Search for: All records

ABSTRACT The Household Water Insecurity Experiences (HWISE) and Individual Water Insecurity Experiences (IWISE) Scales are globally suitable tools for comparably measuring water insecurity experiences among households and adults, respectively. The potential range for HWISE and IWISE scores is 0–36. When the WISE Scales were first published, scores of 12 and higher were considered indicative of water insecurity, but additional cut-points are needed to provide more nuanced insights. We therefore sought to develop a practical set of cut-points for the WISE Scales using HWISE data from 13 sites across 12 countries (n = 3,293) and nationally representative samples of IWISE data from 38 countries collected by the Gallup World Poll (n = 52,343). We selected cut-points in water insecurity scores to establish four ordinal categories: no-to-marginal (0–2), low (3–11), moderate (12–23), and high (24–36) water insecurity. These categories were monotonically associated with increasing odds of reporting water dissatisfaction and helped to differentiate the breadth of water insecurity across populations with heterogenous water insecurity experiences and frequencies. These four water insecurity categories can be used to better understand how water insecurity may be related to livelihoods, health, and well-being, both at low and high water insecurity. 

Abstract Objective: Water plays a critical role in the production of food and preparation of nutritious meals, yet few studies have examined the relationship between water and food insecurity. The primary objective of this study, therefore, was to examine how experiences of household water insecurity (HWI) relate to experiences of household food insecurity (HFI) among a pastoralist population living in an arid, water-stressed region of northern Kenya. Design: We implemented the twelve-item Household Water Insecurity Experiences (HWISE, range 0–36) Scale and the nine-item Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS, range 0–27) in a cross-sectional survey to measure HWI and HFI, respectively. Data on socio-demographic characteristics and intake of meat and dairy in the prior week were collected as covariates of interest. Setting: Northern Kenya, June–July 2019. Participants: Daasanach pastoralist households ( n 136) from seven communities. Results: In the prior 4 weeks, 93·4 % and 98·5 % of households had experienced moderate-to-severe HWI and HFI, respectively. Multiple linear regression analyses indicated a strong association between HWI and HFI. Each point higher HWISE score was associated with a 0·44-point (95 % CI: 0·22, 0·66, P = 0·003) higher HFIAS score adjusting for socio-economic status and other covariates. Conclusions: These findings demonstrate high prevalence and co-occurrence of HWI and HFI among Daasanach pastoralists in northern Kenya. This study highlights the need to address HWI and HFI simultaneously when developing policies and interventions to improve the nutritional well-being of populations whose subsistence is closely tied to water availability and access. 

Compounding systems of marginalization differentiate and shape water-related risks. Yet, quantitative water security scholarship rarely assesses such risks through intersectionality, a paradigm that conceptualizes and examines racial, gendered, class, and other oppressions as interdependent. Using an intersectionality approach, we analyze the relationships between household head gender and self-reported socio-economic status, and water affordability (proportion of monthly income spent on water) and water insecurity (a composite measure of 11 self-reported experiences) for over 4000 households across 18 low- and middle-income countries in Central and South America, Africa, and Asia. Interaction terms and composite categorical variables were included in regression models, adjusting for putative confounders. Among households with a high socio-economic status, the proportion of monthly income spent on water differed by household head gender. In contrast, greater household water insecurity was associated with lower socio-economic status and did not meaningfully vary by the gender of the household head. We contextualize and interpret these experiences through larger systems of power and privilege. Overall, our results provide evidence of broad intersectional patterns from diverse sites, while indicating that their nature and magnitude depend on local contexts. Through a critical reflection on the study’s value and limitations, including the operationalization of social contexts across different sites, we propose methodological approaches to advance multi-sited and quantitative intersectional research on water affordability and water insecurity. These approaches include developing scale-appropriate models, analyzing complementarities and differences between site-specific and multi-sited data, collecting data on gendered power relations, and measuring the impacts of household water insecurity. 

ABSTRACT Water security is a powerful concept that is still in its early days in the field of nutrition. Given the prevalence and severity of water issues and the many interconnections between water and nutrition, we argue that water security deserves attention commensurate with its importance to human nutrition and health. To this end, we first give a brief introduction to water insecurity and discuss its conceptualization in terms of availability, access, use, and stability. We then lay out the empirical grounding for its assessment. Parallels to the food-security literature are drawn throughout, both because the concepts are analogous and food security is familiar to the nutrition community. Specifically, we review the evolution of scales to measure water and food security and compare select characteristics. We then review the burgeoning evidence for the causes and consequences of water insecurity and conclude with 4 recommendations: 1) collect more water-insecurity data (i.e., on prevalence, causes, consequences, and intervention impacts); 2) collect better data on water insecurity (i.e., measure it concurrently with food security and other nutritional indicators, measure intrahousehold variation, and establish baseline indicators of both water and nutrition before interventions are implemented); 3) consider food and water issues jointly in policy and practice (e.g., establish linkages and possibilities for joint interventions, recognize the environmental footprint of nutritional guidelines, strengthen the nutrition sensitivity of water-management practices, and use experience-based scales for improving governance and regulation across food and water systems); and 4) make findings easily available so that they can be used by the media, community organizations, and other scientists for advocacy and in governance (e.g., tracking progress towards development goals and holding implementers accountable). As recognition of the importance of water security grows, we hope that so too will the prioritization of water in nutrition research, funding, and policy. 

Abstract Improving water governance is a top priority for addressing the global water crisis. Yet, there is a dearth of empirical data examining whether better water governance is associated with lower water insecurity and improved well-being. We, therefore, pooled household data from two Sustainable Water Effectiveness Reviews conducted by Oxfam GB in Zambia (n = 997) and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC, n = 1,071) to assess the relationship between perceived water governance (using a 12-item indicator), water insecurity [using the Household Water Insecurity Experiences (HWISE) Scale], and four indicators of well-being: life satisfaction, drinking unsafe water, diarrhea, and resilience to cholera outbreak. Using generalized structural equation models controlling for wealth and primary water source, each point increase in water governance score was associated with a 0.69-point decrease in HWISE Scale scores. Good water governance was also directly associated with greater odds of life satisfaction (aOR 1.24) and lower odds of both drinking unsafe water (aOR 0.91) and severe cholera impact (aOR 0.92). Furthermore, the relationships between water governance and drinking unsafe water, diarrhea, and cholera impact were mediated by household water insecurity. Improving water governance has the potential to meaningfully impact entrenched public health issues through changes in water insecurity.