ARTICLES VIEWS/REVIEWS BLOG INDEX AUTHORS ABOUT SUBSCRIBE SEARCH

GSJ Article 26 July 2013

Issue 34

Global Water Resources: Where are the Vulnerable?

Caroline A. Sullivan

Southern Cross University, NSW AustraliaSchool of Environment, Science and Engineering

Keywords: climate adaptation, climate vulnerability, Climate Vulnerability Index, demographicimpacts, global change, multi-criteria analysis

Although human society’s success depends on water availability, little has been doneto recognize its value within modern socio-political and environmental managementsystems. The challenge of valuing water as a commodity for production still remainsdue to theoretical and methodological difficulties as well as theological andphilosophical objections. As a way of addressing this issue, this paper presents insightinto the importance of water to human well-being through an analysis of how humancommunities may be vulnerable to shifts in global water availability.

There is little dispute that climate patterns are changing in almost every region of theworld. The predicted increases in extreme events seem to be occurring in manycountries, including record temperatures and levels of precipitation being recorded ona regular basis (Oki and Kanae, 2006; IPCC, 2007b; UNESCO, 2006). Highlyenergetic cyclones and hurricanes have created billions of dollars of damage in eventhe most sophisticated of locations, and loss of life and livelihoods have impacted onmillions of people across the world. At the same time, drought induced famine hasspread across whole countries in Africa (Fussel, 2010).

Everyone depends on water because water is not only essential for all life on earth,but is also a major factor of production for all industrial activities. Every single item ofconsumption requires water in its production, and every sector of the economydepends on access to water at a reasonable price. While this has been recognizedthrough the concept of “virtual water” in crops and products. (Allan, 1998), we are stillfar from properly accounting for our water use. As a result, many fail to recognizetheir own vulnerability to changes in its availability (Huntingford and Gash, 2005;Parry et al., 2004).

Water related vulnerability exists in both urban and rural areas with increased waterstress resulting from population growth and increased economic development. At thesame time, climate variability has in some areas reduced water supplies, andexpectations are that this will only worsen in the future (Rijsberman, 2006;Rockstrom et al., 2011). Only through good demand management, careful planning ofwater systems, and reduction of inefficient use will it be possible to reduce the level ofhuman vulnerability to the negative impacts of increased water stress (Tompkins,

Abstract: Global change today is more complex than ever before. Over the last 20 years,countries have faced the pervasive and sometimes destructive impact of globalization. Currently,the impacts of extreme climate variability are taking their toll. Perhaps this is climate change, butirrespective of the name, current climatic conditions are not being kind to people across theworld. While the visual impacts of changing weather patterns can be seen everywhere, the hiddenimpacts are actually more dangerous. In particular, the impact of rising temperatures on theglobal water cycle is a ticking time bomb to which we must proactively respond. To address this, amultidimensional index-based assessment tool has been developed to identify those at risk fromthe impacts of climate change on water resources. This paper presents this “Climate VulnerabilityIndex,” and provides some insights on those populations most at risk.

1

2

3

4

Sullivan, GSJ (26 July 2013), page 1

2007).

Water and climate are inexorably linked through the laws of physics, chemistry andbiology that control planet Earth. Earth System Science has now emerged as a coreapproach to addressing the challenges of resource management, and evidence is nowemerging that climate change is having adverse effects on water systems at the local,national, and regional scales (Randall et al., 2007; Rockstrom et al., 2011; Huntingfordand Cox, 2000). Many resources have been spent to understand the biophysicalaspects of climate change with complex mathematical models being designed tocapture what is known about the world and predict what may happen in futureconditions (Nurse, 2011; Oerlemans, 2005; IPCC, 2007). The overall result of thisanalysis suggests that serious water shortages will confront billions of people over thenext 20 years (UNESCO, 2006). Additionally, water stress has now been identified bythe scientific community as being a major challenge to human well-being.

In spite of all these efforts, most humans remain extremely vulnerable to climatechange. While the image of a subsistence farmer struggling in an arid landscape maycapture this concept of vulnerability, the reality is that on every continent people fromall levels of society are likely to be effected by climate change (Leichenko and O’Brien,2008, Fung and New, 2011). A major reason for this high level of vulnerability is theinterconnectedness of nations today, where globalization has the effect of amplifyingclimate impacts across spatial and even temporal scales. In recent years, a number ofexamples of this have been demonstrated. Floods in Thailand disrupted carproduction in the United States and computer production in Japan grinded to a haltdue to the resulting shortage of components. Bad harvests in grain producing areas ofthe world led to food price spikes in 2008, causing starvation in many poor countries.Low rainfall in Lesotho caused energy failures in the industrial heartlands of SouthAfrica.

Addressing the Scale of the Problem: Why It Matters

There have been several assessments of global water resources, and many differentapproaches to water resource modeling (Hoff et al., 2010, Doll, 2009, Islam et al.,2007, Huntingford et al., 2010). Most of these are based on grid-based mathematicalmodels which bring together information on rainfall, evaporation, soil moisture,albedo, wind speed and so on, which provide the best possible estimates of surface andsometimes groundwater availability. These calculations, however, are confounded bylack of information on ground and surface water interactions, horizontal watertransfer between aquifers, and accurate data on land cover. Such grid based modelingalso has its own methodological disadvantages. This includes the challenge ofperforming the vast number of calculations required to provide an indication of howthe grid square values of the various attributes of the hydrological cycle are linked.While there have been attempts made recently to address this challenge (Vorosmartyet al, 2010), there is still a high degree of uncertainty in the results.

While such approaches provide an indication of the extent and volume of water indifferent part of this hydrological cycle, they are subject to the usual methodologicaluncertainties of mathematical modeling as well as further weakened by theirdeterministic theoretical frameworks. Human use of water resources is certainly notonly determined by physical conditions. Throughout the world, there are a myriad ofother non-physical factors that determine who has access to water, and how muchthey can appropriate for practical use. A novel attribute of the approach outlined hereis to incorporate social, political and economic dimensions into water resourceassessment to provide a more comprehensive insight into the relationship betweenhuman societies and global water resources. This is achieved by taking a bottom-upapproach where assessments of the human condition are linked to physical waterresource quantification. The development of the Water Poverty Index (Sullivan,2002, Sullivan et al., 2003) demonstrated the practicality of this approach, andremains the most widely cited example of such integrated water resource assessment.The term bottom-up here refers to the idea that this approach starts with people onthe landscape, and then links them to the larger scale information provided byhydrological and climate models. Other assessments follow a top-down approach,where information from large scale modeling is made available to policymakersusually without specific linkages to societal factors. Irrespective of the approach used,there is much agreement that human appropriation of water resources is rapidlyoutstripping the available supply and leading to the unfortunate condition of waterstress, where resources cannot meet the water need for food production (Alcamo etal., 2007, FAO, 2005).

Responses to water stress will depend on geographical, technological and social factors,and by examining the distributional impact of water vulnerability, adaptive responsescan be better targeted to where the return will be greatest. By identifying geospatialvariability in the causes of vulnerability, it is possible to develop site-specific insightsto support proactive adaptation measures that are tailored specifically to the needs ofthe place and the people at risk. Clearly, the causes of vulnerability vary depending onthe context, and therefore a flexible suite of solutions can be provided to support

5

6

7

8

9

Sullivan, GSJ (26 July 2013), page 2

appropriate responses (Adger et al., 2005). In this context, one size fits all solutionsdo not work in the real world. At the same time, the real world is increasingly doggedby seemingly intractable water allocation problems, and so tools to address them areincreasingly needed.

In the context of human vulnerability to changes in water resources, it is important tounderstand the site-specific nature of its causes. In this chapter, an attempt toaddress this is provided through the application of a multicriteria-based assessmenttool referred to as the Climate Vulnerability Index (CVI). This composite indexapproach is used to explore the multidimensional effects on human society of theimpacts of climate change on water resources. Firstly, the geographical distribution ofwater related vulnerability is presented and then the scale of vulnerability withindifferent social groups is examined.

Application of the Climate Vulnerability Index (CVI)

Building on the earlier work on the Water Poverty Index, the Climate VulnerabilityIndex (Sullivan et al., 2002, Sullivan and Meigh, 2005) is a composite index based onmeasurements of Global Impact Factors (GIFs) and calculated as a weighted averageas shown in Equation 1:

Here, Xi refers to component i of one of the Global Impact Factors within the CVIstructure. This relates to the site-specific location being considered, while r acts as aweighting, representing risks associated with each particular GIF. The Global ImpactFactors (GIFs) are the main components of the CVI. These represent dimensions ofresource allocation decisions which have been identified as giving rise to vulnerability(Sullivan and Huntingford, 2009). By combining these within a composite index, weobtain a measure that reflects the essence of what it means to be vulnerable in thecontext of globalization. Each of these GIFs is assessed based on scores for varioussub-components. Sub-components (illustrated in Table 1) will depend on the locationand available data. While any location can select its own components whencomparisons are to be made, the same sub-components must be used.

Table 1. Global Impact Factors and their possible components

Weighting in the Climate Vulnerability Index

Weights used in the calculation of the CVI reflect the degree of risk “r” associated withthe impact of each of the Global Impact Factors. Weights can either be additive ormultiplicative, and these are used to indicate the relative importance of the variouscomponents in the calculation. For the purpose of calculating the CVI in thisdemonstration application at a variety of scales, weights have been kept neutral by

10

11

12

13

Sullivan, GSJ (26 July 2013), page 3

assigning them all an equal value of one. In practice, weights are best determinedthrough consultation with local experts and stakeholders, but when comparisons arebeing made between different places it is important to use the same variables with thesame weights. When the weighted average scores of the GIFs and their sub-components are calculated, the results can be mapped for use in deliberative policydevelopment, as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Using geospatial data to map composite values. Source: Sullivan et al., 2006.

The Distribution of Human Vulnerability to Change in Water Resources

While it is clear that the finest resolution data will bring the most accurate results inany model (Sullivan and Meigh, 2007), often in practice data is limited. In terms ofpublic data, this is usually provided at the national scale and this is what has beenused in this analysis. It is important to note that a national representation does notprovide any indication of how any characteristic or risk is distributed within a country,either geographically, or on the basis of socio-economic variability within the country.For this approach to be useful to policymakers, vulnerability assessment must ideallyconsider issues at the sub-national scale (illustrated in Figure 1).

There is no doubt that by combining relevant information through a composite indexstructure it is possible to target response strategies more effectively. This chapterdemonstrates the application of this composite index approach at a national scale, butfor the purpose of national policymaking, governments and NGOs would be bestinformed by assessments made at the sub-national scale based on data with the finestresolution possible. In practice, this may be at the provincial or local government areascale. To demonstrate the applicability of the CVI approach, the above analysis hasbeen applied to publicly available data for 17 variables applied to a total of 148countries. Countries not included are those where adequate data is not available.Figure 2 shows how the computed scores for the CVI are distributed across the world,and highlights the high degree of vulnerability experienced by people in the Africancontinent compared with those in North America or Europe. Once again it is importantto note that these national values may be misleading, and it is valuable to consider thenumber of people at risk rather than the number of nations. This is demonstrated bythe figures provided in Table 2.

14

15

Sullivan, GSJ (26 July 2013), page 4

Figure 2. CVI scores for 148 countries. Source: Sullivan et al., 2002.

In Table 2, the number of people in different vulnerability categories in threecontinents is considered. From this, we can see that while the degree of vulnerabilityis much higher in Africa (due mainly to low adaptive capacity and access to finance,etc.) than in Asia or Latin America. There is no doubt that for demographic reasons,the scale of the problem is much worse in Asia. Although over 95% of Africans are inthe medium to high and high vulnerability categories, this represents some 670million people while in Asia only 83% of the population are in those categories, but thisrepresents over 2 billion people. Notably, no population in Latin America are in thesecategories when measured on the national scale, and the levels of human vulnerabilityto changes in water resources in Latin America is much lower than in other continents.This is also reflected by the fact that most of the major donor agencies do not put asmuch priority to assist countries in that region.

Table 2. Considering scale issues: comparing current regional vulnerability

What Makes People Vulnerable to Changes in Water Resources?

Characteristics of countries facing different levels of vulnerability to global change inwater resources have been analyzed within the CVI structure. By examining thescores for the individual Global Impact Factors for the countries in each continent itis possible to discern the overarching characteristics of each region which give rise totheir overall levels of vulnerability to changes in water resources. For example, inboth Asia and Africa resource availability is a major issue mostly due to the highdemand in major countries as well as ecological health being a serious threat (mainlyfrom land degradation and pollution). For Africa, both access to resources and capacityto manage them are a major source of vulnerability, and so strategies to reducevulnerability in that region should be focus on relatively easy ways to increase theseGIF scores.

Table 3. Regional average scores for the Global Impact Factors

Characteristics, which give rise to higher levels of vulnerability in different places, areillustrated through these regional GIF scores. Illustrated in Figure 3, they show howthe most vulnerable places are likely to have problems associated with property rightsand access, relatively lower and less reliable resource assets, and a lower degree ofhuman and institutional capacity with a higher geospatial risk. This demonstrates howresponses to reduce vulnerability can be targeted to what is most needed. For highlyvulnerable places, improvement in resource provision is needed (e.g. more waterstorage) while at the same time better management and institutional arrangements

16

17

18

Sullivan, GSJ (26 July 2013), page 5

are needed to improve the very low efficiency of water use. In contrast to this,countries with lower vulnerability will have better water access and managementcapacity. It is interesting to note that in all categories, there is much scope forimprovement in water use efficiency.

Figure 3. Characteristics of different categories of vulnerability. Source: Sullivan and

Huntingford, 2009.

Where are Future Vulnerabilities?

In order to investigate how humans will be influenced by future changes in waterresources we must consider how the demand for water and its supply may change inthe future. Most attention has been focusing on how future water resource suppliesmay change, but the approach presented here incorporates such potential resourcechanges into other global changes which are happening concurrently (Leichenko andO’Brien). This is essential if we are to move away from a limited deterministicapproach, and take account of the realities of the globalized world in which we mustfunction. To achieve this, scenarios of future change are applied to the values of thecurrent scores on the Global Impact Factors. Explicit account of climate change isincorporated through the use of best available hydro-climatic modeling to adjust thevalue for Resource Quantification, while other global changes associated witheconomic and demographic change are applied to the non-hydrological GIFs. Thus,through the use of outputs from the HadCM3 model from the UK Hadley Centre, andthe application of UNEP derived Policy First scenarios (UNEP, 2002), we can projecthow the global impact factors may change over time. For simple illustration of thisprocess, three examples are illustrated in Table 4. This shows how each of the GlobalImpact Factors will change (2000-2030) with the cumulative effect of these changesusually resulting in an overall worsening of the level of vulnerability (higher CVIvalues, circled). The example of Nepal included here shows that big improvements inone GIF (in this case, accessibility and property rights) can make a big difference tothe future outcome. Using an approach such as this allows us to be more adaptive inour development strategies by taking account not only of the past, but also of thefuture.

19

Sullivan, GSJ (26 July 2013), page 6

Table 4. Application of scenarios of global change to selected countries

Demographic Dimensions of Vulnerability

Elderly and young persons are likely to be more vulnerable than others to the impactsof global change. By assessing the scale of exposure for these specific groups to climateand other global impacts, it helps to further understand the distributional impacts ofvulnerability to changes in water resources, and the different ways it can beaddressed. The extent of this risk to young people is shown in Tables 5 and 6. Both inAfrica and Asia, young people must be seen as the priority for adaptation not onlybecause they will be the ones facing future challenges, but simply because of theanticipated scale of the impact in terms of numbers affected.

Table 5. Young peoples’ vulnerability to changes in water resources in Asia

Table 6. Young peoples’ vulnerability to changes in water resources in Africa

In addition to age groups, demographic differences can be further analyzed on thebasis of gender and geographical distribution. Figures 5 and 6 provide illustrations ofthis for Asian countries. In four countries in the medium to high vulnerabilitycategory, over 40% of the population is below 14 years of age (PNG, Pakistan, Nepaland Cambodia) with almost the same proportion of the Bangladeshi population beingin the highly vulnerable category. In contrast to this, three countries in the medium tohigh vulnerability category (Vietnam, Mauritius and China) have higher than averagenumbers of older people. Thus, in such countries additional attention must be given tothis in terms of adaptive planning.

20

21

Sullivan, GSJ (26 July 2013), page 7

Figure 4. How countries in Asia vary in terms of childhood vulnerability

Figure 5. How countries in Asia vary in terms of vulnerability of older people

National CVI Values for Selected Asian Countries

While national values cannot demonstrate internal variability, they are useful forcountries to measure their progress relative to others. Such figures are also importantin resource allocation by donor agencies. Figure 7 provides a comparison on fivecountries in Asia, and through this analysis, the varying challenges faced by differentcountries can be seen.

22

Sullivan, GSJ (26 July 2013), page 8

Figure 6. Comparing causes of human vulnerability to changes in water resources in

different Asian countries. Note: Higher CVI values indicate higher levels of vulnerability.

In Figure 6, the first thing that can be noticed is that Singapore is highly vulnerable interms of water resources. For South Korea, resource quantification is also a majorsource of vulnerability, but to a lesser degree. From the perspective of resourcequantification, the least vulnerable of the group is Malaysia. Both Singapore and SouthKorea have a moderate level of vulnerability associated with resource utilization andefficiency, but in terms of geospatial risks considered here (landslides, flooding,drought and so on), China is most vulnerable, followed by South Korea. For China andMalaysia accessibility and property rights are serious sources of vulnerability, andthreats to ecological integrity maintenance exist in all parts of the region. By revealingthese differences, policymakers in the respective countries can target their attentionwhere it is most needed.

Responding to Water Related Vulnerability: What Can Be Done?

There is no doubt that the number of people at risk from the impacts of global changeon water resources is increasing dramatically. Since the nature of the risks people facevaries between countries, there must be different responses with adaptable policies(World Bank, 2009). Given the scale of this problem of human vulnerability associatedwith water resources, there are some generic approaches which can be useful in manycountries. For example, it would clearly be beneficial to many countries to increaseefforts to achieve greater water security, both from a supply side (more storage) andfrom the demand side (demand reduction strategies). In almost every country, thereis a need to maximize opportunities and incentives to increase water use efficiency inagriculture, industry and services. Legislation should be strengthened to reduceenvironmental impacts and ensure ecological integrity is maintained by maximizingthe benefits from ecosystem services.

The Climate Vulnerability Index has provided the means by which variability inhuman vulnerabilities to climate change impacts on water resources can be examined.This facilitates investigation of the factors giving rise to vulnerability in specificlocations, and the distributional impacts of this vulnerability within differentdemographic groups within society. While this chapter has demonstrated the CVIapproach at a large regional scale, it is important to recognise that more robust resultswill be generated from finer resolution application at the sub-national scale. By puttingsuch approaches into practice, more holistic information becomes available forstrategic decision making, and targeting of resources to support action. In these timesof global change, policymakers would be well advised to address uncertainty and risksfrom climate and other changes by developing more adaptive approaches to managingall natural resources. By taking an active approach to embedding sustainabledevelopment in all aspects of government and private sector activities, countries andtheir people will be better placed to face the certainty of future change.

23

24

25

Copyright © GSJ & Author(s). ISSN 1557-0266

Sullivan, GSJ (26 July 2013), page 9

GSJ is published at Stony Brook University by the Stony Brook Institute for Global Studies (SBIGS)

Sullivan, GSJ (26 July 2013), page 10