These definitions of water security vary in their origin, scale, emphasis, and engagement withissues and concepts of risk and uncertainty. Four dimensions of water security were noted inthe debate of Cook & Bakker (24): water stress and availability, vulnerability to hazards, humandevelopment needs, and sustainability; the first three can be understood through a risk lens (21).
Most recently, UN Water (31, p. vi) used a dialogue process to define water security based onthe multiple interests tied to it. The resulting working definition describes water security as the“capacity of a population to safeguard” access to water for livelihoods and development, protectagainst water pollution and water-related disasters, and preserve ecosystems in a “climate of peaceand political stability.” It explicitly acknowledges the need to manage risk and uncertainty amongthe essential elements of water security.
Consensus is unlikely for global water paradigms (32), although the UN Water paper stressesthe importance of mutually agreed-upon definitions to allow progress toward a shared goal. Thisbuilds on earlier commitments to standards and targets, which imply the development and mon-itoring of quantitative indicators. Risk concepts have supported recent policy initiatives to adoptcommon principles and indicators for water security that connect the science disciplines and bridgeresearch and practitioner perspectives (see Table 1) (20). Risk is explicit in the recent definitionof water security as a “tolerable water-related risk to society” developed by former water agencydirectors and development practitioners (33, p. 4). The OECD (7) adopted a risk-based approachto water security. Water security is “about managing water risk” (p. 13) to an acceptable levelacross four classes of chronic and episodic hazards: shortage, inadequate quality, excess (flooding),and diminished resilience of freshwater systems. This concept of water security is the basis for theOECD framework to “know, target and manage” (p. 12) water risks in a situation of uncertainty.
Risk-based approaches to decision making guided water management long before the contem-porary interest in water security. The World Health Organization (WHO) Guidelines for Drink-ing Water Quality are an example of a risk-based approach to water security (34). The guidelinesuse quantitative microbiological risk assessment and disability-adjusted life year as metrics andtargets for tolerable risk. The former refers to the dose, response, and exposure associated with aninfectious organism, whereas the latter refers to the years lost from a healthy life owing to poordrinking water quality. The drinking water quality targets are guideline values, and countrieshave a mandate to set enforceable limits on the basis of what constitutes tolerable risk at thatplace and time.
The WHO Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality illustrate that the extent to which riskconcepts can form a basis for water security targets is moot. Fundamentally, decision making inresponse to risk can be approached from a cost-benefit perspective or from a tolerable or acceptablerisk perspective (35). The cost-benefit approach explicitly compares the costs of risk reduction withthe marginal benefits, i.e., the difference between the risk before intervention and the residual risk
614 Garrick · Hall
Ann
u. R
ev. E
nvir
on. R
esou
rc. 2
014.
39:6
11-6
39. D
ownl
oade
d fr
om w
ww
.ann
ualr
evie
ws.
org
by M
cMas
ter
Uni
vers
ity o
n 10
/24/
14. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly.
EG39CH22-GarrickHall ARI 1 October 2014 15:19
Table 1 Water security: risks and responses
Source (in order ofappearance) Reference to risk and related concepts Responses to riskGleick 1993 (15) Identified conflict over water as a threat
to international security and peaceProposed development of international water law andinstitutions
Global Water Partnership2000 (26)
Identified flood risks as a challenge forpeople in the floodplain
Promoted integrated water resources management andproposed target to reduce the population at risk in thefloodplain by 50% by 2015
Ministerial Declaration2000 (25)
Identified water-related hazards as one ofseven challenges for water security inthe twenty-first century
Proposed the development of targets and standards and theprovision of security from floods, droughts, pollution, andother water-related hazards
Grey & Sadoff 2007 (27) Water security includes “acceptable levelof water-related risks”
Proposed investment in infrastructure and institutions
Grey et al. 2013 (33) Defined water security as “tolerablewater-related risk to society” (p. 4)
Proposed development of a “risk-based framework forwater, linking the hydrological and socioeconomicdimensions of water from the household, the firm and thefarm to local, regional and global water fluxes” (p. 8)
Scott et al. 2013 (156) Identified need for resilience to uncertainglobal change
Proposed adaptive management for stablesocietal-ecosystem-hydroclimatic interactions
UN Water 2013 (31) Identified the management of risk anduncertainty as an essential element ofwater security
Proposed integration of adaptation and development;development of capacity building and governancemechanisms
Organisation forEconomic Cooperationand Development 2013(7)
Defined water security as the need tomanage water risk to acceptable levels
Elaborated framework to “know, target and manage” therisks associated with shortage, excess, inadequate quality,and diminished resilience; set acceptable targets
Hall & Borgomeo 2013(157)
Identified risk-based principles for watersecurity focused on understanding,measuring, and managing potentiallyharmful outcomes associated with theaquatic environment
Proposed “weighing likelihoods and consequences of arange of possible outcomes and engaging in societaldiscussion of the tolerability of risks and the willingness topay for risk reduction, recognizing that risks are sociallyconstructed and that there is a range of factors thatdetermine individuals’ perception of risk” (p. 2)
afterward. There is no fixed target for residual risk other than it being, typically in some economicsense, optimal. The tolerable or acceptable risk perspective does admit that there is some thresholdbeyond which risk is unacceptable, but this may differ between individuals and society; society isparticularly averse to incidents that impact large numbers of people (36). The tolerability ofrisk is bound to vary depending on a society’s economic development: Wealthy societies haveresources to devote to risk reduction, whereas in less well-off societies there may well be moreurgent priorities for investment that yield higher welfare benefits. Thus, the prospect of a universaltarget for tolerable water-related risk may prove to be ephemeral. Nonetheless, basic attention torisk management, particularly in the form of hazard warning, preemptive humanitarian assistance,and physical shelters from extreme climatic hazards, clearly and reliably yield high benefits even inthe poorest societies (37). Absence of this minimum platform of readily available and demonstrablycost-effective risk reduction does seem to be unacceptable (38).
Notwithstanding the difficulty of establishing risk-based targets, development of metrics bywhich risk can be monitored is feasible. This is not straightforward because risk is not an observablequantity and the impacts of risk inevitably materialize, in part, in a random way (21). Nonetheless,
www.annualreviews.org • Water Security and Society 615
Ann
u. R
ev. E
nvir
on. R
esou
rc. 2
014.
39:6
11-6
39. D
ownl
oade
d fr
om w
ww
.ann
ualr
evie
ws.
org
by M
cMas
ter
Uni
vers
ity o
n 10
/24/
14. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly.
EG39CH22-GarrickHall ARI 1 October 2014 15:19
the factors that make up risk—hazard, exposure, and vulnerability—are all measurable and thusoffer the potential for composite metrics of risk (see Section 3).
1.2. Beyond Definitions: Operationalizing Metrics
Recognition of water security as a twenty-first century challenge has been closely followed bya strong commitment to academic, government, development, and policy responses. Academicinitiatives include interdisciplinary and integrated risk assessments as well as river basin observa-tories that couple social and natural dimensions of water security risks, and governance responseshave become more common in locales as varied as the Saskatchewan Basin and the Ganges (39,40). The international science community has addressed water security in high-profile eventsthat convened thought leaders across diverse disciplines and across research and practice; theseinclude the 2012 Planet under Pressure event in London and the 2012 Oxford University con-ference on water security, risk, and society (41, 42). The 2013 Bonn Conference on Water in theAnthropocene produced a Declaration on Global Water Security (43) that calls for “a renewedcommitment to. . .multi-scale and interdisciplinary” water science and “state-of-the-art synthesisstudies. . .to inform risk assessments” (p. 2). In addition, national research funding organizationslaunched an unprecedented multicountry collaboration—the Belmont Forum—with a prioritytheme of freshwater security.
Government initiatives include strategic assessments by intelligence agencies on security threatslinked to water cooperation and conflict in densely populated river basins (16). Iconic river basinshave been assessed as at high risk of geopolitical instability or diminished economic growth owingto limited (Tigris-Euphrates, Nile, Mekong) or inadequate (Brahmaputra, Amu Darya) manage-ment capacity (16). In this context, development agencies have examined the suitability of watersecurity goals for inclusion in the Sustainable Development Goals under development, which willtake effect after the 2015 deadline for the MDGs (19).
Water security has also prompted increased collective action by industry. Corporate interest inwater security spiked in the lead up to and aftermath of the Rio+20 meetings in 2012 and because ofthe perceived failure of public sector responses to water security threats (44). The business case forwater security has attracted attention to the role of water risks in internal operations, supply chains,and corporate social responsibility (45, 46). The link between corporate water risk and metricshas been strengthened by the surveys and disclosures coordinated by the World Economic Forumannual global risks report (47–49) and the Carbon Disclosure Project, respectively (50).
1.3. Water Security and Risk: A Divided World?
The rapidly growing interest in water security and risk has been accompanied by a focus on water’srelationship with poverty and development in the context of the MDGs and climate adaptation.Grey & Sadoff (27) argued that regions with more complex hydrology require higher levels ofinvestment in institutions and infrastructure to achieve and sustain water security, particularly tomanage hazards associated with hydrological variability. This work has been widely referencedand influential in the academic and policy discourse. Grey and colleagues (33) revisited this earlierargument to propose categories of water security based on two dimensions: hydrological com-plexity and investment in water security risk reduction. These dimensions divide the world on thebasis of water-related hazards associated with hydrological complexity and the capacity to respond.Pathways to water security are expected to vary across these diverse settings. The present reviewconsiders the available evidence for these propositions and outlines some gaps in our understandingof key causal processes linking water security, development, and human well-being.
616 Garrick · Hall
Ann
u. R
ev. E
nvir
on. R
esou
rc. 2
014.
39:6
11-6
39. D
ownl
oade
d fr
om w
ww
.ann
ualr
evie
ws.
org
by M
cMas
ter
Uni
vers
ity o
n 10
/24/
14. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly.
EG39CH22-GarrickHall ARI 1 October 2014 15:19
2. RISK PERSPECTIVES: KEY CONCEPTS
The words water security immediately suggest an opposite state of affairs: water insecurity. Inconceptualizing water security, it may be more constructive to think in terms of the absence ofwater insecurity. Water insecurity is the state in which the conditions of the aquatic environmentthreaten the welfare and freedoms of individuals, communities, and societies. Water insecuritymay result from the direct impacts of harmful events, for example, floods, droughts, or incidentsof contamination. It may be due to more chronic factors undermining the capacity of individualsand communities to reach their full productive potential, for example, water-related disease orunreliable supplies of water for irrigation or industry. Or, it may result from inhibited investmentdue to the perception of water-related risks. Grey & Sadoff (51, p. 9) describe how the expectationof variability and the unpredictability of water resources can encourage “risk averse behavior at alllevels of the economy in all years, as economic actors, particularly the poor, focus on minimizingtheir downside risks, rather than maximizing their potential gains.” The disincentive to investmentthat water risk can pose extends beyond individual farm families to investments at all scales,including foreign direct investment.
All three manifestations of water insecurity (acute impacts, chronic impacts, perceived risks)have negative impacts on human welfare and often also on the environment. Water security is theopposite state, in which harmful states (or anticipated states) of the aquatic environment do notintolerably impact human welfare and the environment. Risk can never be entirely eliminated,but it can be tolerable because the threat of water insecurity is being managed through activeintervention, which may take a variety of forms. The extent to which water-related hazards mustbe managed varies depending on hydroclimatic characteristics. Some aquatic environments areinherently more benign or malign than others.
Implicit in this discussion is the notion that water security is an objective that, to use theterminology of Herbert Simon, is satisficed (52). In other words, there is some threshold (albeitimprecisely defined) beyond which water insecurity is no longer a concern and thus is tolerable.Actors at all scales (e.g., individuals, communities, firms, governments, societies) who have achievedthis state cannot neglect water-related risks, as they still need to be managed, and a changingenvironment may make those risks more challenging. Moreover, expectations for risk reductionevolve with changing societal norms. Nonetheless, once risk is at a tolerable level, actors willprioritize other investments. Among those nonwater security priorities may be other investments inthe aquatic environment, e.g., maximizing the output of hydropower plants, improving navigation,or bringing further agricultural land into production. These may or may not be productive water-related investments, but as they are primarily aimed at production gains rather than managingharmful risks, they are outside the ambit of water security as defined by Grey et al. (33) andelaborated on by Hall & Borgomeo (21).
Earlier definitions of water security, although not explicitly risk-based [see, for example, theGlobal Water Partnership report (26)], nonetheless include satisficing concepts in the emphasison “enough safe water” (26, p. 12); the intuitive sense is that water is primarily of concern when itsomehow threatens human and environmental well-being. An emphasis on managing potentiallynegative consequences (real or perceived) naturally leads to the risk-based definitions that havebeen proposed in recent years (7, 27, 33).
Risk-based approaches to water resources planning existed well before the concept of watersecurity (53, 54), though the earliest journal references to risk and water relate to water pollution.The natural variability in hydrological systems naturally lends itself to stochastic analysis. Theeconomic benefits of investment in schemes to regulate this variability are best posed as a prob-lem of risk reduction. The increasing prevalence of cost-benefit analysis in the 1970s and 1980s
www.annualreviews.org • Water Security and Society 617
Ann
u. R
ev. E
nvir
on. R
esou
rc. 2
014.
39:6
11-6
39. D
ownl
oade
d fr
om w
ww
.ann
ualr
evie
ws.
org
by M
cMas
ter
Uni
vers
ity o
n 10
/24/
14. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly.
EG39CH22-GarrickHall ARI 1 October 2014 15:19
Probability
Cons
eque
nces
Risks ofinadequatesupply andsanitation
Risks ofinadequatesupply andsanitation
Floodrisk
Floodrisk
Droughtrisk
Droughtrisk
Risks to theenvironment of harmful water
quantity/quality
Risks to theenvironment of harmful water
quantity/quality
Figure 1Characterization of water security risks in terms of the probability and consequences of typical loss events.
superseded traditional standards-based planning and design methods and required more explicitanalysis of risks and uncertainties (55). Therefore, a well-tested apparatus exists for analysis ofrisks and appraisal of risk management investments.
The insurance industry has also contributed constructively to the lexicon of risk, in particularby distinguishing among hazard (the phenomenon with the potential to cause damage or harm),exposure (the people or assets that are in harm’s way), and vulnerability (the susceptibility to lossshould a hazard materialize) (56, 57). Exposure refers to the people, livelihoods, infrastructure, andsocioeconomic assets that could experience harm from hazardous events; vulnerability capturesthe propensity to experience harm as a function of the capacity to anticipate, cope with, resist andrecover from such events. These components of risk map onto the well-known concept of risk as aproduct of probability and consequence (58), in which the probability of concern is that of a haz-ardous event materializing and the consequences are determined by the exposure and vulnerability.
The dimensions of probability and consequence help to distinguish between chronic (highprobability) and acute (low probability, high consequence) risks. Figure 1 plots the main water-related risks (i.e., floods, droughts, inadequate supply/sanitation, water quantity/quality that isharmful to the environment) on these axes. Each phenomenon spans a range of probabilities:Floods can range from practically everyday events owing to inadequate stormwater drainage inurban areas to some of the most catastrophic events known to humankind; environmental harm canrange from the chronic effects of diffuse pollution from agricultural land to tailings dam collapsesthat have contaminated entire rivers. The depiction of consequences, which span incommensurateeconomic, human, and environmental impacts, is also at best an approximation.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in its report on Managing the Risks ofExtreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (known as SREX) (37), adoptedthe hazard-vulnerability-exposure structure, equating hazard, in the context of a report on climatechange, with weather and climate events. This reverses the structure adopted in the previous IPCCreport (59; based on 60), in which vulnerability is taken as a function of exposure, sensitivity, andadaptive capacity, and, moreover, exposure is taken as containing the climate stimuli impactinga system. The SREX (37) definition clarifies how natural variability and anthropogenic climatechange influence the occurrence of weather and climate events, whereas adaptation actions seekto reduce vulnerability and exposure to hazards.
618 Garrick · Hall
Ann
u. R
ev. E
nvir
on. R
esou
rc. 2
014.
39:6
11-6
39. D
ownl
oade
d fr
om w
ww
.ann
ualr
evie
ws.
org
by M
cMas
ter
Uni
vers
ity o
n 10
/24/
14. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly.
EG39CH22-GarrickHall ARI 1 October 2014 15:19
Exposure
Hazard
Vulnerability
RISK
Phenomena with the potential to cause damage or harm: droughts, floods, inadequate supply/sanitation, harmful water quality
People, livelihoods, infrastructure, and social-economic assets that could experience harm from hazardous events
e
Hazard
Vulnerability
RISK
Socioeconomic change
Modifies:
• Hazards, e.g., through catchment modification or discharge of pollutants
• Vulnerability through planned and unplanned adaptations and interventions, such as water infrastructure and institutions
• Exposure through increasing population and activity in hazardous location
Climatic changeModifies the frequency and severity of hydroclimatic phenomena.
Propensity to experience harm. Capacity to anticipate, cope with, resist, and recover
Figure 2Characteristics of water-related risks in terms of hazard, vulnerability, and exposure, and the influences of climatic and socioeconomicchanges upon risk.
We have adapted this characterization in Figure 2. In the context of water-related risks, weobserve that human intervention may also modify the nature of the hazard; for example, landuse changes in the catchment may modify the probability of droughts and floods. When weconsider risks from inadequate sanitation, then hazard, exposure, and adaptation are intertwined:The hazard is exposure to human feces, which occurs because of inadequate sanitary facilities.Similarly, pollution risks to the environment can materialize because of inadequate treatmentof wastewater; human activities (in urban areas, industry, and agriculture) are the cause of thehazard. Drought hazards to the environment also necessarily entail human influence: The naturalenvironment is adapted to variations in rainfall, soil moisture, and flow, including the incidenceof occasional, and sometimes extreme, droughts. These hydroclimatic extremes become harmfulto the natural environment when deliberate or inadvertent human intervention undermines anecosystem’s natural resilience to hydroclimatic variability.
Water security extends beyond the well-established framework for risk-based water resourcesplanning in that it seeks to address disparate dimensions of water-related risk in an integrated way.Multiattribute water resources planning has existed for almost as long as decision analysis itself
www.annualreviews.org • Water Security and Society 619
Ann
u. R
ev. E
nvir
on. R
esou
rc. 2
014.
39:6
11-6
39. D
ownl
oade
d fr
om w
ww
.ann
ualr
evie
ws.
org
by M
cMas
ter
Uni
vers
ity o
n 10
/24/
14. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly.
EG39CH22-GarrickHall ARI 1 October 2014 15:19
(61). However, the problems of water resources decisions have never been formulated in such broadterms as in the context of water security, which extends across all dimensions of water (supply,sanitation, irrigation, flood control), the full range of impacts (economic, social, environmental),and indirect consequences and spill-overs up to a global scale (foreign direct investment, trade invirtual water, migration). IWRM seeks to balance the multiple and sometimes conflicting aspectsof an aquatic system (62), but IWRM has been criticized for inadequate operational interpretation(63). Analysis of water security involves explicitly identifying the full set of water-related risks toall actors in a river basin (or other appropriate domain) for whom risk is potentially intolerable.Risk-based decision making inevitably involves trade-offs among actors, between different risksand costs, and through time. Analysis of water security involves explicitly answering risks of what,to whom, when, and under what circumstances and then seeking tolerable trade-offs. In a worldin which water resources are increasingly contested and aquatic ecosystem services threatened,a satisficing approach to multiple water-related risks often seems to be the best we can hopefor.
Trade-offs can materialize at multiple scales, which renders problematic the question of theappropriate scale of assessment and decision making. The river basin scale is the natural unit ofassessment from a hydrological perspective because this is the scale at which hydrological con-nectivity is manifest, and thus it has been promoted in the context of IWRM (64). The river basinscale encompasses upstream-downstream trade-offs and interactions. Risk assessment at that scaleneeds to be disaggregated to expose upstream-downstream inequities as well as sectors or regionsexperiencing disproportionate shares of the losses from a given event. However, not all issuesof water security naturally fit into the river basin scale. For example, in Section 5.1 we examinewater security in Singapore, an island city-state with several very small urbanized catchments thatare interconnected by a sophisticated urban water infrastructure system, which does not fit thedefinition of a river basin at all. Furthermore, some of the most pressing water security issuesare now experienced in rapidly expanding coastal cities (65). At any scale of definition, exogenousfactors and externalities need to be accounted for.
The framework of risk provides a route to decision making when the outcomes of futureevents are not definitively known (58). When the outcomes of future events (for example, thefrequencies with which hazards will materialize) are known in probabilistic terms and utilities arewell defined, then a normative route to decision making exists (66). In an aquatic environmentthat is changing in unpredictable ways on a range of timescales, these prerequisites of well-definedprobabilities and utilities seldom pertain. The increasing recognition of nonstationarity in thecontext of a changing climate is calling into doubt well-established methods for estimating thefrequency of hydrological phenomena (67). In the face of these severe uncertainties and the limiteddependability of projections from climate models, increased emphasis has been placed on methodsfor testing the robustness of risk estimates and the sensitivity of decisions to severe uncertainties,including info-gap theory (68), robust decision making (69), and decision scaling (70). Each ofthese approaches focuses on extended sensitivity analysis of the sources and implications of severeuncertainty. The objective is to identify options that are robust to uncertainty in the sense that theyperform acceptably well over a wide range of possible future conditions. Robustness, therefore, isa satisficing criterion, in that robust decisions must perform reasonably well rather than optimallywell. Indeed, there is bound to be a trade-off between optimality and robustness to uncertainty(71). Building in flexibility is one way of enhancing robustness, as is building capacity to recoverfrom and learn from failure, in other words, resilience. Notions of robustness and resilience areincreasingly associated with water security (72), implying that tolerable risk, especially in a futurein which uncertainties are severe, needs to be robustly achievable.
620 Garrick · Hall
Ann
u. R
ev. E
nvir
on. R
esou
rc. 2
014.
39:6
11-6
39. D
ownl
oade
d fr
om w
ww
.ann
ualr
evie
ws.
org
by M
cMas
ter
Uni
vers
ity o
n 10
/24/
14. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly.
EG39CH22-GarrickHall ARI 1 October 2014 15:19
3. STATUS OF WATER SECURITY: INDICATORS, IMPACTS,AND EXPLANATORY FACTORS
In risk terms, water security is concerned with the consequences and perceptions of chronic haz-ards and extremes and with the factors influencing exposure and vulnerability. Geographic andsocioeconomic disparities in access to safe drinking water and vulnerability to extreme eventshave also stimulated interest in the relationship between water security and development. Thishas required careful efforts to define indicators of water insecurity to elucidate the causal linkagesamong water-related hazards and impacts. This section considers conceptual aspects of water secu-rity indicators, metrics of basic needs, multidimensional indicators, water vulnerability indicators,impacts of water insecurity, and methodological issues.
3.1. Conceptual Aspects of Water Security Indicators
Indicators of water insecurity measure hazards and their impacts; they range in coverage from asingle component to multiple dimensions and vary in spatial and temporal resolution (73, 74) (seeTable 1). Water security indicators are subject to all of the same conceptual and methodologicalissues associated with indicators more generally, namely, problems with complexity and causality,difficulties constructing composite indicators based on multiple components, and a lack of reliableand comparable data (75). A risk-based framework differentiates hazard, exposure, and vulnerabil-ity as measurable quantities (21). Water security indicators are concerned with risk in terms of thefrequency and severity of rare hazardous events, such as those related to climatic variability andextremes (e.g., droughts, floods, unpredictable timing of rainfall or runoff ). They are also focusedon chronic hazards associated with the lack of access to water supply and sanitation, poor waterquality, insufficient water quantity for food and energy production, and degradation of ecosystemservices (22, 24).
Water indicators have proliferated: Plummer et al. (74) identify 50 water vulnerability assess-ment tools. Water security, from a risk-based perspective, implies particular challenges for thedevelopment of indicators because risk is not a measurable quantity, is highly context dependent,and depends on the perceptions of and attitudes toward risk of various stakeholders. Thus, anymetric is bound to be a composite incorporating elements of hazard, vulnerability, exposure, andperhaps also adaptive capacity from a range of perspectives (21). In practice, many water indicators,including long-standing ones related to basic water needs, are now being incorporated into a basketof metrics that may contribute to the development of indicators of water security (76, 77).
3.2. Measuring Basic Needs: Drinking Water, Food, and Ecosystems
Since the 1980s, indicators of water insecurity have concentrated on the water needed forself-sufficient food production (78, 79) and drinking water and sanitation (3, 80). Falkenmark(78) used measures of annual renewable water availability per capita to identify thresholdsassociated with self-sufficiency in food production, namely, 1,700 m3/(person · year) (stress),1,000 m3/(person · year) (scarcity), and 500 m3/(person · year) (absolute scarcity). Allan (81) hasestablished a threshold of 1,200 m3/(person · year) for water security, although international tradecan buffer local water deficits by importing water-intensive commodities. Measured at the nationallevel, neither of these metrics of water security for food production accounts for spatial variationwithin the country or for seasonal or interannual variability (29).
Metrics of drinking water security have been the focus of extensive monitoring and managementthrough the Joint Monitoring Programme ( JMP) for Water Supply and Sanitation of WHO
www.annualreviews.org • Water Security and Society 621
Ann
u. R
ev. E
nvir
on. R
esou
rc. 2
014.
39:6
11-6
39. D
ownl
oade
d fr
om w
ww
.ann
ualr
evie
ws.
org
by M
cMas
ter
Uni
vers
ity o
n 10
/24/
14. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly.
EG39CH22-GarrickHall ARI 1 October 2014 15:19
and UNICEF, which has expanded in the context of the MDGs. In the mid-1990s, Gleick (80)estimated basic human water needs for drinking, sanitation, bathing, and food preparation to be atotal of 50 L/(person · day). Howard & Bartram (82) refine these thresholds in terms of no access[<5 L/(person · day)], basic access [20 L/(person · day)], intermediate access [50 L/(person · day)],and optimal access [>100 L/(person · day)]. Monitoring of access to improved drinking waterand sanitation has provided a baseline to track progress in meeting basic needs, triggered by theInternational Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation Decade in the 1980s (4). The proportionof the global population with access to improved drinking water increased from 76% in 1990(4.0 billion total) to 89% (6.3 billion total) in 2012, and the proportion of the global populationwith access to improved sanitation increased from 49% (2.6 billion) to 64% (4.5 billion) duringthe same period (5).
The MDG target is to halve the proportion of the population without access to safe drinkingwater and sanitation. Hope & Rouse (4) identify three challenges for drinking water security:population growth, regional variation in access, and monitoring uncertainty. First, countries withlow baselines and high population growth face larger challenges (83). In sub-Saharan Africa, forexample, there has even been a net increase in the population—in absolute terms—without accessto improved water supplies even though the proportion with access increased by 16 percentagepoints between 1990 and 2012. Second, access varies regionally; many of the populations that aremost difficult to reach and in the greatest need experience lags. Third, there are methodologicalchallenges to establishing “accurate and comparable metrics” (4, p. 2). On top of these deficits,the JMP recognizes that improved water supplies are not always safe; piped water in many majordeveloping country cities is contaminated and may be inadequate in other ways (e.g., distance,reliability, cultural acceptability, affordability). Bulk averages also mask disparities within countries(urban/rural) and by wealth, religion, ethnicity, and education level.
Meeting basic water needs for food security also poses challenges, as 70% of global water with-drawals support irrigation, in addition to the rainfall used for rainfed agriculture. The populationexposed to severe water stress for food production is projected to increase (10). The IrrigationWater Supply Reliability index provides a supply-demand ratio: water available for irrigation (i.e.,supply) as a proportion of the total potential demand for irrigation water. The index is projectedto decrease from 0.71 globally in 2000 to 0.66 in 2050, indicating intensifying scarcity. The indexvaries regionally; water-stressed regions are the hardest hit, particularly during low-flow years (8).These metrics of basic water needs and water for food provide a baseline against which recenttrends and future projections can be understood to inform policy and management decisions.
There is increasing recognition that the water needs of people and agriculture depend onthe goods and services generated by ecosystems (84). Environmental water security has beenconceptualized and measured using an ecosystem services framework. The Asian DevelopmentBank (76), for example, has developed a river health index following the themes and driversidentified by Vorosmarty et al. (2): watershed disturbance, pollution, water resource development,and biotic factors.
3.3. The Multidimensional Nature and Drivers of Water Insecurity:Composite Indices
The links between water security and sustainability and between water security and economicgrowth have required indicators that account for interacting physical and human-driven hazardsand causal processes. Srinivasan et al. (85) note that the nature and sources of the global watercrisis vary regionally across different patterns of demand, supply, infrastructure development, andgovernance. Understanding the nature of the water crisis and the determinants of water insecurity
622 Garrick · Hall
Ann
u. R
ev. E
nvir
on. R
esou
rc. 2
014.
39:6
11-6
39. D
ownl
oade
d fr
om w
ww
.ann
ualr
evie
ws.
org
by M
cMas
ter
Uni
vers
ity o
n 10
/24/
14. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly.
EG39CH22-GarrickHall ARI 1 October 2014 15:19
are prerequisites for informed decisions about institutional development and infrastructure in-vestment. Water security is also considered part of a web of interrelated concerns about energy,national, and food security (86).
Water use as a proportion of total renewable supplies (the water exploitation index) is usedto calculate water stress (1). Population growth, urbanization, and food security are importantdrivers of these conventional measures of water stress (1, 87). However, the ratio of water use toavailability does not account for deficits in infrastructure to make use of available water and to bufferagainst seasonal and interannual fluctuations (29). Water stress and water scarcity indicators havetherefore distinguished physical water scarcity from economic water scarcity. The former refers tohigh levels of water use as a proportion of available supplies, whereas the latter refers to inadequateaccess to water infrastructure to make use of available water (88). Measures of economic waterscarcity identify parts of Africa where water infrastructure, not water availability, is the limitingfactor. Population and infrastructure are also a major influence on exposure to extreme events suchas flooding. For example, population growth and poorly managed infrastructure drove a doublingof exposure to extreme rainfall events in South America between 1960 and 2000 (89).
Multiattribute indicators assess the coincidence of hazards at multiple scales, including at highspatial resolution (2, 90); at the country level, particularly in Asia (76, 77); and for transboundarywaters (see Table 2) (91, 92). Composite indicators increasingly combine chronic and episodichazards. For example, the seven elements of the 2000 Ministerial Declaration of The Hague onWater Security in the 21st Century (25) included the basic needs of drinking and food but also theimportance of risk management and transboundary cooperation (23). Lautze & Manthrithilake(77) provide a multidimensional index of water security that accounts for five dimensions: basicneeds, agriculture, environment, risk management, and independence (the last being a functionof water generated within a country). The Asian Development Bank (76) has also compiled amultiattribute metric based on household, economic, urban, and environmental water securityas well as resilience to water-related disasters. This approach has the potential to obscure whichsubcomponents are the drivers of water insecurity [e.g., similar to the critique of multidimensionalwater poverty indicators by Molle & Mollinga (93)].
The water vulnerability assessment tools identified by Plummer and colleagues (74) vary interms of their location and sociopolitical context, scale, and number of dimensions. Key dimensionsinclude water resources, other physical attributes, economic aspects, social characteristics, andinstitutions. Physical attributes and economic aspects are well represented by 100% and 66%of the 50 vulnerability indices, respectively. By comparison, institutional and social dimensionswere captured in only 34% and 26% of the indices, respectively. Plummer et al. emphasized theimportance of holistic measures that account for social and ecological factors, as well as the capacityfor IWRM.
Limited attention has been paid to the development of indicators of the adaptation actions thathave been taken to reduce water-related risks. Hallegatte et al. (94) acknowledge this lacuna intheir analysis of flood risk to port cities. Global data on water-related infrastructure investmentsare emerging from a variety of sources, and global water resource assessments have begun to incor-porate reservoir storage and operation (95) and assessments of investment needs (96). However,these assessments do not indicate how much risk has (or could be) decreased as a consequenceof these investments. Monitoring of the effectiveness of infrastructure investments has mostlytaken place at national and local scales, most recently in the context of development of adaptationindicators (97), though seldom specifically in terms of water security.
Several recent initiatives aim to measure institutional dimensions of water vulnerability andadaptation, highlighted by the OECD Water Governance Initiative (WGI) (98). The OECDhas organized a framework for conceptualizing and measuring water governance capacity. The
www.annualreviews.org • Water Security and Society 623
Ann
u. R
ev. E
nvir
on. R
esou
rc. 2
014.
39:6
11-6
39. D
ownl
oade
d fr
om w
ww
.ann
ualr
evie
ws.
org
by M
cMas
ter
Uni
vers
ity o
n 10
/24/
14. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly.
EG39CH22-GarrickHall ARI 1 October 2014 15:19
Table 2 Risk attributes of selected water security indices
Index of InstitutionalResilience toClimate Variability(17)
BCU X X X X
Seasonal StorageIndex (29)
C X X X X
Aqueduct WaterRisk Indicators (90)
R X X X X X X X
Earth Security Index(158)
C X X X X X X
aScale abbreviations: C, country; R, high-resolution; BCU, basin-country unit (spatial portion of a transboundary river falling within a single country).
WGI addresses multilevel governance gaps across seven categories measured at the country scale,including policy and financial gaps. This builds on prior water governance indicators at the countrylevel, including the Asia Water Governance Index (99) and its precursors (100), which are basedon water policy, law, and administration. Neither the OECD Water Governance Initiative northe Asia Water Governance Index explicitly address water security risks or the role of local ortransboundary water governance and institutions.
The specter of water wars and risk of violent conflict between countries sharing interna-tional transboundary rivers have spurred efforts to measure conflict and cooperation and theirinstitutional determinants. Institutional capacity influences whether countries cooperate overshared watercourses; conflicts are expected to occur when rapid change (environmental or social)outstrips institutional capacity to absorb it (101, 102). Indicators of institutional capacity intransboundary waters measure the presence or absence of treaties and river basin organizations(103). More recently, indicators have gone beyond presence or absence to capture the quality ofthese institutions and attributes of institutional design associated with strong performance, such
624 Garrick · Hall
Ann
u. R
ev. E
nvir
on. R
esou
rc. 2
014.
39:6
11-6
39. D
ownl
oade
d fr
om w
ww
.ann
ualr
evie
ws.
org
by M
cMas
ter
Uni
vers
ity o
n 10
/24/
14. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly.
EG39CH22-GarrickHall ARI 1 October 2014 15:19
as membership and financial capacity (104). Measures of institutional resilience have also beentailored to the specific water-related risks associated with climate variability. In addition to treatiesand river basin organizations, institutional resilience to climate variability is expected to dependon water allocation mechanisms, variability management provisions, and conflict resolution (17).One global analysis of institutional resilience to climate variability compared current conditionswith future projections for 2050 and identified Northern and sub-Saharan Africa as at greatest risktoday and Western Asia, Eastern Europe, and Latin America as at increasing risk in the future (17).
3.4. Impacts of Water Insecurity
The impacts of water insecurity include the consequences of climate hazards and of inadequatewater for basic needs for people, food, and ecosystems. Metrics of climate risks capture exposure(e.g., population, assets) and vulnerability (propensity to experience harm) to hazardous climaticevents. The population living in the floodplain is a common measure of exposure to climatehazards, whereas vulnerability refers to the underlying social and economic conditions affectingadaptive capacity. Observed and modeled losses from climate hazards inform the selection ofthreshold levels of hazard frequency (e.g., 1-in-100-year events) or severity (accumulated deficitsfrom droughts) associated with intolerable impacts. As a proportion of GDP, economic losses fromnatural disasters are higher in developing countries than in developed ones (105). The expansionof assets at risk places middle-income countries at the highest risk, where as much as 1% of GDPwas lost owing to climate extremes during the period from 2001 to 2006, although this estimateis based on limited evidence (37, 106).
The literature on the impacts of water insecurity also examines the benefits and costs of accessto improved water supply and sanitation (and the social and economic losses associated withinadequate water services). The four main sources of information about these benefits and costsare market vending data, stated preferences, averted expenditures (costs of coping with inadequateservices), and avoided costs of illness (107). Social and economic losses associated with inadequatewater services include the costs of coping with inadequate water services and of illness. For example,a 2005 study of Kathmandu (108) documents the coping costs incurred by those with poor waterquality, including costs associated with water collection, pumping, and in-house treatment, atalmost US$3/(person · month), or 1% of monthly income. Improved water supply and sanitationshould therefore limit those costs, and investment would thus occur when the costs incurred inthe form of illness, coping, and lost labor exceed the costs of improving the service. The avoidedcosts of illness are not always sufficient to motivate investment. As a consequence, drinking watersecurity has languished in some areas. Opportunity costs associated with the search for water area potential motivation to invest; large time savings can be realized when facilities are broughtcloser to, or ideally into, the home. In many analyses of the economic impacts of sanitation, timesavings are an important economic factor (109, 110). In addition, 2.4 million deaths per year areconsidered preventable with improved access to water and sanitation and good hygiene practices(111, 112). The impacts of inadequate access to water, sanitation, and hygiene include US$340million in household costs and US$7 billion in costs to national health systems per year, with thepoorest being the most vulnerable (111, 113).
3.5. Water Indicators, Development, and Causality
The uneven distribution of water risks has focused attention on the linkages between water anddevelopment. Vorosmarty et al. (2) describe the residual water security threats—the adjustedhuman water security threat—after accounting for the effects of infrastructure investments to
www.annualreviews.org • Water Security and Society 625
Ann
u. R
ev. E
nvir
on. R
esou
rc. 2
014.
39:6
11-6
39. D
ownl
oade
d fr
om w
ww
.ann
ualr
evie
ws.
org
by M
cMas
ter
Uni
vers
ity o
n 10
/24/
14. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly.
EG39CH22-GarrickHall ARI 1 October 2014 15:19
enhance water security. Of the regions with high water security threats, the regions with the highestincomes have the greatest capacity to reduce their residual threats. For example, the WesternUnited States and Europe have invested heavily to reduce their residual water security threats by upto 95% from unadjusted threat levels, whereas low and low-middle income regions face the highestresidual water security threats (affecting more than 3 billion people). This high-resolution globalanalysis corroborates more localized, case-specific evidence on geographic disparities in capacityto cope with water security threats. For example, models of Ethiopia’s agriculture-dependenteconomy suggest a 38% reduction in economic growth potential owing to hydrological variability(114).
The existing evidence about the relationship between water security and development raisescomplex questions about causality. How does water security or its absence influence economicdevelopment? Is water security a precondition for economic development, or can it be achieved asa by-product of wider economic development that provides the capacity to invest in risk reductionmeasures (115)? Macroeconomic modeling has been used to address these questions by identifyingthe effects of tropical climate dynamics on economic development (116, 117). Using malaria riskas an explanatory factor, Sachs (117) critiqued studies that identified institutional quality as thedominant influence on development (118). Brown and colleagues (13, 29, 119) have examined theimpact of climate hazards on economic wealth and growth. They found that a positive correlationexists between measures of climatic variability and poverty (29). South Asia was identified as a hotspot where soft and hard infrastructure is insufficient to manage interannual and seasonal climatevariability. Extreme events are a particularly hazardous form of climate variability; global cross-country modeling indicates that a 1% increase in drought (flood) area reduces the GDP growthrate by 2.8% (1.8%) (13).
3.6. Methodological Issues
The proliferation of water security indicators raises several methodological issues. Dickin and col-leagues (120) review the use of index approaches to measure and communicate complex informa-tion about water vulnerability. Criticisms of indices include their reductionist nature (simplifyinginherently complex information and causal processes) and the choice of components and theirweighting (equal weight, stakeholder elicitation, expert judgment, and regression modeling) (93,120). Methodological rigor and transparency are needed for indices to provide credible, salient,and legitimate information to decision makers (121).
As risk is not directly observable, indicators measure the components comprising risk, namely,hazard and vulnerability (21). The occurrence of extreme events is by definition infrequent, solong time series of measurements are required to generate stable risk estimates (120). However,risk is bound to change in the meantime, so empirical risk estimates are biased. Some of the risksunder consideration may never have been observed, in which case risk estimates must be generatedwith analysis of the ( joint) likelihood of contributory circumstances.
Measurement of hazards is constrained by the lack of observed data to improve understandingof the frequency and severity of hazardous events. A prime example is the decrease in the numberof hydrological monitoring sites and the persistent disparity between the rich and poor parts ofthe world with regard to the density of such sites (122). Data on rare events and their impacts arealso sparse despite the development of disaster databases, such as the EM-DAT database, thatrely on global, regional, and national accounts of events recorded by the UN and governments.The databases represent an improvement on media-based reports, although there are method-ological challenges for defining disasters (123) and the associated losses (lives, damage costs,number affected), particularly for events with moderate severity or localized effects. Measures of
626 Garrick · Hall
Ann
u. R
ev. E
nvir
on. R
esou
rc. 2
014.
39:6
11-6
39. D
ownl
oade
d fr
om w
ww
.ann
ualr
evie
ws.
org
by M
cMas
ter
Uni
vers
ity o
n 10
/24/
14. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly.
EG39CH22-GarrickHall ARI 1 October 2014 15:19
vulnerability must also cover both direct and indirect impacts over varying temporal and spatialscales. Droughts and floods, for example, are complex socio-natural events for which our under-standing of impacts is constrained by a lack of clear baselines and differential effects that dependon the scales of analysis (124). For example, droughts come in multiple forms, ranging fromseasonal and localized to continental and decadal (125, 126). Measures of water insecurity and itsimpacts must therefore be considered in terms of policy and political decision processes to reduceinsecurity.
4. PATHWAYS TO WATER SECURITY
The discussion above demonstrates the risk perspective for framing and measuring water securityto inform investments in risk reduction. Pathways to water security consider the intervention ormix of interventions aimed at reducing the negative consequences of water-related hazards.
4.1. What Are Pathways?
The term pathway has received ample attention in a range of settings, particularly in relation todevelopment and development paths (72, 127). Pathways to water security refer to a sequenceof investments in institutions and infrastructure to reduce water-related risks (128). The mosteffective investment options in any given setting depend heavily on context and path dependency inthe sense that past decisions and investments both open and foreclose alternative future trajectories(129). Here we explore the emerging evidence about pathways to water security in terms ofinstitutional reform and infrastructure, as well as the interaction and sequencing of the two. InSection 5, two well-studied cases illustrate the evolution of pathways to water security in a rural(Murray-Darling, Australia) and an urban (Singapore) setting.
4.2. Institutional Reform
Water security risk reduction requires governance capacity and collective action at multiple levelsto study, plan, finance, and implement measures that reduce vulnerability to water-related hazards.The types of governance arrangements employed can vary considerably across responses to inad-equate water supply and sanitation, climate hazards, and other water-related hazards. AlthoughSachs (117) and others have demonstrated the primacy of geographic determinants of growthand water insecurity, institutions do matter. Institutions are defined in the broadest sense of theterm as human-devised constraints structuring human interaction with one another and with thenatural environment (130).
The elements comprising institutional pathways to water security can be placed into threecategories: good governance generally (e.g., rule of law), water governance (e.g., water policy, lawand administration), and water policy instruments to mitigate and adapt to specific water-relatedrisks (e.g., flood insurance). Many researchers have sought to identify the attributes of institu-tional design associated with sustainability, robustness, and resilience in water management. Nosingle approach, blueprint, or pathway exists to achieve water security, yet a set of broad princi-ples has been identified for common pool water resources, including the need for clearly definedboundaries to determine who has access to the resource, proportionate sharing of costs and ben-efits, monitoring and enforcement of rules to promote trust and investment, conflict resolutionmechanisms, and nested governance arrangements that match well with local conditions (22, 129–132). For example, Pahl-Wostl and colleagues (132) identify 29 attributes associated with watergovernance arrangements that enhance adaptive capacity and water security. Comparing 29 river
www.annualreviews.org • Water Security and Society 627
Ann
u. R
ev. E
nvir
on. R
esou
rc. 2
014.
39:6
11-6
39. D
ownl
oade
d fr
om w
ww
.ann
ualr
evie
ws.
org
by M
cMas
ter
Uni
vers
ity o
n 10
/24/
14. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly.
EG39CH22-GarrickHall ARI 1 October 2014 15:19
basins, the study found that, on one hand, polycentricity (multiple centers of authority, coupledwith strong coordination) is critical to foster local governance capacity and coordination mech-anisms that bridge local and larger jurisdictions; on the other hand, traditional prescriptions forstrong legal frameworks and water planning appear to be “quite futile in countries with limitedstatehood where formal institutions are not effective” (132, p. 33). Therefore, institutional path-ways also refer to the general rule of law in society and the associated transparency, anticorruptionmeasures, fiscal arrangements, and mixture of decentralization and regulation needed to fostereffective governance.
These two types of institutional investments—water specific and general rule-of-law—havebeen combined. For example, in Spain a transparency index for water management examinestransparency across 80 indicators in six thematic areas related to water governance (133). In thisanalysis, transparency is viewed as a lagging measure of institutional development as socioeconomicstatus improves.
Well-defined property rights are a foundation for water security. They stipulate who gets ac-cess to water and how decisions are made (134). By providing security of ownership and signalinginformation about resource use and conditions, property rights have the potential to foster trustand norms of reciprocity and thereby to stimulate further investment to reduce risks. Propertyrights and water apportionment among political jurisdictions (national or subnational) establishthe benefit and cost sharing provisions needed to spur investments in infrastructure. For example,interstate water apportionment agreements enabled the dam building era in the western UnitedStates and southeast Australia (135). However, water security for existing stakeholders (e.g., ir-rigation and hydropower) may come at the expense of emerging stakeholders (e.g., cities or theenvironment). Lock-in is possible when historic commitments create vested interests that resistchange (136). The interaction between and sequencing of water-specific and general governancereforms is worthy of closer scrutiny, as is the interaction between institutions and infrastructure.
4.3. Infrastructure Investment
Traditionally, infrastructure engineering design has focused on projects, i.e., major capital in-vestment decisions. Since the 1980s, increasing emphasis on economic appraisal and specificallycost-benefit analysis has been intended to apply economic rigor to those choices. The role thatany particular investment had in macroeconomic development at the river basin or national scalewas implicit given that benefits were shown to exceed costs at the micro scale. When thinkingabout water security, we recognize the effects that sequences of investments have on cumulativelymodifying water-related risks. Major capital investment decisions can lock in particular pathwaysof development and exclude future options.
As noted above, the notion of pathways deliberately addresses questions of sequencing, lock-in, and cumulative risks. Framing decision problems in terms of risk management pathways hasproven to be particularly attractive in the context of adaptation planning. For example, the Delta-commissie (137) explored the impacts of climate change, including accelerated sea level rise, onthe water management system in the Netherlands, seeking to identify options and thresholds foradaptation. The alternative risk management pathways have been described in detail by Haasnootand colleagues (138, 139), who graphically depict potential sequences of investment decisions inthe Netherlands. In an analysis of options for adapting the Thames Estuary to rising sea level, un-certainty about future climate change was removed from the analysis by designing the adaptationpathways with respect to a climate indicator variable (sea level rise in that case) rather than withrespect to time (140). This scenario-neutral approach has also been adopted in strategic planningfor the infrastructure of the Great Lakes (141).
628 Garrick · Hall
Ann
u. R
ev. E
nvir
on. R
esou
rc. 2
014.
39:6
11-6
39. D
ownl
oade
d fr
om w
ww
.ann
ualr
evie
ws.
org
by M
cMas
ter
Uni
vers
ity o
n 10
/24/
14. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly.
EG39CH22-GarrickHall ARI 1 October 2014 15:19
Almost invariably, appraisal of risks is a multiattribute decision problem. Risk and costs materi-alize and need to be appraised with respect to multiple dimensions. A focus on risk also inevitablyleads to exploration of variability and uncertainty in appraisal decisions. Harvey et al. (142) pro-pose a multilayer decision analysis framework for risk-based appraisal of sequences of investmentdecisions under uncertainty. Their approach involves extensive sampling of natural variability tocompute water-related risks and their change through time. Above this inner simulation layer,sequences of risk management options are formulated as strategies that may be time or systemstate dependent and then played out through a simulation framework. In the outer layer of thedecision analysis framework, sensitivity to major sources of epistemic uncertainty, for example,in climate or demographic change, is explored. The aim of this type of appraisal framework, andthose proposed by Lempert & Groves (69), Brown et al. (141), and Hine & Hall (68), is to identifyinvestment options and pathways that are, as far as possible, robust to severe uncertainties in thesense that they perform acceptably well (i.e., risk is not intolerably high) across a range of possiblefutures.
Thus far, methodologies for risk-based appraisal of robust infrastructure investment pathwayshave been applied in a relatively small number of settings on the boundary between researchand practice. Decision makers are fearful of apparently complex approaches that are conceptuallychallenging and can be computationally expensive to apply. However, in many respects, appraisal ofrisks and pathways under uncertainty represents a fairly modest development of existing appraisalmethodologies (143), as it simply applies a more exhaustive approach to the sensitivity analysis thatis an essential element of robust appraisal in any case. Proper appraisal of risks and uncertaintiesis given limited attention when considering that management of risks has become ubiquitous inthinking about economic development (38, 48). The tools of risk analysis and management arewell established and provide a methodological toolkit for appraising pathways to water security.
5. PATHWAYS TO WATER SECURITY IN RIVER BASINS AND CITIES:TWO EXAMPLES
Using the typologies of water-human systems identified by Grey et al. (33) and Srinivasan et al.(85), we review two well-studied case studies of pathways to water security in contrasting urban(Singapore) and rural (the Murray-Darling River of Australia) settings. For each, we considerthe accumulated evidence about the dominant water-related risks and the type and sequencing ofinstitutional and infrastructure responses.
5.1. Singapore: Long-Term Management of an Existential Risk
Singapore is a highly urbanized city state with an area of 700 km2 and the second highest populationdensity in the world. Although Singapore’s annual rainfall of 2,400 mm is well above the globalaverage of 1,050 mm (144), it is not sufficient to provide water to a population of 5.3 million andan industry sector that consumes 42% of the water supplied (145). Prior to independence in 1965,when it had a much smaller population, Singapore supplied its water through three reservoirsin its own territory and transfer via pipeline from Malaysia. The 1961 transfer agreement withMalaysia expired in 2011, and the 1962 agreement will expire in 2061. Ever since independence,Singapore has felt vulnerable to interruption in its water supply from Malaysia. Veiled threats byMalaysia in the 1960s that it might use water as an instrument of foreign policy (145) have drivena major long-term program in Singapore to reduce dependence on imported water and to retainthe option of complete self-sufficiency. However, Singapore says that it will continue to buy waterfrom Malaysia if it is available at a reasonable price (146).
www.annualreviews.org • Water Security and Society 629
Ann
u. R
ev. E
nvir
on. R
esou
rc. 2
014.
39:6
11-6
39. D
ownl
oade
d fr
om w
ww
.ann
ualr
evie
ws.
org
by M
cMas
ter
Uni
vers
ity o
n 10
/24/
14. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly.
EG39CH22-GarrickHall ARI 1 October 2014 15:19
Thus, Singapore has a water security challenge in the very obvious sense of a threat to nationalsecurity. However, as in all water security settings, trade-offs and uncertainties are associatedwith managing those risks. Water self-sufficiency is technically achievable, but even in a relativelyprosperous state, trade-offs exist with the costs of doing so and with the political acceptabilityof the prices paid by water consumers. Singapore has therefore adopted a long-term strategyfor achieving affordable water security. This has meant developing an integrated portfolio ofapproaches that focuses on the lowest cost options while promoting innovation and retainingflexibility for the future. The starting points are maximizing the use of rainfall on the island andmanaging per capita demand. Runoff from two-thirds of the island’s area is captured, and thePublic Utilities Board hopes to extend this to 90% of the island’s area (144). This work has beenaccompanied by vigorous source protection, for example, by regulating cattle farming near ruralwatercourses and implementing draconian city ordinances to limit contamination in urban ar-eas and from industry (145, 146). Leakage from the supply system averages approximately 4.5%(144), which is exceptionally low for an urban water supply. Meanwhile, per capita demand hasbeen managed through a combination of pricing, water efficiency measures, and public educa-tion. An increasing block tariff structure penalizes excessive domestic use. These policies led toa drop in domestic demand from 176 L/(day · person) in 1994 to 157 L/(day · person) in 2007(144).
The first desalination plant was constructed at Tuas in 2005, and a second, larger plant at Tu-aspring was opened in 2013, but desalination is more costly than water reuse, in which Singaporehas been a pioneer. Water reuse, which is known as NEWater in Singapore, has been controversialworldwide. For example, when Australia’s driest state, Queensland, proposed the addition ofrecycled wastewater to its drinking water supply, the public rejected the idea (147). A relatively cost-effective and sustainable water supply thus suffers from the risk of public unacceptability. Singaporemanaged this risk by developing the technology over a period of decades and progressively raisingpublic awareness. The first experimental reuse plant was closed in 1975 because it proved to be un-economical and unreliable. A new plant was completed in 2000, and water quality was monitoredover a period of two years, when an expert panel approved the water for use in the public supply(146).
Singapore is noteworthy in having taken a long-term and integrated approach to water resourcesmanagement. The strategic direction was set at independence and has been implemented throughsustained investment in water institutions and infrastructure. The Public Utilities Board has overallresponsibility for the water resources system, and use of sustainable water resources has beenembedded in land use legislation and building regulations. The infrastructure system has beendeveloped with staged investments and progressively integrated to enable efficient managementof the resources. The Public Utilities Board has promoted technological (e.g., NEWater anddesalination) and institutional (tariff structures) innovation.
Looking forward, population and industrial growth continue to challenge Singapore’s watersecurity objectives. In the face of uncertainties around population, technology, and relations withMalaysia, Singapore has adopted a diversified approach. Although a least cost approach wouldsuggest an emphasis on surface water and NEWater, Singapore has invested to retain the optionto expand new technologies that may become more cost-effective in the future. One example isdesalination by freezing using liquefied natural gas regasification as a heat sink (148). Zhang &Babovic (149) used real options analysis to compute the option value of investing in this newtechnology, which may prove to be highly beneficial in some, but not all, future scenarios.
Singapore has addressed the existential risk of water dependence on its neighbor while man-aging public concerns about affordability and use of recycled water for human consumption. This
630 Garrick · Hall
Ann
u. R
ev. E
nvir
on. R
esou
rc. 2
014.
39:6
11-6
39. D
ownl
oade
d fr
om w
ww
.ann
ualr
evie
ws.
org
by M
cMas
ter
Uni
vers
ity o
n 10
/24/
14. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly.
EG39CH22-GarrickHall ARI 1 October 2014 15:19
has involved a long-term and highly strategic approach that couples investment in institutionsand infrastructure. Facing a future that is uncertain in significant respects, the strategic approachhas become more sophisticated in its analysis of uncertainties and options for managing futurerisks.
5.2. Murray-Darling: Water Security for Irrigation and Ecosystems
The Murray-Darling Basin of Southeast Australia contains three of Australia’s longest rivers—theMurray, Darling, and Murrumbidgee—which drain more than 1 million km2 or one-seventh ofAustralia’s landmass. The basin receives 457 mm of rainfall annually and is distinguished by itsclimatic variability and exposure to extremes, namely, flooding and prolonged droughts (124, 125).In the 240 years since European settlement, 80 of those years have been classified as droughts (126).Multiyear droughts have occurred at key periods in Australia’s political and economic develop-ment, including the Settlement Drought (1790–1793), Federation Drought (1895–1903), WorldWar II drought (1935–1945) and the Big Dry or Millennium Drought (1997–2009). Flooding hasalso been a defining challenge in the region, as exemplified by the Queensland flooding in 2011that led to a 0.3% downgrade in GDP growth for Australia, an estimated $1.6 billion in lost cropproduction, and $10 billion in reconstruction costs (150).
The Murray-Darling Basin has supported an aboriginal population for at least 50,000 years.Irrigation development has been a major focus of regional development, particularly since the latenineteenth century. Water storage reservoirs were built along the Murray in the mid-twentiethcentury to increase water security for agriculture; this was part of a larger attempt to drought-proofthe basin that also included the completion of Hume dam in the 1930s and the Snowy Mountaininterbasin diversion scheme active in the 1950s to 1970s (127). These investments in infrastruc-ture followed a series of agreements dating from the colonial period among the three main states(Victoria, New South Wales, and South Australia) on the River Murray and the Commonwealthgovernment. The institutional architecture was built on the 1914–1915 River Murray WatersAgreement of the state and Commonwealth governments to share the construction, financing,and management of reservoirs. This agreement was innovative because it allocated water propor-tionally among the upstream states to share the risks of climate variability while providing fixeddeliveries to downstream South Australia (127).
The Murray-Darling Basin supports approximately $15 billion in agricultural production an-nually ($5.5 billion of that in irrigated agriculture) and 65% of Australia’s irrigated agriculture(72). Investments in infrastructure facilitated the expansion of irrigation acreage, reducing annualaverage outflows from the Basin at its terminus—the Murray Mouth—from 12.23 to 4.7 billion m3
(72). Efforts to drought-proof the basin were therefore partially successful, as evidenced by theimpacts of the Millennium Drought. Storage infrastructure and water markets enabled increasesin the productivity of water and allocative efficiency (the allocation of water to its highest valuedeconomic use). Despite a 70% decrease in the water available for irrigation in the 2008–2009water year compared with the baseline of the 2000–2001 water year, the gross value of irrigatedagriculture declined by less than 20% (128).
Water security for irrigation has come at a cost. By the late 1970s, irrigation expansion anddryland farming had contributed to salinity problems, which triggered efforts to limit additionalwater diversions (129). By a 2010 assessment of environmental water requirements, 20 of the 23river valleys of the basin were in poor condition, revealing the trade-offs between water securityfor the environment and for irrigation (151). Sustaining water security has involved ongoingreform to institutions and additional investments in infrastructure. The 1992 Murray-Darling
www.annualreviews.org • Water Security and Society 631
Ann
u. R
ev. E
nvir
on. R
esou
rc. 2
014.
39:6
11-6
39. D
ownl
oade
d fr
om w
ww
.ann
ualr
evie
ws.
org
by M
cMas
ter
Uni
vers
ity o
n 10
/24/
14. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly.
EG39CH22-GarrickHall ARI 1 October 2014 15:19
Basin Agreement inaugurated a 20-year reform package to establish diversion limits, enable watertrading, and transition to sustainable levels of extraction. The 2007 Water Act and ensuing basin-wide plan adopted in 2012 are the latest milestones in this pathway to water security, althoughprogress has been contested in efforts to balance water security for irrigation and the environment(152). The Act established the Murray-Darling Basin Authority as a new federal authority to defineenvironmental water requirements and adopt sustainable diversion limits, leading to a commitmentto return 2.75 billion m3 from irrigation to the environment. The blueprint for the Act was theNational Action Plan for Water Security, which led to a AUD$12.9 billion recovery package, theWater for the Future Program in 2008. The recovery package enhanced water security through amix of institutional reforms, infrastructure investments, and information systems, namely, a waterentitlement buyback scheme (AUD$3.1 billion), irrigation infrastructure efficiency enhancements(AUD$5.9 billion), and a national water market system, respectively.
Global onlookers confronting similar threats from climate hazards and water scarcity are closelyscrutinizing the lessons from Australia’s pathway to water security. Pittock (153) argues that theMurray-Darling Basin is an important test case globally; this experience has demonstrated theimportance of adequate environmental water allocations, iterative planning mechanisms, pro-portional water allocations, and careful design of new environmental works and measures (i.e.,infrastructure). The Murray-Darling Basin has also been compared with other mid-latitude con-tinental river basins (Colorado, Orange, Yellow) to highlight the need to: (a) harness crises,(b) analyze trade-offs between consumptive and environmental water uses, (c) share climate risksbetween water users and the environment, (d ) use water markets to reduce the costs of adaptingwater allocations (and potentially avoid costly new infrastructure), and (e) build nested governancearrangements to coordinate trade-offs (154). A long-term commitment and coordinated approachto institutional reform and infrastructure investment remain necessary to make trade-offs betweenwater security for irrigation and the environment.
6. CONCLUDING REMARKS
Attention to water security has arguably never been greater, although the dominant threats towater security vary geographically and over time. Risk concepts have been used to define andanalyze water security more rigorously and systematically across disciplines and across research-practice networks, particularly since the 2000 UN Ministerial Declaration of The Hague on WaterSecurity in the 21st Century identified risk management among its central principles. However,only in the past decade has risk been used explicitly to measure and explain water security andinform management responses. Indicators of water stress and water vulnerability have the poten-tial to elucidate the status and drivers of water insecurity and its relationship with developmentand human well-being. Conceptual and methodological challenges remain. Composite indicatorscombine social and natural dimensions of hazards and vulnerability, which underpin efforts todiagnose the nature and sources of water insecurity and how these vary. A better understandingof the drivers and status of water security is the foundation for informed decisions about pol-icy reform and infrastructure investments to reduce vulnerability. The experiences of Singaporeand the Murray-Darling Basin illustrate contrasting pathways of institutional reform and invest-ment to achieve and sustain water security and to manage residual risks and trade-offs. Recentefforts to improve methodologies for comparative water studies (155) and to undertake diagnosticstudies of water security risks and responses hold promise and highlight a key future priority forresearch.
632 Garrick · Hall
Ann
u. R
ev. E
nvir
on. R
esou
rc. 2
014.
39:6
11-6
39. D
ownl
oade
d fr
om w
ww
.ann
ualr
evie
ws.
org
by M
cMas
ter
Uni
vers
ity o
n 10
/24/
14. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly.
EG39CH22-GarrickHall ARI 1 October 2014 15:19
SUMMARY POINTS
1. Water insecurity poses a major challenge for science and society in the twenty-firstcentury across multiple dimensions, from drinking water and food to climate extremesand geopolitical instability of transboundary waters.
2. Across these dimensions, water security has become closely associated with risks drivenby chronic hazards (inadequate water supply and sanitation) and climate extremes (water-related disasters).
3. Water-related hazards and vulnerability have influenced development paths, althoughour understanding of the causal mechanisms and feedbacks connecting water securityand development remains patchy and highly context specific.
4. Risk concepts provide a lexicon and analytical toolbox to measure water security and toinform trade-offs about water-related risks and their distribution.
5. The social construction and perceptions of risk affect the tolerability of risks and thewillingness to undertake investments in institutional reform and infrastructure to reducevulnerability.
6. Metrics of water-related risks have proliferated and underpin the development of multi-dimensional water security indicators that pay varying attention to complex social andnatural attributes of hazards, exposure, and vulnerability.
7. The dominant threats to water security vary geographically and over time. The quantityof investment in infrastructure and institutions that is required to achieve water securitydepends on the exposure to water-related risks and the stock of preexisting investments.
8. Pathways to water security are conceived as a context-sensitive sequence of investmentsin institutions and infrastructure to reduce water-related risks and yield benefits for theeconomy and the environment.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The authors are not aware of any affiliations, memberships, funding, or financial holdings thatmight be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This review was supported by the Oxford Martin Program on Resource Stewardship and thePhilomathia Water Project at McMaster University. Reviewer comments greatly enriched themanuscript.
LITERATURE CITED
1. Organ. Econ. Coop. Dev. 2012. OECD Environmental Outlook to 2050. Paris: OECD Publ.2. Vorosmarty CJ, McIntyre PB, Gessner MO, Dudgeon D, Prusevich A, et al. 2010. Global threats to
human water security and river biodiversity. Nature 467:555–613. Bradley DJ, Bartram JK. 2013. Domestic water and sanitation as water security: monitoring, concepts
and strategy. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A 371:20120420
www.annualreviews.org • Water Security and Society 633
Ann
u. R
ev. E
nvir
on. R
esou
rc. 2
014.
39:6
11-6
39. D
ownl
oade
d fr
om w
ww
.ann
ualr
evie
ws.
org
by M
cMas
ter
Uni
vers
ity o
n 10
/24/
14. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly.
EG39CH22-GarrickHall ARI 1 October 2014 15:19
4. Hope R, Rouse M. 2013. Risks and responses to universal drinking water security. Philos. Trans. R. Soc.A 371:20120417
5. World Health Organ., UNICEF. 2014. Progress on Drinking Water and Sanitation: 2014 Update.Geneva/New York: WHO Press
6. Hutton G, Rodriguez UE, Napitupulu L, Thang P, Kov P. 2008. Economic Impacts of Sanitation in SoutheastAsia. Washington, DC: World Bank, Water and Sanitation Prog. http://www.wsp.org/sites/wsp.org/files/publications/Sanitation_Impact_Synthesis_2.pdf
7. Organ. Econ. Coop. Dev. 2013. Water Security for Better Lives. Paris: OECD Publ.8. Rosegrant MW, Ringler C, Zhu T. 2009. Water for agriculture: maintaining food security under growing
scarcity. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 34:205–229. Falkenmark M. 2012. Food security: overcoming water scarcity realities. In Feeding a Thirsty World:
Challenges and Opportunities for a Water and Food Secure Future, Report 31, ed. A Jagerskog, T. JønchClausen, pp. 13–18. Stockholm: Stockholm Int. Water Inst.
10. Falkenmark M. 2013. Growing water scarcity in agriculture: future challenge to global water security.Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A 371:20120410
11. UN, Dep. Econ. Soc. Aff., Popul. Div. 2014. World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision, Highlights(ST/ESA/SER.A/352). Washington, DC: United Nations. http://esa.un.org/unpd/wup/Highlights/WUP2014-Highlights.pdf
12. UN Educ. Sci. Cult. Organ. 2012. Managing Water Under Uncertainty and Risk. Paris: UNESCO13. Brown C, Meeks R, Ghile Y, Hunu K. 2013. Is water security necessary? An empirical analysis of the
effects of climate hazards on national-level economic growth. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A 371:2012041614. Schewe J, Heinke J, Gerten D, Haddeland I, Arnell NW, et al. 2014. Multimodel assessment of water
scarcity under climate change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 111:3245–5015. Gleick PH. 1993. Water and conflict: fresh water resources and international security. Int. Secur. 18:79–
11216. Def. Intell. Agency. 2012. Global Water Security: Intelligence Community Assessment. Washington, DC:
Off. Dir. Natl. Intell.17. De Stefano L, Duncan J, Dinar S, Stahl K, Strzepek KM, Wolf AT. 2012. Climate change and the
institutional resilience of international river basins. J. Peace Res. 49:193–20918. Dobbs R, Pohl H, Lin D-Y, Mischke J, Garemo N, et al. 2013. Infrastructure Productivity: How to Save
$1 Trillion a Year. Seoul/San Francisco/London: McKinsey Glob. Inst.19. UN Univ. Inst. Water Environ. Health., UN Off. Sustain. Dev. 2013. Catalyzing Water for Sustainable
Development and Growth: Framing Water Within the Post 2015 Development Agenda: Options and Consider-ations. Hamilton, Can./Incheon, S. Korea/Stockholm: UN Univ. Inst. Water Environ. Health/UN Off.Sustain. Dev./Stockholm Environ. Inst.
20. Bakker K. 2012. Water security: research challenges and opportunities. Science 337:914–1521. Hall J, Borgomeo E. 2013. Risk-based principles for defining and managing water security. Phil. Trans.
R. Soc. A 371:2012040722. Pahl-Wostl C, Palmer M, Richards K. 2013. Enhancing water security for the benefits of humans and
nature—the role of governance. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 5:676–8423. de Loe RC, Varghese J, Ferreyra C, Kreutzwiser RD. 2007. Water Allocation and Water Security in Canada:
Initiating a Policy Dialogue for the 21st Century. Guelph, ON: Guelph Water Manag. Group24. Cook C, Bakker K. 2012. Water security: debating an emerging paradigm. Glob. Environ. Change 22:94–
10225. United Nations. 2000. Ministerial Declaration of The Hague on Water Security in the 21st Century. The
Hague, Neth.: United Nations26. Glob. Water Partnersh. 2000. Towards water security: a framework for action. Rep. 91-630-9202-6, Glob.
Water Partnersh., Stockholm27. Grey D, Sadoff CW. 2007. Sink or swim? Water security for growth and development. Water Policy
9:545–7128. Grey D, Sadoff CW. 2006. Water for Growth and Development: A Theme Document of the 4th World Water
29. Brown C, Lall U. 2006. Water and economic development: the role of variability and a framework forresilience. Nat. Resour. Forum 30:306–17
30. Briscoe J. 2009. Water security: why it matters and what to do about it. Innov. Technol. Gov. Glob. 4:3–2831. UN Water. 2013. Water Security and the Global Water Agenda: A UN-Water Analytical Brief. Hamilton,
ON: UN Univ. Inst. Water Environ. Health32. Molle F. 2008. Nirvana concepts, narratives and policy models: insights from the water sector. Water
Altern. 1:131–5633. Grey D, Garrick D, Blackmore D, Kelman J, Muller M, Sadoff C. 2013. Water security in one blue
planet: twenty-first century policy challenges for science. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A 371:2012040634. World Health Organ. 2011 Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality. Geneva: WHO. 4th ed.35. Hall JW, Brown S, Nicholls RJ, Pidgeon NF, Watson RT. 2012. Proportionate adaptation. Nat. Clim.
Change 2:833–3436. Slovic P. 1987. Perception of risk. Science 236:280–8537. Intergov. Panel Clim. Change. 2012. Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance
Climate Change Adaptation. A Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. New York:Cambridge Univ. Press
38. World Bank. 2013. World Development Report 2014. Risk and Opportunity: Managing Risk for Development.Washington, DC: World Bank
39. Wheater H, Gober P. 2013. Water security in the Canadian Prairies: science and management challenges.Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A 371:20120409
40. Sadoff C, Harshadeep NR, Blackmore D, Wu X, O’Donnell A, et al. 2013. Ten fundamental questionsfor water resources development in the Ganges: myths and realities. Water Policy 15:147–64
41. Bogardi JJ, Dudgeon D, Lawford R, Flinkerbusch E, Meyn A, et al. 2012. Water security for a planetunder pressure: interconnected challenges of a changing world call for sustainable solutions. Curr. Opin.Environ. Sustain. 4:35–43
42. Hope R, Hansen K, Mutembwa M, Schlessinger S. 2012. Water Security, Risk and Society—Key Issues andResearch Priorities for International Development. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Water Secur. Netw.
43. Glob. Water Syst. Project. 2013. Bonn Declaration on Global Water Security. Bonn: Glob. Water Syst.Proj.
44. Morrison J, Schulte P, Greenwood R, Willis R, Hoenig M, et al. 2012. Guide to Water-Related CollectiveAction. New York: UN Glob. Compact CEO Water Mandate
45. Mason N, Calow R. 2012. Water security: from abstract concept to meaningful metrics. Work. Pap. 357,Overseas Dev. Inst., London
46. Aon Benfield. 2012. 2011 Thailand Floods Event Recap Report: Impact Forecasting. London: Impact Forecast47. World Econ. Forum. 2012. Global Risks 2012. Geneva: World Econ. Forum. 7th ed.48. World Econ. Forum. 2013. Global Risks 2013. Geneva: World Econ. Forum. 8th ed.49. World Econ. Forum. 2014. Global Risks 2014. Geneva: World Econ. Forum. 9th ed.50. Carbon Discl. Proj. 2013. Moving Beyond Business as Usual: A Need for Step Change in Water Risk Man-
agement. 2013 Global Water Report. London: Carbon Discl. Proj.51. Grey D, Sadoff C. 2005. Water Resources, Growth and Development. A Working Paper for Dis-
cussion. Washington, DC: World Bank. http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/csd/csd13/documents/worldbank_paper.pdf
52. Simon HA. 1965. The Shape of Automation for Men and Management. New York: Harper and Row53. Hashimoto T, Stedinger J, Loucks DP. 1982. Reliability, resiliency and vulnerability criteria for water
resource system performance evaluation. Water Resour. Res. 18:14–2054. Bathke WL, Freund RJ, Conner JR. 1970. The development of a model to evaluate hydrologic risk in
water resource system design. JAWRA J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 6(4):476–8255. Natl. Res. Counc. 2000. Risk Analysis and Uncertainty in Flood Damage Reduction Studies. Washington,
DC: Natl. Acad. Press56. Rougier J, Sparks S, Hill LJ. 2013. Risk and Uncertainty Assessment for Natural Hazards. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge Univ. Press57. Woo G. 1999. The Mathematics of Natural Catastrophes. London: Imperial College
www.annualreviews.org • Water Security and Society 635
and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change, ed. ML Parry, OF Canziani, JP Palutikof, PJ van der Linden, CE Hanson,pp. 23–78. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
60. Schroter D, Acosta-Michlik L, Arnell AW, Araujo MB, Badeck F, et al. 2004. ATEAM Final Report 2004:Detailed Report Related to Overall Project Duration. Potsdam, Ger.: Potsdam Inst. Clim. Impact Res.
61. Keeney RL, Wood EF. 1977. Illustrative example of use of multiattribute utility theory for water resourceplanning. Water Resour. Res. 13:705–12
62. Glob. Water Partnersh. 2000. Integrated water resources management. TAC Backgr. Pap. 4, Glob. WaterPartnersh., Stockholm
63. Biswas AK. 2004. Integrated water resources management: a reassessment. A water forum contribution.Water Int. 29:248–56
64. Muller M. 2010. Fit for purpose: taking integrated water resource management back to basics. Irrig.Drain. Syst. 24:161–75
65. Hallegatte S, Green C, Nicholls RJ, Corfee-Morlot J. 2013. Future flood losses in major coastal cities.Nat. Clim. Change 3:802–6
66. Lindley DV. 1990. Making Decisions. London: Wiley67. Milly PCD, Betancourt J, Falkenmark M, Hirsch RM, Kundzewicz ZW, et al. 2008. Stationarity is dead:
whither water management? Science 319:573–7468. Hine D, Hall JW. 2010. Information gap analysis of flood model uncertainties and regional frequency
analysis. Water Resour. Res. 46:W0151469. Lempert RJ, Groves DG. 2010. Identifying and evaluating robust adaptive policy responses to climate
change for water management agencies in the American west. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 77:960–7470. Brown C, Ghile Y, Laverty M, Li K. 2012. Decision scaling: linking bottom-up vulnerability analysis
with climate projections in the water sector. Water Resour. Res. 48:W0953771. Ben-Haim Y. 2006. Info-Gap Decision Theory: Decisions Under Severe Uncertainty. London: Academic72. Afr. Minist. Counc. Water, Glob. Water Partnersh. 2012. Water Security and Climate Resilient Develop-
ment: Technical Background Document. Abuja, Niger.: Afr. Minist. Counc. Water73. Brown A, Matlock MD. 2011. A review of water scarcity indices and methodologies. White Pap. 106, Sustain.
Consort., Univ. Ark., Fayetteville74. Plummer R, de Loe R, Armitage D. 2012. A systematic review of water vulnerability assessment tools.
Water Resour. Manag. 26:4327–4675. Organ. Econ. Coop. Dev. 2009. Governing Regional Development Policy: The Use of Performance Indicators.
Paris: OECD Publ.76. Asian Dev. Bank. 2013. Asian Water Development Outlook 2013: Measuring Water Security in Asia and the
Pacific. Mandaluyong City, Philipp.: Asian Dev. Bank77. Lautze J, Manthrithilake H. 2012. Water security: Old concepts, new package, what value? Nat. Resour.
Forum 36:76–8778. Falkenmark M. 1989. The massive water scarcity now threatening Africa: Why isn’t it being addressed?
Ambio 18:112–1879. Falkenmark M, Lundqvist J, Widstrand C. 1989. Macro-scale water scarcity requires micro-scale ap-
proaches. Nat. Resour. Forum 13:258–6780. Gleick PH. 1996. Basic water requirements for human activities: meeting basic needs. Water Int. 21:83–9281. Allan JA. 2010. Prioritizing the processes beyond the water sector that will secure water for society—
farmers, fair international trade and food consumption and waste. In Re-Thinking Water and Food Security,ed. L Martinez-Cortina, A Garrido, E Lopez-Gunn, pp. 93–106. Leyden, Neth.: CRC Press
82. Howard G, Bartram J. 2003. Domestic Water Quantity, Service Level and Health. Geneva: WHO Press83. Easterly W. 2009. How the millennium development goals are unfair to Africa. World Dev. 37:26–3584. Millenn. Ecosyst. Assess. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Wetlands and Water. Synthesis.
Washington, DC: World Resour. Inst.
636 Garrick · Hall
Ann
u. R
ev. E
nvir
on. R
esou
rc. 2
014.
39:6
11-6
39. D
ownl
oade
d fr
om w
ww
.ann
ualr
evie
ws.
org
by M
cMas
ter
Uni
vers
ity o
n 10
/24/
14. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly.
EG39CH22-GarrickHall ARI 1 October 2014 15:19
85. Srinivasan V, Lambin EF, Gorelick SM, Thompson BH, Rozelle S. 2012. The nature and causes of theglobal water crisis: syndromes from a meta-analysis of coupled human-water studies. Water Resour. Res.48:W10516
86. Zeitoun M. 2011. The global web of national water security. Global Policy 2:286–9687. Vorosmarty CJ, Green P, Salisbury J, Lammers RB. 2000. Global water resources: vulnerability from
climate change and population growth. Science 289:284–8888. Seckler D, Amarasinghe U, Molden D, de Silva R, Barker R. 1998. World water demand and supply, 1990
to 2025: scenarios and issues. Res. Rep. 19, Int. Water Manag. Inst., Colombo, Sri Lanka89. Vorosmarty CJ, Bravo de Guenni L, Wollheim WM, Pellerin B, Bjerklie D, et al. 2013. Extreme
rainfall, vulnerability and risk: a continental-scale assessment for South America. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A371:20120408
90. Gassert F, Reig P, Luo T, Maddocks A. 2013. Aqueduct country and river basin rankings: a weightedaggregation of spatially distinct hydrological indicators. Work Pap., World Resour. Inst., Washington, DC
91. UN Environ. Program.-DHI. 2011. Methodology for the GEF Transboundary Waters Assessment Programme,Vol. 4: Methodology for the Assessment of Transboundary River Basins. Kenya: UN Environ. Program.
92. De Stefano L, Duncan J, Dinar S, Stahl K, Strzepek K, Wolf A. 2010. Mapping the resilience of internationalriver basins to future climate change-induced water variability. Water Sector Board Discuss. Pap. 15, WorldBank, Washington, DC
93. Molle F, Mollinga P. 2003. Water poverty indicators: conceptual problems and policy issues. WaterPolicy 5:529–44
94. Hallegatte S, Green C, Nicholls RJ, Corfee-Morlot J. 2013. Future flood losses in major coastal cities.Nat. Clim. Change 3:802–6
95. Hanasaki N, Kanae S, Oki T, Masuda K, Motoya K, et al. 2008. An integrated model for the assessmentof global water resources. Part 1: model description and input meteorological forcing. Hydrol. Earth Syst.Sci. 12:1007–25
96. World Bank. 2010. The Cost to Developing Countries of Adapting to Climate Change. Washington, DC:World Bank
97. Mullan M, Kingsmill N, Kramer AM, Agrawala S. 2013. National adaptation planning: lessons from OECDcountries. OECD Environ. Work. Pap. 54, Organ. Econ. Coop. Dev., Paris
98. Organ. Econ. Coop. Dev. 2011. Meeting the Water Reform Challenge. Paris: OECD Publ.99. Araral E, Yu DJ. 2013. Comparative water law, policies, and administration in Asia: evidence from 17
countries. Water Resour. Res. 49:5307–16100. Saleth RM, Dinar A. 2004. The Institutional Economics of Water: A Cross-Country Analysis of Institutions and
Performance. Cheltenham, UK/Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar101. Wolf AT. 2007. Shared waters: conflict and cooperation. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 32:241–69102. Wolf AT, Yoffe SB, Giordano M. 2003. International waters: identifying basins at risk. Water Policy
5:29–60103. Schulze S, Schmeier S. 2012. Governing environmental change in international river basins: the role of
river basin organizations. Int. J. River Basin Manag. 10:229–44104. Schmeier S. 2013. Governing International Watercourses. The Contribution of River Basin Organizations to
the Effective Governance of Internationally Shared Rivers and Lakes. London: Routledge105. Intergov. Panel Clim. Change. 2012. Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate
Change Adaptation. Cambridge, UK/New York, NY: Cambridge Univ. Press106. Cummins JD, Mahul O. 2009. Catastrophe Risk Financing in Developing Countries: Principles for Public
Intervention. Washington, DC: World Bank107. Whittington D, Hanemann WM, Sadoff C, Jeuland M. 2008. The challenge of water and sanitation. Chal-
108. Pattanayak SK, Yang J-C, Whittington D, Bal Kumar KC. 2005. Coping with unreliable public watersupplies: averting expenditures by households in Kathmandu, Nepal. Water Resour. Res. 41:W02012
109. Whittington D, Hanemann WM, Sadoff C, Jeuland M. 2009. The challenge of improving water andsanitation services in less developed countries. Found. Trends Microecon. 4:469–609
www.annualreviews.org • Water Security and Society 637
110. Whittington D. 2010. What have we learned from 20 years of stated preference research in less-developedcountries? Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 2:209–36
111. Bartram J, Cairncross S. 2010. Hygiene, sanitation, and water: forgotten foundations of health. PLOSMed. 7:e1000367
112. Pruss-Ustun A, Bos R, Gore F, Bartram J. 2008. Safer Water, Better Health: Costs, Benefits and Sustainabilityof Interventions to Protect and Promote Health. Geneva: World Health Organ.
113. Haller L, Hutton G, Bartram J. 2007. Estimating the costs and health benefits of water and sanitationimprovements at global level. J. Water Health 5:467–80
114. World Bank. 2006. Ethiopia: Managing Water Resources to Maximize Sustainable Growth: A Country WaterResources Assistance Strategy for Ethiopia. Washington, DC: World Bank
115. Briscoe J. 2011. Making reform happen in water policy: reflections from a practitioner. Presented at OECDGlob. Forum Environ. Mak. Water Reform Happen, Oct. 25–26, Paris
116. Sachs JD. 2003. Institutions don’t rule: direct effects of geography on per capita income. NBER Work. Pap. 9490,Natl. Bur. Econ. Res., Cambridge, MA
117. Sachs JD. 2003. Institutions matter, but not for everything. Finance Dev. 40:38–41118. Rodrik D, Subramanian A, Trebbi F. 2004. Institutions rule: the primacy of institutions over geography
and integration in economic development. J. Econ. Growth 9:131–65119. Brown C, Meeks R, Hunu K, Yu W. 2011. Hydroclimate risk to economic growth in sub-Saharan Africa.
applying the water-associated disease index to dengue in Malaysia. PLOS ONE 8:e63584121. Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson NM, Eckley N, et al. 2003. Knowledge systems for sustainable
development. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100:8086–91122. Lorenz C, Kunstmann H. 2012. The hydrological cycle in three state-of-the-art reanalyses: intercom-
parison and performance analysis. J. Hydrometeorol. 13:1397–420123. Ferris E, Petz D, Stark C. 2013. The year of recurring disasters: a review of natural disasters in 2012. Rep.,
Brookings Inst.–Lond. Sch. Econ. Proj. Intern. Displac., Washington, DC124. Kallis G. 2008. Droughts. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 33:85–118125. Overpeck JT. 2013. Climate science: the challenge of hot drought. Nature 503:350–51126. Cook BI, Smerdon JE, Seager R, Cook ER. 2013. Pan-continental droughts in North America over the
last millennium. J. Clim. 27:383–97127. Whittington D, Sadoff C, Allaire M. The economic value of moving toward a more water secure world. TEC
Backgr. Pap. 18, Glob. Water Partnersh., Stockholm128. Briscoe J, Malik RPS. 2006. India’s Water Economy. New Delhi: Oxford Univ. Press129. Meinzen-Dick R. 2007. Beyond panaceas in water institutions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104:15200–5130. Ostrom E. 2005. Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press131. Bakker K, Morinville C. 2013. The governance dimensions of water security: a review. Philos. Trans. R.
Soc. A 371:20130116132. Pahl-Wostl C, Lebel L, Knieper C, Nikitina E. 2012. From applying panaceas to mastering complexity:
toward adaptive water governance in river basins. Environ. Sci. Policy 23:24–34133. De Stefano L, Hernandez-Mora N, Lopez-Gunn E, Willaarts B, Zorrilla-Mires P. 2012. Public partic-
ipation and transparency in water management. In Water, Agriculture and the Environment in Spain: CanWe Square the Circle?, ed. L De Stefano, MR Llamas, pp. 217–225. London: Taylor and Francis
134. Schlager E, Ostrom E. 1992. Property-rights regimes and natural resources: a conceptual analysis. LandEcon. 68:249–62
135. Garrick D, De Stefano L, Fung F, Pittock J, Schlager E, et al. 2013. Managing hydroclimatic risks infederal rivers: a diagnostic assessment. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A 371:20120415
136. Heinmiller T. 2009. Path dependency and collective action in common pool governance. Int. J. Commons3:131–47
137. Deltacommissie. 2008. Working together with water: a living land builds for its future. Rep., Deltacommissie,Den Haag, Neth.
138. Haasnoot M, Middelkoop H, Offermans A, van Beek E, van Deursen WPA. 2012. Exploring pathwaysfor sustainable water management in river deltas in a changing environment. Clim. Change 115:795–819
638 Garrick · Hall
Ann
u. R
ev. E
nvir
on. R
esou
rc. 2
014.
39:6
11-6
39. D
ownl
oade
d fr
om w
ww
.ann
ualr
evie
ws.
org
by M
cMas
ter
Uni
vers
ity o
n 10
/24/
14. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly.
EG39CH22-GarrickHall ARI 1 October 2014 15:19
139. Haasnoot M, Kwakkel JH, Walker WE, ter Maat J. 2013. Dynamic adaptive policy pathways: a methodfor crafting robust decisions for a deeply uncertain world. Glob. Environ. Change 23:485–98
140. Lavery S, Donovan B. 2005. Flood risk management in the Thames Estuary looking ahead 100 years.Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A 363:1455–74
141. Brown C, Werick W, Leger W, Fay D. 2011. A decision-analytic approach to managing climate risks:application to the Upper Great Lakes. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 47:524–34
142. Harvey H, Hall JW, Peppe R. 2012. Computational decision analysis for flood risk management in anuncertain future. Hydroinformatics 14:537–61
143. Hallegatte S, Shah A, Lempert R, Brown C, Gill S. 2012. Investment decision making under deep uncertainty:application to climate change. Policy Res. Work. Pap. 6193, World Bank, Washington, DC
144. Chen DC, Maksimovic C, Voulvoulis N. 2011. Institutional capacity and policy options for integratedurban water management: a Singapore case study. Water Policy 13:53–68
145. Luan IOB. 2010. Singapore water management policies and practices. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 26:65–80146. Tortajada C. 2006. Water management in Singapore. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 22:227–40147. Frew W, Marriner C. 2007. Recycled water rejected out of fear, say critics. Sydney Morning Herald, Jan.
30148. Shaik SM, Ooi TO, Simo PO. 2006. Potential for seawater desalination in Singapore using LNG re-
gasification as a heat sink. Proc. UltraPure Water Asia Conf., Singapore149. Zhang SX, Babovic V. 2012. A real options approach to the design and architecture of water supply
systems using innovative water technologies under uncertainty. J. Hydroinform. 14:13–29150. IBISWorld. 2011. Queensland floods: the economic impact. Spec. Rep., IBISWorld, Melbourne, Aust.
https://www.nci.com.au/NCINet/Secure/Resources/Pdf/QLD_floods_special_report.pdf151. Murray-Darling Basin Auth. 2010. Guide to the Proposed Basin Plan, Vol. 1. Canberra, Aust.: Murray-
Darling Basin Auth.152. Turral H, Connell D, McKay J. 2009. Much ado about the Murray: the drama of restraining water use.
In River Basin Trajectories: Societies, Environments and Development, ed. F Molle, P Wester, pp. 263–88.Wallingford, UK: CAB Int.
153. Pittock J. 2013. Lessons from adaptation to sustain freshwater environments in the Murray-DarlingBasin, Australia. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 4:429–38
154. Grafton RQ, Pittock J, Davis R, Williams J, Fu G, et al. 2012. Global insights into water resources,climate change and governance. Nat. Clim. Change 3:315–21
155. Gondhalekar D, Mollinga PP, Saravanan V. 2013. Towards systematic comparative water and healthresearch. Water Int. 38:967–76
156. Scott CA, Meza FJ, Varady RG, Tiessen H, McEvoy J, et al. 2013. Water security and adaptive man-agement in the arid Americas. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 103:280–89
157. Hall J, Borgomeo E. 2013. Risk-based principles for defining and managing water security. Philos. Trans.R. Soc. A 371:20120407
158. Litovsky A. 2014. Earth Security Index 2014: A Dashboard for the Transition to a Resource Secure Future.London: Earth Secur. Initiat.
www.annualreviews.org • Water Security and Society 639
Annual Review of Statistics and Its ApplicationVolume 1 • Online January 2014 • http://statistics.annualreviews.org
Editor: Stephen E. Fienberg, Carnegie Mellon UniversityAssociate Editors: Nancy Reid, University of Toronto
Stephen M. Stigler, University of ChicagoThe Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application aims to inform statisticians and quantitative methodologists, as well as all scientists and users of statistics about major methodological advances and the computational tools that allow for their implementation. It will include developments in the field of statistics, including theoretical statistical underpinnings of new methodology, as well as developments in specific application domains such as biostatistics and bioinformatics, economics, machine learning, psychology, sociology, and aspects of the physical sciences.
Complimentary online access to the first volume will be available until January 2015. table of contents:•What Is Statistics? Stephen E. Fienberg•A Systematic Statistical Approach to Evaluating Evidence
from Observational Studies, David Madigan, Paul E. Stang, Jesse A. Berlin, Martijn Schuemie, J. Marc Overhage, Marc A. Suchard, Bill Dumouchel, Abraham G. Hartzema, Patrick B. Ryan
•The Role of Statistics in the Discovery of a Higgs Boson, David A. van Dyk
•Brain Imaging Analysis, F. DuBois Bowman•Statistics and Climate, Peter Guttorp•Climate Simulators and Climate Projections,
Jonathan Rougier, Michael Goldstein•Probabilistic Forecasting, Tilmann Gneiting,
Matthias Katzfuss•Bayesian Computational Tools, Christian P. Robert•Bayesian Computation Via Markov Chain Monte Carlo,
Radu V. Craiu, Jeffrey S. Rosenthal•Build, Compute, Critique, Repeat: Data Analysis with Latent
Variable Models, David M. Blei•Structured Regularizers for High-Dimensional Problems:
Statistical and Computational Issues, Martin J. Wainwright
•High-Dimensional Statistics with a View Toward Applications in Biology, Peter Bühlmann, Markus Kalisch, Lukas Meier
•Next-Generation Statistical Genetics: Modeling, Penalization, and Optimization in High-Dimensional Data, Kenneth Lange, Jeanette C. Papp, Janet S. Sinsheimer, Eric M. Sobel
•Breaking Bad: Two Decades of Life-Course Data Analysis in Criminology, Developmental Psychology, and Beyond, Elena A. Erosheva, Ross L. Matsueda, Donatello Telesca
•Event History Analysis, Niels Keiding•StatisticalEvaluationofForensicDNAProfileEvidence,
Christopher D. Steele, David J. Balding•Using League Table Rankings in Public Policy Formation:
Statistical Issues, Harvey Goldstein•Statistical Ecology, Ruth King•Estimating the Number of Species in Microbial Diversity
