The water security concept is generally framed in terms of "needs of humans and the environment", but there is no necessary attention to equity -- can a concept that tends to imply a greater role for the state also embed a concern for social equity in its DNA?
I guess the conduct of conduct (art of governance) for water [and other NRs] is currently based around EMT (ecological modernisation theory), i.e. with a reliance on the investments and efficiencies [potentially] generated by the private sector and in encouragement for better use of 'environmentally friendly' technology. The embeddedness of 'social equity' is partly assumed to "naturally" emerge but you are right, there is less involvement of state [and the 'public good' element of water] and even less explicit attention to fair and just access to water for life and livelihoods. It may be timely to unpack this limitation, maybe drawing on 'environmental citizenship'.
From the excess water side of the debate, it does seem that the algorithms favour the affluent by considering homes as cost-able assets rather than people as valuable souls. I haven't located the original source on this yet but it was widely reported in mainstream media including the Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/oct/24/flood-defences-skewed-towards-wealthy-families-and-regions
Please specify the "water security" concept. What some people regard as their "right to use water," other define as "wasteful." Are there specific standards for how much and what kind of water use are included in "water security?" What if a user's demands for water, are regarded by authorities as patently wasteful? What if a user's demands for water, are regarded by authorities as either unfeasible, or too expensive? We need to know both the upper limits and the lower limits of "water security."
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publication