Researchers find development link to water inequality that could bring water security "to all"
Researchers investigating water inequality have put forward a take on an existing hypothesis that could help policymakers bring secure water supplies “for all.”
A global study of water security – led by Cardiff University and the University of Birmingham along with US universities, North Carolina and Northwestern – have proposed that inequality in security of water supplies appears first to peak then recede as overall water security improves.
The proposal emerged when the researchers found a relationship in water security data that mirorred one in economics that was established in the 1950s: as a market economy develops, the gap between rich and poor first increases then shrinks – known as Kuznets curve.
The researchers reported that inequality in household water security has no similar relationship with economic changes. That, they said, implied that non-economic factors, such as sustainable development, could be more powerful than economic factors in changing water security and other distributions of resources and services. Follow-up research will seek to establish why the Kuznets curve applies to water security.
The study, according to the researchers, “offers a new angle for policymakers to design better sustainable development practices and pathways.” They emphasised that it “does not suggest that an increase in inequality is inevitable, nor does it imply the inequality problems would disappear effortlessly as a society continues to improve water security.”
Lead author of the research findings, Dr Feng Mao from Cardiff University, said the work “encourages a more general rethink of development beyond economic terms.” Professor of Ecohydrology and Biogeochemistry at the University of Birmingham, Stefan Krause, added: “Understanding the mechanisms underlying the global inequalities in water security will help developing efficient strategies for household water security solutions.”
The research team looked at household survey data from 7,603 households in 28 sites in 22 low- and middle-income countries.
Comments