This article focuses on the somewhat ambiguous concept of scarce water, or, more accurately stated, on the rather more ambiguous concept of scarcity. Still today, water scarcity in a region is defined largely in physical terms, typically gallons or cubic metres per capita if a stock or per capita‐year if a flow. However useful purely physical measures may be for broad comparisons, they cannot adequately reflect the variety of ways in which human beings use water — neither to their wastefulness when water is perceived as abundant nor to their ingenuity when it is not. This article argues that water scarcity should be defined according to three orders of scarcity that require, respectively, physical, economic and social adaptations. It goes on to demonstrate that perceiving scarcity mainly in physical terms limits opportunities for policy‐making and approaches for capacity building.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wolfe et al. (2003) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: