A comparative Appraisal of Classical and Holistic Water Scarcity Indicators

Precise measurement of water scarcity is a prerequisite to effective resource management. Researchers have developed a range of water scarcity indicators. However, no single indicator grasping all dimensions is available. In this paper, we compared 12 indicators for their sensitivity to blue and green waters, quality-induced water scarcity, environmental flows, data requirements, spatial scale, and adaptive capacity. Also, an analysis was carried out based on previous studies to identify hotspots and show the dissimilarity in the results yielded by different indicators. We found four classical indicators considered in this study deficient in accuracy given their insensitivity to green water, quality-induced water scarcity, environmental flow requirement, seasonality, virtual water, and so on. Whereas, seven holistic indicators face the challenges of data scarcity, validation, and lack of widespread application. None of these indicators is inclusive enough to provide a broad-gauge assessment. Finally, we provided a profound discussion on the limitations and needs of creativity in indicators and the data challenges. We concluded that water scarcity measurement in a country or region should not be based on a single indicator. A country-specific selection of multiple indicators should be made to cover the maximum parameters in view of spatial scale and data requirements.

Automated summary

The paper compares 12 indicators for water scarcity and finds that no single indicator can comprehensively assess it. Classical indicators lack accuracy, while holistic indicators face challenges of data and application. Therefore, a selection of multiple indicators should be made for measuring water scarcity in a country or region.