Integrated Water Resources Management in Cities in the World: Global Solutions

Population growth, urbanisation, climate change, biodiversity loss, energy use, water security and ageing infrastructures for water supply and treatment require a thorough understanding of the options available for moving towards sustainable cities. The present study provides an analysis of transformation patterns regarding integrated water resources management (IWRM) of cities across the globe. We evaluate IWRM in 125 cities with 48 mostly quantitative indicators collected for each city by performing a cluster analysis of 6,000 indicator scores following the City Blueprint Approach. We distinguish five clusters of cities which show a pattern of problem-shifting, i.e., the shifting of largely preventable water resources problems often in the following sequence: drinking water insecurity, pollution caused by inadequate wastewater treatment, inadequate solid waste management, inaction on climate change adaptation, and resource depletion. A city that can address and solve all these problems can be classified as water-wise. Based on the cluster analysis, seven principles are defined to enable urban areas to become water-wise. Because water takes a central position in the United Nations sustainable development goals (SDGs), and is linked, directly or indirectly, to nearly all SDGs, success in IWRM is an important enabler for the other SDGs

City-to-City Learning to Enhance Urban Water Management: The Contribution of the City Blueprint Approach

Cities face several water challenges which ask for more pro-active governance approaches. One option that cities have is to start networking and build learning alliances with other cities. Forming meaningful alliances however asks for clear and easily accessible city-matching methodologies which are based on a standardised assessment approach and the presence of structured and large databases. The City Blueprint Approach is an example of such a methodology. Aim of this paper is to show the potential of this approach as a substantive methodology for enhancing urban water management. This is done by illustrating the use of the approach in four cities, which were studied in the H2020 project POWER (Political and sOcial awareness on Water EnviRonmental challenges) and by comparing the results found with good practises present in the City Blueprint database. These good practises however cannot simply be copy-pasted from one city to another. We therefore outline in what way more in-depth city to city learning results can be achieved and be tailored to best-fit particular urban areas. The paper concludes with some suggestions for enhancing the potential for city-to-city learning in urban water governance networks

Towards a water-smart society: Progress in linking theory and practice

Few scientific publications discuss the vision of the water-smart society. Our paper addresses this gap, outlining key principles of urban water–smartness and translating them into five strategic objectives to support decision-making at the local government level. Based on recent literature and dialogue with six European water Living Labs, we argue that the water-smart society must highlight societal well-being and co-development across sectors. Furthermore, we emphasize the need for a long-term perspective, conserving nature, and maximising ecosystem services, while anticipating change. Finally, we discuss how a more grounded conceptualisation of the water-smart society can guide utilities and urban policy design.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Integrated Water Resources Management in Cities in the World: Global Challenges

Water scarcity and accessibility remain persistently amongst the most prominent global challenges. Although there is a wide agreement among international organizations that Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) and water governance are key to overcome water-related challenges, global assessments of the progress made by cities is lacking. This paper for the first time analyses the challenges of water, wastewater, municipal solid waste and climate change in cities. We used empirical studies (125 cities) based on the City Blueprint Approach and developed a statistical estimation model to estimate IWRM performances of another 75 cities. These 200 cities in total represent more than 95% of the global urban population. This comprehensive global picture enables us to evaluate the existing gaps in achieving water-related Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), in particular SDG 6 (clean water and sanitation) and SDG 11 (sustainable cities and communities). The best performing cities were Amsterdam and Singapore. Unfortunately, most cities do not yet manage their water resources wisely and are far from achieving the SDGs. For instance, targets regarding drinking water supply are still a challenge for many cities in Africa and Asia and challenges regarding sanitation are high in cities in Africa, Asia and Latin America. The same holds for solid waste management, climate adaptation, and people living in informal settlements. In another paper we will address the solution pathways to these global challenges

The challenges of water, waste and climate change in cities

Cities play a prominent role in our economic development as more than 80 % of the gross world product (GWP) comes from cities. Only 600 urban areas with just 20 % of the world population generate 60 % of the GWP. Rapid urbanization, climate change, inadequate maintenance of water and wastewater infrastructures and poor solid waste management may lead to flooding, water scarcity, water pollution, adverse health effects and rehabilitation costs that may overwhelm the resilience of cities. These megatrends pose urgent challenges in cities as the cost of inaction is high. We present an overview about population growth, urbanization, water, waste, climate change, water governance and transitions. Against this background, we discuss the categorization of cities based on our baseline assessments, i.e. our City Blueprint research on 45 municipalities and regions predominantly in Europe. With this bias towards Europe in mind, the challenges can be discussed globally by clustering cities into distinct categories of sustainability and by providing additional data and information from global regions. We distinguish five categories of sustainability: (1) cities lacking basic water services, (2) wasteful cities, (3) water-efficient cities, (4) resource-efficient and adaptive cities and (5) water-wise cities. Many cities in Western Europe belong to categories 3 and 4. Some cities in Eastern Europe and the few cities we have assessed in Latin America, Asia and Africa can be categorized as cities lacking basic water services. Lack of water infrastructures or obsolete infrastructures, solid waste management and climate adaptation are priorities. It is concluded that cities require a long-term framing of their sectoral challenges into a proactive and coherent Urban Agenda to maximize the co-benefits of adaptation and to minimize the cost. Furthermore, regional platforms of cities are needed to enhance city-to-city learning and to improve governance capacities necessary to accelerate effective and efficient transitions towards water-wise cities. These learning alliances are needed as the time window to solve the global water governance crisis is narrow and rapidly closing. The water sector can play an important role but needs to reframe and refocus radically

Application of the City Blueprint Approach to assess the challenges of water management and governance in Quito (Ecuador)

In this paper, we provide an assessment of the challenges of water, waste and climate change in the city of Quito by performing the City Blueprint Approach consisting of three assessment frameworks: (1) the Trends and Pressure Framework (TPF), (2) the City Blueprint Framework (CBF) and (3) the water Governance Capacity Framework (GCF). The TPF summarizes the main social, environmental and financial aspects that may affect urban water management. The CBF provides a clear overview of sustainable urban water management performance and its bottlenecks in municipalities and regions. The GCF comprises nine governance conditions which each consist of three indicators. The GCF provides insight in the most effective improvements to increase the governance capacity to address the identified urban water challenges. Our results show that poor wastewater treatment and long-term drinking water security are Quito’s main water challenges that may be jeopardized given the city’s rapid urbanization and economic pressure. The GCF analysis reveals that cooperation between stakeholders, implementing capacity and citizens’ awareness are the most important conditions for further development to find adequate solutions for Quito’s long-term drinking water security. We also suggest that more attention should be drawn to the transparency, accountability and participation principles. The results of Quito show that the City Blueprint Approach can serve as an affordable quick-scan to facilitate cities in their strategic planning to reach their sustainable development goals

Assessing tap water awareness: The development of an empirically-based framework

Despite the often emphasized importance of water awareness, and notwithstanding the fact that calls for increasing public awareness are becoming commonplace, most studies do not define the concept, let alone operationalise it into measurable units. This is, however, essential to measure and evaluate efforts related to water awareness such as public campaigns, customer communication and behavioural interventions. To address this gap, we conceptualise, operationalise and assess tap water awareness, hereby differentiating between cognitive awareness (head), affectional awareness (heart), and behavioural awareness (hands). In parallel, we also differentiate between tap water quality, quantity and system. By building on a variety of contemporary conceptual insights in literature and a series of expert interviews, an assessment framework is developed. A cohesive set of nine awareness components are identified and operationalised into a set of tangible questions which are put to the test in a large-scale online survey (n = 1003) in the Netherlands, applying both a traditional and modern segmentation approach based on four types of perspectives ('quality & health concerned', 'aware & committed', 'egalitarian & solidary', and 'down to earth & confident'). Based on the analysis of the results of the first empirical application of our tap water awareness assessment framework, we conclude that-with a score 53.5 points out of 100-tap water awareness in the Netherlands shows ample room for improvement. Interestingly, most significant variations in awareness are generally not related to sociodemographic factors but rather apply to the four customer perspectives on drinking water that are based on people's subjective views and preferences

The City Blueprint Approach : Urban Water Management and Governance in Cities in the U.S.

In this paper, we assess the challenges of water, waste and climate change in six cities across the U.S.: New York City, Boston, Milwaukee, Phoenix, Portland and Los Angeles. We apply the City Blueprint® Approach which consists of three indicator assessments: (1) the Trends and Pressures Framework (TPF), (2) the City Blueprint Framework (CBF) and (3) the water Governance Capacity Framework (GCF). The TPF summarizes the main social, environmental and financial pressures that may impede water management. The CBF provides an integrated overview of the management performances within the urban watercycle. Finally, the GCF provides a framework to identify key barriers and opportunities to develop governance capacity. The GCF has only been applied in NYC. Results show that all cities face pressures from heat risk. The management performances regarding resource efficiency and resource recovery from wastewater and solid waste show considerable room for improvement. Moreover, stormwater separation, infrastructure maintenance and green space require improvement in order to achieve a resilient urban watercycle. Finally, in New York City, the GCF results show that learning through smart monitoring, evaluation and cross-stakeholder learning is a limiting condition that needs to be addressed. We conclude that the City Blueprint Approach has large potential to assist cities in their strategic planning and exchange of knowledge, experiences and lessons. Because the methodology is well-structured, easy to understand, and concise, it may bridge the gap between science, policy and practice. It could therefore enable other cities to address their challenges of water, waste and climate change

The City Blueprint Approach : Urban Water Management and Governance in Cities in the U.S.

In this paper, we assess the challenges of water, waste and climate change in six cities across the U.S.: New York City, Boston, Milwaukee, Phoenix, Portland and Los Angeles. We apply the City Blueprint® Approach which consists of three indicator assessments: (1) the Trends and Pressures Framework (TPF), (2) the City Blueprint Framework (CBF) and (3) the water Governance Capacity Framework (GCF). The TPF summarizes the main social, environmental and financial pressures that may impede water management. The CBF provides an integrated overview of the management performances within the urban watercycle. Finally, the GCF provides a framework to identify key barriers and opportunities to develop governance capacity. The GCF has only been applied in NYC. Results show that all cities face pressures from heat risk. The management performances regarding resource efficiency and resource recovery from wastewater and solid waste show considerable room for improvement. Moreover, stormwater separation, infrastructure maintenance and green space require improvement in order to achieve a resilient urban watercycle. Finally, in New York City, the GCF results show that learning through smart monitoring, evaluation and cross-stakeholder learning is a limiting condition that needs to be addressed. We conclude that the City Blueprint Approach has large potential to assist cities in their strategic planning and exchange of knowledge, experiences and lessons. Because the methodology is well-structured, easy to understand, and concise, it may bridge the gap between science, policy and practice. It could therefore enable other cities to address their challenges of water, waste and climate change