Amber Wutich- School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, United States
Many water scholars believe we are at an inflection point in which new approaches to water research and management are needed, and I agree. Water insecurity is fundamentally driven by human behavior and is socially determined. To address this, the emerging science of water security can build on well-established and theoretically-robust findings from social science. Foundational work establishes the formative role of human social structures in producing water insecurity, particularly for populations experiencing poverty, racial/ethnic minoritization, and political exclusion. While infrastructural and legal/regulatory reforms are essential to advance water security, they have failed vulnerable populations in patterned, predictable ways globally. New research highlights how social and engineered infrastructures that are hybrid, modular, adaptive, and decentralized can improve water security for the most vulnerable populations. However, reliance on such systems is inherently a feature of unjust, inequitable water governance. Social scientists have a valuable role to play in explaining these dynamics, addressing water system failures, and developing more equitable water solutions.
Introduction
Water insecurity is fundamentally driven by human behavior. Water overdraft, water overallocation, water pollution and climate change are, obviously, human-induced events that cause water scarcity—or scarcity of usable water. But even in places where water is abundant, decisions about how to invest in water infrastructure, where to build it, who will be served, the cost of water, and societal valuations of water uses (e.g., industrial over cultural needs) also produce water insecurity for some populations, but not others (Mehta, 2005). In all these ways, water insecurity is socially determined.
Many water scholars believe we are at an inflection point in which new approaches to water research and management are essential (Vicente-Serrano et al., 2024; Gleick, 2023; Falkenmark, 2020; Vörösmarty et al., 2018; Famiglietti, 2014; Rockström et al., 2014), and I agree (Wutich et al., 2023; Wutich et al., 2021). In addition to long-standing problems with groundwater overuse, aging infrastructure, and growing demands, new problems are growing: climate change-related disasters, widespread scarcity, pervasive water contamination, and skyrocketing water costs. Emerging solutions, such as desalination and wastewater reuse, are important but likely insufficient to solve water problems for many populations. And water insecurity is on the rise everywhere. It stubbornly persists in low- and middle-income countries (Birkenholtz, 2016; Young et al., 2022). Water intermittency is newly emerging in urban households once believed water-secure (Beard and Mitlin, 2021; Kumpel and Nelson, 2016). And there is a growing realization that millions of people in high-income countries like the U.S. and Canada experience water poverty (Meehan et al., 2020a, 2020b). As such, it is increasingly important to understand who is affected, how, and why—and what solutions exist for people whose water needs cannot be met by large-scale infrastructure investments alone.
In this commentary, I take as my starting point the definition of water insecurity developed in the Water Insecurity (WISE) Research Network (American Association of Geographers, 2024), which I helped build over the last decade. Water insecurity happens when water is insufficient for human needs, including drinking, cooking, sanitation, hygiene, livelihoods and culturally-valued uses (Jepson W. et al., 2017; Mehta, 2014). The field of water insecurity remains focused on individual needs, health, and experiences (Rosinger, 2023), while also recognizing that people, households, and communities are situated in vast networks of agriculture, industry, exchange, culture, hydrology, and ecology (Meehan et al., 2023; Budds et al., 2014). In this commentary, I draw on well-established findings and cutting-edge research to demonstrate the unique value social scientists bring to global efforts to achieve water security.
Settled science: what social science tells us about water insecurity
Water insecurity is often experienced in households, as households are the most basic unit that humans use to acquire and distribute resources across cultures (Brewis et al., 2020; Netting et al., 1984). Every member of a household has a social position that shapes their experiences of water insecurity. This can be quickly demonstrated with a thumbnail analysis, drawn from the large and complex literature on gender and water insecurity (Brewis et al., 2024; Shah et al., 2023; Dickin and Caretta 2022; Harris, 2009; Sultana, 2009). Foundational research indicates that women and girls are most often responsible for acquiring and distributing water, and tend to be most impacted when water becomes scarce (Zwarteveen and Meinzen-Dick, 2001; Crow and Sultana, 2002; Ray, 2007; Pouramin et al., 2020; Tallman et al., 2022). Building on these findings, recent work points to livelihood structures and cultural settings in which men, boys, and gender-diverse people experience significant water insecurity and water-related suffering (Ilboudo Nébié et al., 2024; Adams, 2023; Truelove and Ruszczyk, 2022; Wilson et al., 2021; Geere and Cortobius, 2017; Gaillard et al., 2017). Like gender, other social structures that vary within households—such as age, kinship, wealth, and citizenship—shape individual experiences of water insecurity (Harris et al., 2017; Maxfield, 2020; Sultana, 2020). The broader social structures in which the household is situated matter too. Households that lack land tenure or home ownership, experience disaster risk, are not well-integrated into cash economies, or have other livelihood limitations, for example, tend to be particularly at risk of household water insecurity (Roque A. et al., 2023; Roque A. D. et al., 2023; Cole et al., 2020; Shah, 2021; Jepson W. et al., 2017; Pearson et al., 2015).
Within societies, empirical research on the social determinants of water insecurity is now advancing rapidly (Drakes et al., 2024; Thomson et al., 2024a; Rosinger et al., 2022; Stoler et al., 2020; Young et al., 2019). These cross-cultural studies and others have determined that key predictors of water insecurity include poverty, racial/ethnic minoritization, and political marginalization (Ranganathan and Balazs, 2015; Pulido, 2017; Brown et al., 2023). My collaborative research on water insecurity with U.S. colonias residents illustrates how these processes intersect and work (Wutich et al., 2022; Gu et al., 2023; Roque et al., 2024). Colonias are informal settlements within 150 miles north of the U.S.-Mexico border that were historically founded by migrant farmworkers from Mexico (Velez-Ibanez et al., 2003). In addition to suffering low incomes and ethnic minoritization in the United States, colonias residents may experience political exclusion due to their families’ mixed immigration status (Jepson and Vandewalle, 2016). Many colonias were cut off from municipal services offered in nearby cities—this common exclusionary political process is known as “municipal underbounding” and it tends to target racial/ethnic minority communities (Durst, 2014; Mukhija and Mason, 2013). Lacking municipal services, colonias residents were left to self-fund and self-construct small-scale water infrastructure, including unregulated or underregulated local wells and septic tanks, or to subsist on bottled or vended water (Jepson, 2014; Jepson and Brown, 2014). Over the long term, this resulted in water insecurity, health inequalities, economic hardship, and personal suffering for colonias residents (Zheng et al., 2022). While the specific contexts of poverty, race/ethnicity, and political marginalization vary across communities and countries, the basic dynamics of environmental injustices that produce water insecurity seem to be fairly universal (e.g., Pellow, 2017). This well-developed area of research provides a solid foundation for understanding the social determinants of water insecurity in any global site.
At a societal scale, foundational work established the formative role of power dynamics in producing water insecurity (Johnston and Donahue, 1998; Swyngedouw, 2004, 2009; Sultana and Loftus, 2019; Wilson et al., 2021), particularly in low- and middle-income countries and Indigenous nations. Colonialism, dispossession, and capitalism produced a legacy of international development inequalities (Walsh, 2022), which have long driven inequitable water infrastructure investments. Decades of research examined the shift toward water management using markets and privatization (often called “neoliberalism”), especially as tools proposed to increase investments and efficiencies in water infrastructure (Bakker, 2004; Budds and McGranahan, 2003; Budds, 2020; Budds, 2004). My work in Cochabamba, Bolivia in the aftermath of its “Water War” over a failed privatization deal is just one of many examples of the negative long-term consequences of this approach (Wutich, 2009). Recent research examines how ongoing processes of colonialism produce water insecurity and environmental injustices, especially for Indigenous people (Montoya, 2017; Curley, 2019, 2021; Liboiron, 2021; Wilson et al., 2021, 2024). This work is important for understanding material inequalities, but also problems caused by the social meanings assigned to water (called “ontology,” Yates et al., 2017) and resulting ways of managing water. It suggests that current dominant ways of thinking about water (called “modern water,” Linton, 2014, Spackman, 2020; Meehan et al., 2020a; Meehan et al., 2020b) overlook the potential value of Indigenous approaches to water management—which center respect, caretaking, interconnectedness, and reciprocity (McGregor, 2008, 2015, 2021). Led by Indigenous scholars, recent work argues that overcoming legacies of colonialism in water management means more than just recognizing long-denied water rights and investing in equitable access to clean water and piped infrastructure, but also rethinking water relations in more profound ways.
Research on social construction of water insecurity has yielded many theoretically-robust findings. These broad-scale findings are largely settled science, though much work remains to be done to characterize local, contextual, cross-cultural, and cross-national variability and trends. As such, I argue that these findings are an essential foundation to any interdisciplinary effort to understand and address water security.
What’s next: halting steps toward water security
Now is a time of halting steps toward water security. Innovative water infrastructure planning and development, which has been the bedrock of public health advances for the last 200 years (Hall and Dietrich, 2000), continues apace (Vörösmarty et al., 2021). New legal agreements, policy instruments, and regulatory reforms are improving water conservation, allocation, quality, and management (Hoekstra et al., 2018; Pacheco-Vega, 2020; Pierce et al., 2021; Dobbin et al., 2023). Of course, the more successful infrastructural developments and legal/regulatory reforms are, the less we should need to worry about human water insecurity. But we should probably keep worrying. Water insecurity today emerges from the patterned, predictable failure of these large-scale infrastructural developments and legal/regulatory reforms (Meehan et al., 2020a, 2020b, 2023). Given the abundant challenges we face moving forward—in climate change, political instability, economic (de)growth—it would be unwise to assume we’ll enjoy anything like continued linear progress toward water security (Birkenholtz, 2016). To address these risks, there is now a movement among water researchers to understand the conditions under which progress in water security might reverse and to plan for interventions that can help humans survive (Stoler et al., 2022; Wutich et al., 2023; Thomson et al., 2024b), even in the face of major infrastructural and regulatory failures. This is my area of expertise, and it is the focus of my WISE colleagues’ research around the world.
The hybridization of water systems is one major approach that emerges from empirical evidence globally (Rusca and Cleaver, 2022). For people who experience water insecurity, living with hybrid water systems is normal: intermittent piped water service can be supplemented with vended water and rainwater harvesting, for example. Research that studies water systems “beyond networks” shows how the hybridization of pipes, people, and ecologies helps enhance water security in households and communities (Furlong and Kooy, 2017). Such research is fluorescing under host of names in the social sciences, including informality, hybridity, meshwork, alternative water systems, and everyday water infrastructures. Sociotechnical tinkering and institutional bricolage, or localized changes made to water infrastructures and institutions to improve functioning, can further improve these hybrid systems (Kemerink-Seyoum et al., 2019; Cleaver, 2002). And, research on polycentricity helps us understand how multiple overlapping systems of governance can be used to enhance water security (Garrick and Hahn, 2021; Schipanski et al., 2023). Put together, this research shows how embracing hybridization can increase human survival and community resilience, even when serious water insecurity challenges are present.
Human survival is always best understood at the individual and household level. MAD water is a field of scholarship that explores how integrated engineered and social infrastructures that are modular, adaptive, and decentralized (“MAD”) can help improve self-reliance and survival in water-insecure households (Stoler et al., 2022; Wutich et al., 2023; Thomson et al., 2024b). This research is inspired by innovative technologies that can improve water supply or safety, such as nanotechnology enabled water treatment systems or atmospheric water capture (Feng et al., 2022; Qu et al., 2013). Such technological innovations can be important, but they work best when they are integrated into the social infrastructures that people already rely on for survival in water-insecure communities (Wutich, 2024). Social infrastructures like water sharing (or inter-household water transfers) (Rosinger et al., 2020) and informal water markets (Garrick et al., 2023) seem to be a near-universal coping strategy in water-insecure conditions. When engineered innovations are integrated with social infrastructure, MAD water systems have the capacity to safeguard household water security (Beresford et al., 2024; Empinotti and Garjulli, 2024; Dobbin et al., 2024).
Yet, it’s important to acknowledge that community and household water self-reliance is inherently unjust. Research finds it pushes the responsibility, cost, and burden of survival on the most vulnerable people, while typically granting the privilege of well-functioning water systems to the more wealthy and powerful (Lloréns, 2021; Roque A. et al., 2023; Roque A. D. et al., 2023). So, while there is much truth in the Puerto Rican rallying cry “solo el pueblo salva al pueblo” [only the people can save the people] (Rodríguez Soto, 2020)—by providing water service through mutual aid and self-supply (Roque, 2021)—such arrangements are not a feature of functioning, equitable, just societies.
Water security futures: new research, innovations, and community-based collaborations
Global research points to serious challenges that may impede efforts to achieve global water security, or even reverse them. To maximize the success of water security gains–through, for example, infrastructure innovations, legal and regulatory reforms, hybridization, and community and household self-reliance using MAD water systems–it is important to consider what new approaches are needed. What’s worked before is not working anymore. This is where social scientists can help.
One pervasive problem in the water sector is the increasing distrust of water institutions, managers, and systems. Based in real betrayals of trust, such as the highly-publicized cases in Flint and Jackson in the U.S. (Pauli, 2020; Wilson et al., 2023), distrust in water systems has long been linked water inequity and exclusion born of systemic racism and divestment (Jaffee, 2024). Now, distrust in water systems is being further amplified by people’s political polarization and social isolation. This distrust is spurring skepticism about public health mechanisms, including public water service, that have made significant improvements and human health over the last two centuries (Teodoro et al., 2022). Further intensifying these dynamics is the ongoing climate crisis and its sequelae, including migration, conflict, and political destabilization (Stoler et al., 2021). These are not problems that water managers or engineers or hydrologists can overcome alone.
All these barriers to water security—and many more—are fundamentally social phenomena. This is why it would be a mistake to build a future field of water security without social science at its core. Social scientists are needed to collaborate with biophysical scientists and engineers to develop new research and innovations. Social scientists have training and expertise in water governance (Zwarteveen et al., 2017). We know how to manage the complex cultural, political and social dynamics that shape water insecurity and related disasters (Peek et al., 2020). We bring skills in community-based research (Pacheco-Vega and Parizeau, 2018; Castro-Diaz et al., 2024), inductive theory-building through listening (Kearns, 2021), and grounded local water collaborations (Roque et al., 2024). Past failures in water interventions can often be attributed to the exclusion of social, cultural, and local knowledges in project planning and implementation—precisely those contributions that social scientists may be best positioned to make. The theoretical, analytical and practical skills that social scientists can contribute are essential for advancing water security in marginalized and water-insecure communities.
I am not naïve about the difficulties of this kind of action-oriented transdisciplinary research. I have been involved, sometimes centrally and sometimes peripherally, in collaborations around water insecurity (Jepson W. et al., 2017; Jepson W. E. et al., 2017), sociohydrology (Sivapalan et al., 2014), the hydrosocial cycle (Budds et al., 2014), participatory convergence (Castro-Diaz et al., 2024; Roque et al. 2022), and water institutions (Ostrom, 2009), to name a few. Such collaborations can, of course, be troublesome, with people struggling to work across differences of training, assumptions, scale, values, incentives, and power (Klenk and Meehan, 2015). For example, I worked with Sivapalan’s group on an early paper describing the promise of sociohydrology (Sivapalan et al., 2014)—but later I was not able to contribute very much because I am trained as an anthropologist to theorize culture (shared norms and knowledge), and sociohydrology tends to be at different scales (e.g., Van Oel et al., 2024, Table 1). I do not see this as a problem. Diverse ways of thinking and theorizing only strengthen our work.
We know there is no one solution to water security. Working together—even when it is hard, even when it is uncomfortable—is the only way I can see to move forward toward water security. And I mean really together; not just across academic disciplines, but also with communities, activists, bureaucrats, and industry. We must and we will progress together because, without water, there is no human life.
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author/s.
Author contributions
AW: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This work was supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation under Grant/Award Numbers: NSF BCS-1759972, NSF BCS-2143766, NSF GCR-2021147, EEC-1449500.
Conflict of interest
The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The authors declare that no Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Adams, E. A. (2023). “Why should a married man fetch water?” masculinities, gender relations, and the embodied political ecology of urban water insecurity in Malawi. Soc. Cult. Geogr. 25, 582–60. doi: 10.1080/14649365.2023.2183245
American Association of Geographers . (2024). Water insecurity (WISE) Community of Practice. Available at: https://www.aag.org/groups/water-insecurity-wise-cp/ (Accessed November 14, 2024)
Bakker, K. J. (2004). An uncooperative commodity: Privatizing water in England and Wales. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Beard, V. A., and Mitlin, D. (2021). Water access in global south cities: the challenges of intermittency and affordability. World Dev. 147:105625. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105625
Beresford, M., Brewis, A., Choudhary, N., Drew, G., Garcia, N. E., Garrick, D., et al. (2024). Justice and moral economies in “modular, adaptive, and decentralized” (MAD) water systems. Water Security 21:100148. doi: 10.1016/j.wasec.2023.100148
Birkenholtz, T. (2016) in Drinking water. Eating, drinking: Surviving: The international year of global understanding-IYGU. eds. P. Jackson, W. E. L. Spiess, and F. Sultana (Cham, Switzerland: Springer), 23–30.
Brewis, A., DuBois, L. Z., Wutich, A., Adams, E. A., Dickin, S., Elliott, S. J., et al. (2024). Gender identities, water insecurity, and risk: re-theorizing the connections for a gender-inclusive toolkit for water insecurity research. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Water 11:e1685. doi: 10.1002/wat2.1685
Brewis, A. A., Piperata, B., Thompson, A. L., and Wutich, A. (2020). Localizing resource insecurities: a biocultural perspective on water and wellbeing. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Water 7:e1440. doi: 10.1002/wat2.1440
Brown, J., Acey, C. S., Anthonj, C., Barrington, D. J., Beal, C. D., Capone, D., et al. (2023). The effects of racism, social exclusion, and discrimination on achieving universal safe water and sanitation in high-income countries. Lancet Glob. Health 11, e606–e614. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(23)00006-2
Budds, J. (2004). Power, nature and neoliberalism: the political ecology of water in Chile. Singap. J. Trop. Geogr. 25, 322–342. doi: 10.1111/j.0129-7619.2004.00189.x
Budds, J. (2020). Securing the market: water security and the internal contradictions of Chile’s water code. Geoforum 113, 165–175. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.09.027
Budds, J., Linton, J., and McDonnell, R. (2014). The hydrosocial cycle. Geoforum 57, 167–169. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.08.003
Budds, J., and McGranahan, G. (2003). Are the debates on water privatization missing the point? Experiences from Africa, Asia and Latin America. Environ. Urban. 15, 87–114. doi: 10.1177/095624780301500222
Castro-Diaz, L., Roque, A. A., Wutich, L., Landes, W., Li, R., Larson, P., et al. (2024). Participatory convergence: a process framework for action research. Minerva. doi: 10.1007/s11024-024-09547-x
Cleaver, F. (2002). Reinventing institutions: bricolage and the social embeddedness of natural resource management. Eur. J. Dev. Res. 14, 11–30. doi: 10.1080/714000425
Cole, S. K., Mullor, E. C., Ma, Y., and Sandang, Y. (2020). “Tourism, water, and gender”—an international review of an unexplored nexus. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Water 7:e1442. doi: 10.1002/wat2.1442
Crow, B., and Sultana, F. (2002). Gender, class, and access to water: three cases in a poor and crowded delta. Soc. Nat. Resour. 15, 709–724. doi: 10.1080/08941920290069308
Curley, A. (2019). “Our winters’ rights”: challenging colonial water laws. Global Environ. Polit. 19, 57–76. doi: 10.1162/glep_a_00515
Curley, A. (2021). Unsettling Indian water settlements: the little Colorado river, the San Juan River, and colonial enclosures. Antipode 53, 705–723. doi: 10.1111/anti.12535
Dickin, S., and Caretta, M. A. (2022). Examining water and gender narratives and realities. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Water. 9, e1602.
Dobbin, K. B., Hernandez, A., Bostic, D., Harrison, G., Singhal, A., Barnett, M., et al. (2024). Making a vicious cycle virtuous: A research and policy agenda for advancing the water security of unregulated users in the southwestern US. Wiley Interdisciplin. Rev. :e1731. [Epub ahead of print].
Dobbin, K. B., McBride, J., and Pierce, G. (2023). Panacea or placebo? The diverse pathways and implications of drinking water system consolidation. Water Resour. Res. 59:e2023WR035179. doi: 10.1029/2023WR035179
Drakes, O., Restrepo-Osorio, D., Powlen, K. A., and Hines, M. (2024). Social vulnerability and water insecurity in the western United States: a systematic review of framings, indicators, and uncertainty. Water Resour. Res. 60:e2023WR036284. doi: 10.1029/2023WR036284
Durst, N. J. (2014). Municipal annexation and the selective underbounding of colonias in Texas' lower Rio Grande Valley. Environ Plan A 46, 1699–1715. doi: 10.1068/a130038p
Empinotti, V. L., and Garjulli, R. (2024). MAD and its challenges for water governance: reflections on the Brazilian reality. Water Security 21:100159. doi: 10.1016/j.wasec.2023.100159
Falkenmark, M. (2020). Water resilience and human life support-global outlook for the next half century. Int. J. Water Resour. Develop. 36, 377–396. doi: 10.1080/07900627.2019.1693983
Famiglietti, J. S. (2014). The global groundwater crisis. Nat. Clim. Chang. 4, 945–948. doi: 10.1038/nclimate2425
Feng, A., Akther, N., Duan, X., Peng, S., Onggowarsito, C., Mao, S., et al. (2022). Recent development of atmospheric water harvesting materials: a review. ACS Materials Au 2, 576–595. doi: 10.1021/acsmaterialsau.2c00027
Furlong, K., and Kooy, M. (2017). Worlding water supply: thinking beyond the network in Jakarta. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 41, 888–903. doi: 10.1111/1468-2427.12582
Gaillard, J. C., Sanz, K., Balgos, B. C., Dalisay, S. N. M., Gorman-Murray, A., Smith, F., et al. (2017). Beyond men and women: a critical perspective on gender and disaster. Disasters 41, 429–447. doi: 10.1111/disa.12209
Garrick, D., Balasubramanya, S., Beresford, M., Wutich, A., Gilson, G. G., Jorgensen, I., et al. (2023). A systems perspective on water markets: barriers, bright spots, and building blocks for the next generation. Environ. Res. Lett. 18:031001. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/acb227
Garrick, D. E., and Hahn, R. W. (2021). An economic perspective on water security. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 15, 45–66. doi: 10.1086/713102
Geere, J. A., and Cortobius, M. (2017). Who carries the weight of water? Fetching water in rural and urban areas and the implications for water security. Water Alternatives 10, 513–540. Available at: https://www.water-alternatives.org/index.php/alldoc/articles/vol10/v10issue2/368-a10-2-18/file
Gleick, P. (2023). The three ages of water: Prehistoric past, imperiled present, and a Hope for the future Peter Gleick. New York: Public Affairs/Hachette.
Gu, Z., Li, W., Hanemann, M., Tsai, Y., Wutich, A., Westerhoff, P., et al. (2023). Applying machine learning to understand water security and water access inequality in underserved colonia communities. Comput. Environ. Urban. Syst. 102:101969. doi: 10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2023.101969
Hall, E. L., and Dietrich, A. M. (2000). A brief history of drinking water. Opflow 26, 46–49. doi: 10.1002/j.1551-8701.2000.tb02243.x
Harris, L. M. (2009). Gender and emergent water governance: comparative overview of neoliberalized natures and gender dimensions of privatization, devolution and marketization. Gend. Place Cult. 16, 387–408. doi: 10.1080/09663690903003918
Harris, L., Kleiber, D., Goldin, J., Darkwah, A., and Morinville, C. (2017). Intersections of gender and water: comparative approaches to everyday gendered negotiations of water access in underserved areas of Accra, Ghana and Cape Town, South Africa. J. Gend. Stud. 26, 561–582. doi: 10.1080/09589236.2016.1150819
Hoekstra, A. Y., Buurman, J., and Van Ginkel, K. C. (2018). Urban water security: a review. Environ. Res. Lett. 13:053002. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/aaba52
Ilboudo Nébié, E. K., Brewis, A., Wutich, A., Pérenne, Y., and Magassa, K. (2024). Why livelihoods matter in the gendering of household water insecurity. Weather Climate Soc. 16, 129–142. doi: 10.1175/WCAS-D-22-0105.1
Jaffee, D. (2024). Unequal trust: Bottled water consumption, distrust in tap water, and economic and racial inequality in the United States. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Water. 11, e1700.
Jepson, W. (2014). Measuring ‘no-win’waterscapes: experience-based scales and classification approaches to assess household water security in colonias on the US–Mexico border. Geoforum 51, 107–120. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.10.002
Jepson, W., and Brown, H. L. (2014). ‘If no gasoline, no water’: privatizing drinking water quality in South Texas colonias. Environ Plan A 46, 1032–1048. doi: 10.1068/a46170
Jepson, W., Budds, J., Eichelberger, L., Harris, L., Norman, E., O'Reilly, K., et al. (2017). Advancing human capabilities for water security: a relational approach. Water Security 1, 46–52. doi: 10.1016/j.wasec.2017.07.001
Jepson, W., and Vandewalle, E. (2016). Household water insecurity in the global north: a study of rural and Periurban settlements on the Texas–Mexico border. Prof. Geogr. 68, 66–81. doi: 10.1080/00330124.2015.1028324
Jepson, W. E., Wutich, A., Colllins, S. M., Boateng, G. O., and Young, S. L. (2017). Progress in household water insecurity metrics: a cross-disciplinary approach. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Water 4:e1214. doi: 10.1002/wat2.1214
Johnston, B. R., and Donahue, J. M. (1998). Introduction. In, water, culture, and power: Local struggles in a global context. DC: Island Press.
Kearns, F. (2021). Getting to the heart of science communication: A guide to effective engagement. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Kemerink-Seyoum, J. S., Chitata, T., Domínguez Guzmán, C., Silva-Novoa Sanchez, L. M., and Zwarteveen, M. Z. (2019). Attention to sociotechnical tinkering with irrigation infrastructure as a way to rethink water governance. Water 11:1670. doi: 10.3390/w11081670
Klenk, N., and Meehan, K. (2015). Climate change and transdisciplinary science: problematizing the integration imperative. Environ. Sci. Pol. 54, 160–167. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2015.05.017
Kumpel, E., and Nelson, K. L. (2016). Intermittent water supply: prevalence, practice, and microbial water quality. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50, 542–553. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.5b03973
Linton, J. (2014). Modern water and its discontents: a history of hydrosocial renewal. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Water 1, 111–120. doi: 10.1002/wat2.1009
Lloréns, H. (2021). Making livable worlds: Afro-Puerto Rican women building environmental justice. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.
Maxfield, A. (2020). Testing the theoretical similarities between food and water insecurity: buffering hypothesis and effects on mental wellbeing. Soc. Sci. Med. 244:112412. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112412
McGregor, D. (2008). Anishnaabe-kwe, traditional knowledge and water protection. Canad. Woman Stud. (Winter/Spring 2008). 26, 147–163.
McGregor, D. (2015). Indigenous women, water justice and zaagidowin (love). Canad. Woman Stud.. Women and Water. 30, 2015–2016. Available at: https://cws.journals.yorku.ca/index.php/cws/article/view/37455
McGregor, D. (2021). First nations, traditional knowledge, and water ethics. In Ethical Water Stewardship, I. L. Stefanovic, and Z. Adeel (Eds.) (Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing). 147–163. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-49540-4_8
Meehan, K., Jepson, W., Harris, L. M., Wutich, A., Beresford, M., Fencl, A., et al. (2020a). Exposing the myths of household water insecurity in the global north: a critical review. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Water 7:e1486. doi: 10.1002/wat2.1486
Meehan, K., Jurjevich, J. R., Chun, N. M., and Sherrill, J. (2020b). Geographies of insecure water access and the housing–water nexus in US cities. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 117, 28700–28707. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2007361117
Meehan, K., Mirumachi, N., Loftus, A., and Akhter, M. (2023). Water: A critical introduction. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Mehta, L. (2005). The politics and poetics of water: The naturalisation of scarcity in Western India. Hyderabad, Telangana: Orient Blackswan.
Mehta, L. (2014). Water and human development. World Dev. 59, 59–69. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.12.018
Montoya, T. (2017). Yellow water: rupture and return one year after the gold king mine spill. Anthropol. Now 9, 91–115. doi: 10.1080/19428200.2017.1390724
Mukhija, V., and Mason, D. R. (2013). Reluctant cities, colonias and municipal underbounding in the US: can cities be convinced to annex poor enclaves? Urban Stud. 50, 2959–2975. doi: 10.1177/0042098013482503
Netting, R. M., Wilk, R. R., and Arnould, E. J. (1984). Households: Comparative and historical studies of the domestic group. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Ostrom, E. (2009). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Pacheco-Vega, R. (2020). Environmental regulation, governance, and policy instruments, 20 years after the stick, carrot, and sermon typology. J. Environment. Policy Planning 22, 620–635. doi: 10.1080/1523908X.2020.1792862
Pacheco-Vega, R., and Parizeau, K. (2018). Doubly engaged ethnography: opportunities and challenges when working with vulnerable communities. Int J Qual Methods 17:1609406918790653. doi: 10.1177/1609406918790653
Pauli, B. J. (2020). The Flint water crisis. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Water 7:e1420. doi: 10.1002/wat2.1420
Pearson, A. L., Mayer, J. D., and Bradley, D. J. (2015). Coping with household water scarcity in the savannah today: implications for health and climate change into the future. Earth Interact. 19, 1–14. doi: 10.1175/EI-D-14-0039.1
Peek, L., Tobin, J., Adams, R. M., Wu, H., and Mathews, M. C. (2020). A framework for convergence research in the hazards and disaster field: the natural hazards engineering research infrastructure CONVERGE facility. Front. Built Environment 6:110. doi: 10.3389/fbuil.2020.00110
Pierce, G., El-Khattabi, A. R., Gmoser-Daskalakis, K., and Chow, N. (2021). Solutions to the problem of drinking water service affordability: a review of the evidence. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Water 8:e1522. doi: 10.1002/wat2.1522
Pouramin, P., Nagabhatla, N., and Miletto, M. (2020). A systematic review of water and gender interlinkages: assessing the intersection with health. Front. Water 2:6. doi: 10.3389/frwa.2020.00006
Pulido, L. (2017). Geographies of race and ethnicity II: environmental racism, racial capitalism and state-sanctioned violence. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 41, 524–533. doi: 10.1177/0309132516646495
Qu, X., Alvarez, P. J., and Li, Q. (2013). Applications of nanotechnology in water and wastewater treatment. Water Res. 47, 3931–3946. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2012.09.058
Ranganathan, M., and Balazs, C. (2015). Water marginalization at the urban fringe: environmental justice and urban political ecology across the north–south divide. Urban Geogr. 36, 403–423. doi: 10.1080/02723638.2015.1005414
Ray, I. (2007). Women, water, and development. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 32, 421–449. doi: 10.1146/annurev.energy.32.041806.143704
Rockström, J., Falkenmark, M., Folke, C., Lannerstad, M., Barron, J., Enfors, E., et al. (2014). Water resilience for human prosperity. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Roque, A. D. (2021). Only the people can save the people: community resilience and water insecurity responses in Puerto Rico after hurricane Maria. Arizona State University. Available at: https://keep.lib.asu.edu/items/161534 (Accessed January 20, 2025).
Roque, A., Wutich, A., Brewis, A., Beresford, M., Landes, L., Morales-Pate, O., et al. (2024). Community-based participant-observation (CBPO): a participatory method for ethnographic research. Field Methods 36, 80–90. doi: 10.1177/1525822X231198989
Roque, A., Wutich, A., Brewis, A., Beresford, M., Lloréns, H., García-Quijano, C., et al. (2023). Water sharing as a disaster response: coping with water insecurity after hurricane María. Hum. Organ. 82, 248–260. doi: 10.17730/1938-3525-82.3.248
Roque, A., Wutich, A., Quimby, B., Porter, S., Zheng, M., Hossain, M. J., et al. (2022). Participatory approaches in water research: a review. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Water 9:e1577. doi: 10.1002/wat2.1577
Roque, A. D., Wutich, A., Shah, S. H., Workman, C. L., Méndez-Barrientos, L. E., Choueiri, Y., et al. (2023). Justice and injustice in “modular, adaptive and decentralized” (MAD) water systems. Water Security 20:100151. doi: 10.1016/j.wasec.2023.100151
Rosinger, A. Y. (2023). Water needs, water insecurity, and human biology. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 52, 93–113. doi: 10.1146/annurev-anthro-052721-090331
Rosinger, A. Y., Brewis, A., Wutich, A., Jepson, W., Staddon, C., Stoler, J., et al. (2020). Water borrowing is consistently practiced globally and is associated with water-related system failures across diverse environments. Glob. Environ. Chang. 64:102148. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102148
Rosinger, A. Y., Patel, A. I., and Weaks, F. (2022). Examining recent trends in the racial disparity gap in tap water consumption: NHANES 2011–2018. Public Health Nutr. 25, 207–213. doi: 10.1017/S1368980021002603
Rusca, M., and Cleaver, F. (2022). Unpacking everyday urbanism: practices and the making of (un) even urban waterscapes. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Water 9:e1581. doi: 10.1002/wat2.1581
Schipanski, M. E., Sanderson, M. R., Méndez-Barrientos, L. E., Kremen, A., Gowda, P., Porter, D., et al. (2023). Moving from measurement to governance of shared groundwater resources. Nature Water 1, 30–36. doi: 10.1038/s44221-022-00008-x
Shah, S. H. (2021). How is water security conceptualized and practiced for rural livelihoods in the global south? A systematic scoping review. Water Policy 23, 1129–1152. doi: 10.2166/wp.2021.054
Shah, S. H., Harris, L. M., Menghwani, V., Stoler, J., Brewis, A., Miller, J. D., et al. (2023). Variations in household water affordability and water insecurity: an intersectional perspective from 18 low-and middle-income countries. Environment Plann. 2, 369–398. doi: 10.1177/26349825231156900
Sivapalan, M., Konar, M., Srinivasan, V., Chhatre, A., Wutich, A., Scott, C. A., et al. (2014). Socio-hydrology: use-inspired water sustainability science for the Anthropocene. Earth's Future 2, 225–230. doi: 10.1002/2013EF000164
Rodríguez Soto, I. (2020). Mutual aid and survival as resistance in Puerto Rico. NACLA Rep. Am. 52, 303–308. doi: 10.1080/10714839.2020.1809099
Spackman, C. (2020). Just noticeable: erasing place in municipal water treatment in the US during the interwar period. J. Hist. Geogr. 67, 2–13. doi: 10.1016/j.jhg.2019.10.014
Stoler, J., Brewis, A., Kangmennang, J., Keough, S. B., Pearson, A. L., Rosinger, A. Y., et al. (2021). Connecting the dots between climate change, household water insecurity, and migration. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 51, 36–41. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2021.02.008
Stoler, J., Jepson, W., Wutich, A., Velasco, C. A., Thomson, P., Staddon, C., et al. (2022). Modular, adaptive, and decentralised water infrastructure: promises and perils for water justice. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 57:101202. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2022.101202
Stoler, J., Pearson, A. L., Staddon, C., Wutich, A., Mack, E., Brewis, A., et al. (2020). Cash water expenditures are associated with household water insecurity, food insecurity, and perceived stress in study sites across 20 low-and middle-income countries. Sci. Total Environ. 716:135881. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135881
Sultana, F. (2009). Fluid lives: subjectivities, gender and water in rural Bangladesh. Gend. Place Cult. 16, 427–444. doi: 10.1080/09663690903003942
Sultana, F. (2020). Embodied intersectionalities of urban citizenship: water, infrastructure, and gender in the global south. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 110, 1407–1424. doi: 10.1080/24694452.2020.1715193
Sultana, F., and Loftus, A. (2019). Water politics: Governance, justice and the right to water. Oxfordshire, England, UK: Routledge.
Swyngedouw, E. (2004). Social power and the urbanization of water. Oxford, England: Flows of power: OUP Oxford.
Swyngedouw, E. (2009). The political economy and political ecology of the hydro-social cycle. J. Contemp. Water Res. Educ. 142, 56–60. doi: 10.1111/j.1936-704X.2009.00054.x
Tallman, P. S., Collins, S., Salmon-Mulanovich, G., Rusyidi, B., Kothadia, A., and Cole, S. (2022). Water insecurity and gender-based violence: a global review of the evidence. WIREs Water 10:e1619. doi: 10.1002/wat2.1619
Teodoro, M. P., Zuhlke, S., and Switzer, D. (2022). The profits of distrust. Cambridge University Press.
Thomson, P., Pearson, A. L., Kumpel, E., Guzmán, D. B., Workman, C. L., Fuente, D., et al. (2024a, 2024). Water supply interruptions are associated with more frequent stressful behaviors and emotions but mitigated by predictability: a multisite study. Environ. Sci. Technol. 58, 7010–7019. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.3c08443
Thomson, P., Stoler, J., Wutich, A., and Westerhoff, P. (2024b). MAD water (modular, adaptive, decentralized) systems: new approaches for overcoming challenges to global water security. Water Security 21:100166. doi: 10.1016/j.wasec.2024.100166
Truelove, Y., and Ruszczyk, H. A. (2022). Bodies as urban infrastructure: gender, intimate infrastructures and slow infrastructural violence. Polit. Geogr. 92:102492. doi: 10.1016/j.polgeo.2021.102492
Van Oel, P., Sivapalan, M., Di Baldassarre, G., Tian, F., Nakamura, S., and Marks, S. (2024). Scale issues in human-water systems. Front. Water 6:1413800. doi: 10.3389/frwa.2024.1413800
Vicente-Serrano, S. M., Tramblay, Y., Murphy, C., Ocampo-Melgar, A., Guan, H., Spinoni, J., et al. (2024). First issue of water scarcity and drought. Water Scarcity Drought 1. Available at: https://www.sciltp.com/journals/wsd/article/view/479
Vörösmarty, C. J., Osuna, V. R., Cak, A. D., Bhaduri, A., Bunn, S. E., Corsi, F., et al. (2018). Ecosystem-based water security and the sustainable development goals (SDGs). Ecohydrol. Hydrobiol. 18, 317–333. doi: 10.1016/j.ecohyd.2018.07.004
Vörösmarty, C. J., Stewart-Koster, B., Green, P. A., Boone, E. L., Flörke, M., Fischer, G., et al. (2021). A green-gray path to global water security and sustainable infrastructure. Glob. Environ. Chang. 70:102344. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102344
Walsh, C. (2022). Beyond rules and norms: heterogeneity, ubiquity, and visibility of groundwaters. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Water 9:e1597. doi: 10.1002/wat2.1597
Wilson, N. J., Montoya, T., Arseneault, R., and Curley, A. (2021). Governing water insecurity: navigating indigenous water rights and regulatory politics in settler colonial states. Water Int. 46, 783–801. doi: 10.1080/02508060.2021.1928972
Wilson, N. J., Montoya, T., Lambrinidou, Y., Harris, L. M., Pauli, B. J., McGregor, D., et al. (2023). From “trust” to “trustworthiness”: retheorizing dynamics of trust, distrust, and water security in North America. Environ. Planning E 6, 42–68. doi: 10.1177/25148486221101459
Wilson, N. J., Shah, S. H., Montoya, T., Grasham, C. F., Korzenevica, M., Octavianti, T., et al. (2024). Climate–water crises: critically engaging relational, spatial, and temporal dimensions. Ecol. Soc. 29. doi: 10.5751/ES-15469-290413 [Epub ahead of print].
Wutich, A. (2009). Water scarcity and the sustainability of a common pool resource institution in the urban Andes. Hum. Ecol. 37, 179–192. doi: 10.1007/s10745-009-9227-4
Wutich, A. (2024). Building a global agenda for water security with insights from social infrastructures in Latin America. J. Lat. Am. Geogr. 23, 132–142. doi: 10.1353/lag.2024.a939021
Wutich, A., Jepson, W. E., Stoler, J., Thomson, P., Kooy, M., Brewis, A., et al. (2021). A global agenda for household water security: measurement, monitoring, and management. JAWRA J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 57, 530–538. doi: 10.1111/1752-1688.12926
Wutich, A., Jepson, W., Velasco, C., Roque, A., Gu, Z., Hanemann, M., et al. (2022). Water insecurity in the global north: a review of experiences in US colonias communities along the Mexico border. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Water 9:e1595. doi: 10.1002/wat2.1595
Wutich, A., Thomson, P., Jepson, W., Stoler, J., Cooperman, A. D., Doss-Gollin, J., et al. (2023). MAD water: integrating modular, adaptive, and decentralized approaches for water security in the climate change era. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Water 10:e1680. doi: 10.1002/wat2.1680
Yates, J. S., Harris, L. M., and Wilson, N. J. (2017). Multiple ontologies of water: politics, conflict and implications for governance. Environment Planning D 35, 797–815. doi: 10.1177/0263775817700395
Young, S. L., Bethancourt, H. J., Ritter, Z. R., and Frongillo, E. A. (2022). Estimating national, demographic, and socioeconomic disparities in water insecurity experiences in low-income and middle-income countries in 2020–21: a cross-sectional, observational study using nationally representative survey data. Lancet Planetary Health 6, e880–e891. doi: 10.1016/S2542-5196(22)00241-8
Young, S. L., Boateng, G. O., Jamaluddine, Z., Miller, J. D., Frongillo, E. A., Neilands, T. B., et al. (2019). The household water InSecurity experiences (HWISE) scale: development and validation of a household water insecurity measure for low-income and middle-income countries. BMJ Glob. Health 4:e001750. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2019-001750
Zheng, M., Wutich, A., Brewis, A., and Kavouras, S. (2022). Health impacts of water and sanitation insecurity in the global north: a scoping literature review for US colonias on the Mexico border. J. Water Health 20, 1329–1342. doi: 10.2166/wh.2022.085
Zwarteveen, M., Kemerink-Seyoum, J. S., Kooy, M., Evers, J., Guerrero, T. A., Batubara, B., et al. (2017). Engaging with the politics of water governance. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Water 4:e1245. doi: 10.1002/wat2.1245
Keywords: water insecurity, hybridity, MAD water, social science, social determinants
Citation: Wutich A (2025) Water insecurity is human: why social science must be at the core of water security research and practice. Front. Water. 6:1539170. doi: 10.3389/frwa.2024.1539170
Edited by:
Murugesu Sivapalan, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, United StatesReviewed by:
Melissa Haeffner, Portland State University, United StatesMatthew R. Sanderson, Kansas State University, United States
Maria Rusca, The University of Manchester, United Kingdom
Copyright © 2025 Wutich. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Amber Wutich, YXd1dGljaEBhc3UuZWR1