Fluctuating hydraulic pressure in municipal drinking water networks is a critical yet frequently overlooked dimension of socio-spatial inequality, where marginalized urban communities disproportionately bear the burden of deficient service. This study addresses this gap by developing and applying the Urban Water Vulnerability Index (UWVI), a composite indicator that pairs empirical hydraulic performance (normalized operational water pressure) with multidimensional socioeconomic conditions (Social Development Index, SDI) within the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) vulnerability framework. Evaluated across four boroughs in Mexico City Coyoacán, Xochimilco, Benito Juárez, and Tlalpan and interpreted through the Pressure–State–Response (PSR) heuristic, the UWVI demonstrates marked spatial heterogeneity. Coyoacán exhibits the most acute condition, where extensive network pressure losses intersect with high social marginalization (mean UWVI: 0.64; 53% of BGA classified as high vulnerability). Xochimilco exhibits moderate challenges linked to peri-urban network fragmentation (mean UWVI: 0.51; 23% high vulnerability). In contrast, Benito Juárez (mean UWVI: 0.35; 0% high vulnerability) displays localized service imbalances despite high socioeconomic status, while Tlalpan (mean UWVI: 0.38; 0% high vulnerability) demonstrates stable baseline performance. Sensitivity and uncertainty analyses confirm the robustness of the index across alternative weighting schemes, demonstrating 94% classification stability and statistically significant correlations with independent administrative indicators, including citizen complaints and emergency tanker dispatches (r = 0.38–0.56, p < 0.05). The UWVI functions as an objective spatial screening and prioritization tool, establishing an evidence-based foundation for four distinct intervention archetypes to guide equitable urban water planning.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Luna et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: