Rural water for thirsty cities: a systematic review of water reallocation from rural to urban regions

Abstract

Background: Competition for freshwater between cities and agriculture is projected to grow due to rapid urbanization, particularly in the Global South. Water reallocation from rural to urban regions has become a common strategy to meet freshwater needs in growing cities. Conceptual issues and associated measurement problems have impeded efforts to compare and learn from global experiences. This review examines the status and trends of water reallocation from rural to urban regions based on academic literature and policy documents.Methods: We conduct a systematic literature review to establish the global reallocation database (GRaD). This process yielded 97 published studies (academic and policy) on rural-to-urban reallocation. We introduce the concept of reallocation 'dyads' as the unit of analysis to describe the pair of a recipient (urban) and donor (rural) region. A coding framework was developed iteratively to classify the drivers, processes and outcomes of water reallocation from a political economy perspective.Results: The systematic review identified 69 urban agglomerations receiving water through 103 reallocation projects (dyads). Together these reallocation dyads involve approximately 16 billion m 3 of water per year moving almost 13 000 kilometres to urban recipient regions with an estimated 2015 population of 383 million. Documented water reallocation dyads are concentrated in North America and Asia with the latter constituting the majority of dyads implemented since 2000.Synthesis: The analysis illustrates how supply and demand interact to drive water reallocation projects, which can take many forms, although collective negotiation and administrative decisions are most prevalent. Yet it also reveals potential biases and gaps in coverage for parts of the Global South (particularly in South America and Africa), where reallocation (a) can involve informal processes that are difficult to track and (b) receives limited coverage by the English-language literature covered by the review. Data regarding the impacts on the donor region and compensation are also limited, constraining evidence to assess whether a water reallocation project is truly effective, equitable and sustainable. We identify frameworks and metrics for assessing reallocation projects and navigating the associated trade-offs by drawing on the concept of benefit sharing.

The diversity of water markets: Prospects and perils for the SDG agenda

“…This article shows that water markets can have a positive or negative impact on SDG 6 and that the magnitude and direction of the impact will hinge on effective governance and institutions. Increasing inter‐sectoral transfers between agriculture and cities (Garrick, De Stefano, et al, ) requires systems of governance that acknowledge both urban and agricultural water markets. Agricultural water market analysis needs to pay more attention to questions of social equity and the experience of individuals, and can learn from the emphasis on service provision from urban scholars.…”

“…Growing water scarcity and increasing urban water demands also means that agricultural and urban water use can no longer be considered separately, and increasing efficiency of agricultural water use is being targeted to help achieve sustainable urban water supplies (Flörke, Schneider, & McDonald, ; Garrick et al, ). Although the traditional focus of agricultural water markets has been the transfer of water “goods” (the right to use a certain volume of water and a particular location), while urban markets have emphasized water “services,” this distinction also breaks down at a practical level.…”

Water rights, river compacts, and legal-policy stationarity in the American West*

“…As western water agencies consider new demands on water from burgeoning cities (Garrick et al 2019) and the demands to protect endangered species and support 'living' rivers (Perramond 2019), these new and competing mandates are now more pressing for managers and policy-makers alike (Postel 2014).…”

Integrating the Water Planetary Boundary With Water Management From Local to Global Scales

“…water use in the production of goods and services, i.e., through virtual water trade (Dalin et al, 2017;Marston et al, 2015;Zhang et al, 2020) or foreign direct investment; 2. flow through the atmosphere, i.e., moisture recycling , Keys et al, 2012, surface, i.e., transboundary rivers (Earle, 2013;Munia et al, 2016), or subsurface, i.e. regional groundwater flow (Ameli et al, 2018;Krakauer et al, 2014;Maxwell & Condon, 2016); 3. through physical infrastructure, i.e., interbasin water transfers (Garrick et al, 2019;McDonald et al, 2014); and 4. altered land-atmosphere-ocean interactions, i.e., local groundwater depletion leading to global sea level rise (Döll et al, 2014;Wada et al, 2010).…”