The nature and causes of the global water crisis: Syndromes from a meta‐analysis of coupled human‐water studies

Abstract

[1] Freshwater scarcity has been cited as the major crisis of the 21st century, but it is surprisingly hard to describe the nature of the global water crisis. We conducted a metaanalysis of 22 coupled human-water system case studies, using qualitative comparison analysis (QCA) to identify water resource system outcomes and the factors that drive them. The cases exhibited different outcomes for human wellbeing that could be grouped into a six "syndromes": groundwater depletion, ecological destruction, drought-driven conflicts, unmet subsistence needs, resource capture by elite, and water reallocation to nature. For syndromes that were not successful adaptations, three characteristics gave cause for concern: (1) unsustainability-a decline in the water stock or ecosystem function that could result in a long-term steep decline in future human wellbeing; (2) vulnerability-high variability in water resource availability combined with inadequate coping capacity, leading to temporary drops in human wellbeing; (3) chronic scarcity-persistent inadequate access and hence low conditions of human wellbeing. All syndromes could be explained by a limited set of causal factors that fell into four categories: demand changes, supply changes, governance systems, and infrastructure/technology. By considering basins as members of syndrome classes and tracing common causal pathways of water crises, water resource analysts and planners might develop improved water policies aimed at reducing vulnerability, inequity, and unsustainability of freshwater systems.

Debates—Perspectives on socio‐hydrology: Socio‐hydrologic modeling: Tradeoffs, hypothesis testing, and validation

“…Recent literature has begun to validate the core hypothesis through case studies of individual regions [e.g., Kandasamy et al, 2014;Liu et al, 2014]. A synthesis of many case studies showed that four dominant water patterns existed in regions of water crisis [Srinivasan et al, 2012], which leads credence to the premise that common dynamics may emerge across different regions. This then leads to the possibility of modeling the coupled human-water systems, and several recent studies have begun to do this [Di Baldassarre et al, 2013;Srinivasan, 2015;Elshafei et al, 2014;van Emmerik et al, 2014].…”

“…Fundamentally, we need to develop an understanding of how human-water systems are coupled and how they develop and evolve. For example, how do the four dominant patterns of water crises [Srinivasan et al, 2012] emerge in multiple regions? What is the relative role of climate versus the nature of water demands versus governance structures?…”

Toward a formal definition of water scarcity in natural‐human systems

“…However, even advocates of these aggregate indices recognize their limited ability to represent how water scarcity varies spatially and temporally as a result of complex system interactions. Critics observe these ''top-down'' or ''variable-oriented'' studies have overlooked human agency and the role of institutions and thus cannot point to implementable solutions to water crises [Srinivasan et al, 2012].…”

Progress in socio‐hydrology: a meta‐analysis of challenges and opportunities

“…Srinivasan et al 58 compared and contrasted six descriptors of water stress across 22 coupled humanwater system case studies, which provided insights into how improved water policies may be designed to reduce inequity, vulnerability, and unsustainability of freshwater use. Scott et al 35 addressed the impacts of increased efficiency in water use and water savings on the resilience of socio-hydrological systems by studying three contemporary river basins.…”