Resources

Efficiency estimationTo compute the efficiency scores of WCs based on the DEA-CSW approach, the methodology proposed by Wu et al.25 was employed. It was assumed that there are n units (left( {j = 1,..,,d,..,,n} right)) ((WC = left{ {d|d,is,a,water,company} right})) and each WC uses m inputs (left( {i = 1,….,,m} right)) to produce s outputs (left( {r = 1,….,,s} right)).To evaluate the efficiency of WCd, the basic DEA-CCR model proposed by Charnes et al.17 was used (Model 1):$$Max,E_d = mathop {sum}limits_{r = 1}^s {u_{rd}y_{rd}}$$
(1)
s.t.$$mathop {sum}limits_{r = 1}^s {u_{rd}y_{rj}} – mathop {sum}limits_{i = 1}^m {omega _{id}x_{ij} le 0}$$$$mathop {sum}limits_{i = 1}^m {omega _{id}x_{id} = 1}$$$$begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {u_{rd} ge 0} & {r = 1,2, ldots ,s} end{array}$$$$begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {omega _{id} ge 0} & {i = 1,2, ldots ,m} end{array}$$where (u_{rd}) is the weight of the output r for the WCd (observation evaluated) and (omega _{id}) is the weight of the input i for the water company evaluated (WCd). Model (1) is an output-oriented DEA model because within a regulatory framework, the objective of WCs is to improve the quality of their services (outputs) keeping constant economic costs (inputs).Model (1) selects the set of input and output weights that maximize the efficiency of WCd. In other words, the efficiency score for the water company d in the DEA-CCR model ((E_d)) is the best that the WCd can obtain. The WCd is efficient if (E_d = 1) and is not efficient (i.e. has room for improvement) if (E_d ,, left| { mp 3} right|$$
(9)
Table 3 Correlations (Pearson coefficient) between input and output variables.Full size tableTable 4 provides an overview of the statistical data employed to compute the efficiency scores of the WCs evaluated in Chile.Table 4 Main descriptive statistics of variables used to evaluate the efficiency of water companies.Full size table More

Expansion of desalinationWhile reliance on desalination may allow Israel to meet basic domestic and agricultural needs, doing so will have considerable environmental consequences. Foremost, increased production of desalinated water will lead to a correspondingly steep rise in energy demand. The world’s most efficient desalination facilities currently require 3–3.5 kWh to desalinate 1 m3 of seawater10,11,12. Assuming the lower end of this bound, under the high-growth scenario, Israel will need an additional 11 TWh per year, or about 15% of the country’s current electrical generation. For comparison’s sake, this amount of electricity would require the equivalent of a 1600 MW natural gas power plant operating with an 80% capacity factor. Of course, technological improvements can be expected to make the desalination process less energy intensive, but the rate of reduction is expected to be limited13. We emphasize that these numbers include only the electricity required for the reverse osmosis process. They do not include the cost or energy associated with pumping water from the Mediterranean, distribution within Israel, and eventual wastewater treatment, all of which are energy intensive in their own right14. While renewable energy generation holds great promise, it could take decades before Israel has a low-carbon electricity system. Indeed, Israeli pledges at the Glasgow COP 26 envision only 30% of electricity coming from renewable sources by 203015. Should Israel pursue a solar PV-based decarbonization strategy, it will require substantial amounts of open space, in a country that already suffers from land shortages12. If solar PV is to become a main source of electricity generation in Israel, then demand will far exceed what is viable to produce on rooftops. At present, Israel generates over 90% of its electricity from fossil fuels, mostly natural gas and in the near-term, desalination will lead to increased greenhouse gas emissions14.The construction of new desalination facilities has the potential to negatively affect Israel’s coastal landscape and aquatic coastal ecosystem. At present, Israel’s major desalination plants are all located along the country’s Mediterranean shoreline, with the future Haifa and Sorek II plants also planned for the coast. Significant future construction has the potential to limit public access to coastal recreation areas. While the construction of future desalination facilities at inland locations may alleviate the environmental impact on Israel’s coast, the feasibility of such construction is still being evaluated. An inland approach could increase the energy requirements for desalination, since it would require pumping seawater further inland. Moreover, scientists and environmentalists have voiced concerns that increased reliance on the pumping of seawater and discharge of brine following desalination over the long term has the potential to damage Israel’s coastal ecosystems, including plant and animal life16,17,18. For almost two decades Israel’s Oceanic and Limnological Research Institute has carefully monitored the effects of desalination facilities in these areas and has yet to detect signs of consequential ecological damage19,20. Notwithstanding, this is an issue that requires continuous observation and analysis.A transition to desalinated water as the primary source of drinking water also raises a number of potential health concerns. Notably, desalinated water is lacking in certain minerals, such as magnesium, considered essential for human health21,22. The long-term consequences of consuming water that does not contain these elements are unknown21,22.Sustainability of treated wastewater for agricultureDespite the boon that treated wastewater has been to Israeli farmers—ensuring a steady supply of low-cost water—leading voices within the scientific community have raised potential environmental and health concerns that question the sustainability of Israel’s practices23,24,25,26.Treated wastewater, including Israel’s relatively high-quality effluents, remains high in salt content, which can lead to reduced plant yield and increase the risk of long-term soil degradation26,27,28. In particular, recent research has demonstrated that irrigation water with a high relative fraction of sodium can cause irreversible breakdowns in soil structure, such that the affected land can no longer support agricultural production. Long-term use of saline water also has the potential to pollute Israel’s aquifers27.Treated wastewater is additionally known to contain various chemical compounds—ranging from pharmaceuticals to heavy metals—that may present risks to human health. When used for agriculture, pharmaceuticals and heavy metal compounds can be taken up by food crops and consumed by people29,30,31,32. Crucially, the health consequences of long-term exposure to these compounds are uncertain and further research in this area is needed33.Should Israel determine that reliance on treated wastewater for agriculture is too great a liability, this would create a twofold stress for the country’s water infrastructure. First, additional water supplies would be required to sustain the country’s farmers, with the only viable alternative likely being the production of additional desalinated water. Given current energy prices, however, the cost of using desalinated water appears to be prohibitively expensive for most crops25,34. Israel would then face a choice between continuing to support local agricultural production, despite the high costs, or moving to import required food supplies, which could be expensive and present potential national security risks. Second, Israel would have to find an environmentally acceptable method of discharging the large quantities of wastewater previously allocated to agriculture. If reusing treated effluent for agriculture is no longer viable, Israel will need to adjust its water treatment infrastructure.One plausible scenario for coping with increased quantities of domestic wastewater is the possibility of treating this water to a higher level so that it can be re-used as drinking water, as has been done in potable reuse programs for years in American states like California, Virginia, and Colorado35. Expanded potable reuse could also lead to a decrease in Israel’s demand for desalinated water, lowering energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions while ameliorating pressure on Israel’s coastal landscape and ecosystems. Treating wastewater to a higher level could also enable continued use by farmers, albeit at a higher cost.Effect of climate change minimal compared to population riseOur analysis shows that the expected effects of climate change on Israel’s water supply are likely to be minimal compared to those of population growth. An assumed 20% decline in production from natural water resources by 2065 (“Methods””), represents a decrease of 245 million m3 per year in comparison to 2020 levels. Even if we consider a larger decline in natural sources due to climate change, the lost capacity pales in comparison to the increased demand from population growth, which is an order of magnitude larger. That is, our projections show that Israel’s water supply will remain precarious even if the worst consequences of global climate change do not materialize. Of course, even if climate change’s effects on Israel’s drinking water may be small compared to that caused by population growth, any change in precipitation patterns also has the potential to raise the risk of forest fires, cause increased flooding, and affect the region’s wildlife.Security concerns and regional cooperationIn past military conflicts, Israel’s coastal desalination facilities have been a target for both rocket and cyber-attacks. Thus far, Israel’s Iron Dome and other defense systems have withstood these challenges. Nonetheless, should a desalination plant be forced offline for a prolonged period of time, it could potentially disrupt water supply.It is also important to note Israel’s obligations to provide fixed quantities of water to the Palestinian Authority and Jordan, pursuant to the Oslo II Accords and the 1994 peace treaty with Jordan. While it is beyond the scope of this analysis, Israel’s neighbors are themselves under intense pressure to meet the water demands of growing populations. Unlike Israel, Palestine and Jordan are already suffering from major deficits in supply, with access severely limited. Moreover, Israel’s neighbors are less well positioned to increase desalination capacity. Water scarcity in Jordan, Palestine, and other countries in the region has the potential to cause significant unrest, representing a major security concern for Israel and its neighbors. The possibility of Israel supplying desalinated water to its neighbors has often been suggested as a possible component of regional peace building36. In fact, in 2021 Israel agreed to double its annual water supply to Jordan to 100 MCM37. Any additional steps to the export of water to Jordan or Palestine would, however, add an additional component of stress to an Israeli water system that will already be facing unprecedented demand driven by population growth.The sustainability of any future plan to address Israeli water scarcity could be bolstered by steps to increase cooperation between Israel and its neighbors. At present, for example, significant quantities of untreated wastewater flow from the West Bank into Israel38,39,40. Likewise, sewage discharge from Gaza into the Mediterranean has in the past caused fouling of membranes at Israel’s Ashkelon desalination plant, even forcing the plant to go offline41. Capture and treatment of wastewater within Palestine would have the dual benefit of increasing potential irrigation supplies for Palestinian farmers while reducing pollution of transboundary water resources42. Increased water access, of course, also has the potential to decrease water-driven security risks in the region.Ecological concernsThe projections presented here only consider how an increase in water demand could impact future demand from desalination. We do not examine how rising population levels might limit access to water resources for recreational purposes. Nonetheless, we can expect that a larger population will put increased strain on access to Israel’s streams, rivers, and lakes43. Likewise, reduced natural flows are liable to stress the flora and fauna in the country’s national parks and nature reserves43. A recent report by Israel’s State Comptroller revealed that the country’s compliance with the UN Convention on Biodiversity is woefully inadequate, with the country failing to meet 74% of the convention’s measurable objectives44. Providing nature with reliable and reasonable water flows will be critical to preserving the country’s unique ecosystems, but increasingly difficult given the anticipated growth in anthropogenic demands.Technological ImprovementsThe trends discussed here are robust even if dramatic technological improvements allow Israel to greatly reduce per capita water consumption. For instance, if we assume a 30% decline in per capita consumption, a truly dramatic change considering historical values and Israel’s already impressive water conservation practices (Methods), Israel would still need to produce 2.3 billion m3 of desalinated water in 2065 for the high-growth scenario. This constitutes a 350% increase in capacity compared to 2020 levels and would require significant infrastructure investment.Global BellwetherThe extent to which Israel is able to meet the water demands of a growing population in the face of increasingly insufficient natural supplies could provide valuable insight for regions and governments facing similar pressures. The population growth rate in the American Southwest, for instance, has far outpaced that of the U.S. as a whole, with water resources in the region already extremely stressed. In contrast to Israel, the American Southwest lacks the advantages of a centralized water authority. Additionally, many of the population centers in the American Southwest are far removed from potential sources of desalinated water, making the challenge of water delivery even greater and the value of efficiency and wastewater treatment and reuse higher. Likewise, middle-income countries facing acute water scarcity (e.g., Brazil, South Africa) may look to Israel’s experience as they seek to increase water supplies for growing populations.Hydrological stability is typically considered a prerequisite for sustainability. In water-scarce regions, projected climate change-driven precipitation decreases matter. But the anticipated shortages caused by population growth appear to matter far more. Desalination offers a possible way-out of such conundrums. But for the foreseeable future, the absence of low-carbon electricity to power this energy-intensive process means that relying on desalination technology will contribute to increased greenhouse gas emissions. Should Israel struggle in its effort to meet growing water demand, or be unable to do so without significantly increasing carbon emissions, it will provide a stark warning of the challenges ahead.Water in the context of other constraints on israeli population growthWhile many technologically-optimistic managers perceive desalination as a panacea for providing water supply under conditions of steady population growth, in other areas of life, solutions are more elusive. This is particularly true in designing infrastructure that utilizes land resources, such as housing, agriculture, and the production of raw materials for construction.To meet projected demand for residential housing between 2020–2030, Israel will need to add an additional 560,000 housing units to present stock. Due to the nature of exponential growth functions, however, demand will grow to over 1.05 million housing units between 2050–2060. Supplying the corresponding housing and infrastructure is expected to put further pressure on Israel’s open spaces, which are already disappearing at a rate of 30 km2 a year8. The depletion of open spaces, including agricultural lands, could also pose a threat to Israel’s food security in the future. Already, official figures cite current Israeli food imports at around 64% of total calories consumed by the population45 with some experts calculating even greater dependence on food imports46. Besides expanding the carbon footprint of Israel’s food supply, such significant reliance on imported crops increases the country’s vulnerability and exposure to global shocks in the food markets during times of international turbulence or military conflict. More

Loon, A. F. V. et al. Drought in the Anthropocene. Nat. Geosci. 9, 89–91 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Diffenbaugh, N. S., Swain, D. L. & Touma, D. Anthropogenic warming has increased drought risk in California. Proc Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 3931–3936 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Qiu, J. China drought highlights future climate threats. Nature 465, 142–143 (2010).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Xu, K. et al. Spatio-temporal variation of drought in China during 1961–2012: a climatic perspective. J. Hydrol. 526, 253–264 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Van Loon, A. F. & Van Lanen, H. A. J. Making the distinction between water scarcity and drought using an observation-modeling framework. Water Resour. Res. 49, 1483–1502 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Yuan, X., Wang, L. & Wood, E. F. Anthropogenic intensification of Southern African flash droughts as exemplified by the 2015/16 season. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 99, S86–S90 (2018).Ray, B. & Rajib, S. Urban Drought (Springer, 2019).Zhang, X. et al. Urban drought challenge to 2030 sustainable development goals. Sci. Total Environ. 693, 133536 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Not a drop to spare. Nat. Sustain 1, 151–152 (2018).Anandharuban, P. & Elango, L. Spatio-temporal analysis of rainfall, meteorological drought and response from a water supply reservoir in the megacity of Chennai, India. J. Earth Syst. Sci. 130, 17 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Millington, N. Producing water scarcity in São Paulo, Brazil: the 2014–2015 water crisis and the binding politics of infrastructure. Polit. Geogr. 65, 26–34 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
NASA. Turkey experiences intense drought. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/147811/turkey-experiences-intense-drought (2021).Muller, M. Cape Town’s drought: don’t blame climate change. Nature 559, 174–176 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Loftus, A. Working the socio‐natural relations of the urban waterscape in South Africa. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 31, 41–59 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Swyngedouw, E. Power, nature, and the city. The conquest of water and the political ecology of urbanization in Guayaquil, Ecuador: 1880–1990. Environ. Plan. A 29, 311–332 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
Swyngedouw, E. Social Power and the Urbanization of Water: Flows of Power (Oxford Univ. Press, 2004).Hewitt, K. Interpretations of Calamity from the Viewpoint of Human Ecology Vol. 1 (Allen & Unwin, 1983).Baudoin, M.-A., Vogel, C., Nortje, K. & Naik, M. Living with drought in South Africa: lessons learnt from the recent El Niño drought period. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 23, 128–137 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vogel, C., Moser, S. C., Kasperson, R. E. & Dabelko, G. D. Linking vulnerability, adaptation, and resilience science to practice: pathways, players, and partnerships. Glob. Environ. Change 17, 349–364 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ahlers, R., Cleaver, F., Rusca, M. & Schwartz, K. Informal space in the urban waterscape: disaggregation and co-production of water services. Water Altern. 7, 1–14 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Hungerford, H. & Smiley, S. L. Comparing colonial water provision in British and French Africa. J. Hist. Geogr. 52, 74–83 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Myers, G. African Cities: Alternative Visions of Urban Theory and Practice (Zed Books, 2011).Progress on Household Drinking Water, Sanitation and Hygiene 2000–2017: Special Focus on Inequalities Vol. 1 (UNICEF and WHO, 2019).Cain, A. Informal water markets and community management in peri-urban Luanda, Angola. Water Int. 43, 205–216 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
van den Berg, C. & Danilenko, A. Performance of Water Utilities in Africa (World Bank, 2017).https://doi.org/10.1596/26186Alda-Vidal, C., Kooy, M. & Rusca, M. Mapping operation and maintenance: an everyday urbanism analysis of inequalities within piped water supply in Lilongwe, Malawi. Urban Geogr. 39, 104–121 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rusca, M., Boakye-Ansah, A. S., Loftus, A., Ferrero, G. & van der Zaag, P. An interdisciplinary political ecology of drinking water quality. Exploring socio-ecological inequalities in Lilongwe’s water supply network. Geoforum 84, 138–146 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Smiley, S. L. Heterogeneous water provision in Dar es Salaam: the role of networked infrastructures and alternative systems in informal areas. Environ. Plan. E 3, 1215–1231 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Smith, L. The murky waters of the second wave of neoliberalism: corporatization as a service delivery model in Cape Town. Geoforum 35, 375–393 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Moss, R. H. et al. The next generation of scenarios for climate change research and assessment. Nature 463, 747–756 (2010).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
O’Neill, B. C. et al. Achievements and needs for the climate change scenario framework. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 1074–1084 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rao, N. D., van Ruijven, B. J., Riahi, K. & Bosetti, V. Improving poverty and inequality modelling in climate research. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 857–862 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wilson, R. S., Herziger, A., Hamilton, M. & Brooks, J. S. From incremental to transformative adaptation in individual responses to climate-exacerbated hazards. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 200–208 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Castree, N. Changing the Anthropo(s)cene: geographers, global environmental change and the politics of knowledge. Dialogues Hum. Geogr. 5, 301–316 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rusca, M., Messori, G. & Di Baldassarre, G. Scenarios of human responses to unprecedented social‐environmental extreme events. Earths Future 9, e2020EF001911 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
White, G. F. Human Adjustment to Floods Department of Geography Research Paper No. 29 (Univ. of Chicago,1945).Burton, I., Kates, R. & White, G. The Environment as Hazard (Oxford Univ. Press, 1993).Masih, I., Maskey, S., Mussá, F. E. F. & Trambauer, P. A review of droughts on the African continent: a geospatial and long-term perspective. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 18, 3635–3649 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Climate Change Profile: Mozambique (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, 2018).Dai, A. & Zhao, T. Uncertainties in historical changes and future projections of drought. Part I: estimates of historical drought changes. Clim. Change 144, 519–533 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cook, B. I. et al. Twenty-first century drought projections in the CMIP6 forcing scenarios. Earths Future 8, e2019EF001461 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Abiodun, B. J., Makhanya, N., Petja, B., Abatan, A. A. & Oguntunde, P. G. Future projection of droughts over major river basins in Southern Africa at specific global warming levels. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 137, 1785–1799 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cook, B. I., Mankin, J. S. & Anchukaitis, K. J. Climate change and drought: from past to future. Curr. Clim. Change Rep. 4, 164–179 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rusca, M. et al. The urban metabolism of waterborne diseases: variegated citizenship, (waste) water flows, and climatic variability in Maputo, Mozambique. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 112, 1159–1178 (2022).
Google Scholar 
Barros, C. P., Chivangue, A. & Samagaio, A. Urban dynamics in Maputo, Mozambique. Cities 36, 74–82 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Biza, A., Kooy, M., Manuel, S. & Zwarteveen, M. Sanitary governmentalities: producing and naturalizing social differentiation in Maputo City, Mozambique (1887–2017). Environ. Plan. E https://doi.org/10.1177/2514848621996583 (2021).Jenkins, P. City profile: Maputo. Cities 17, 207–218 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rusca, M. et al. Space, state-building and the hydraulic mission: crafting the Mozambican state. Environ. Plan. C 37, 868–888 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Weststrate, J. et al. The regulation of onsite sanitation in Maputo, Mozambique. Util. Policy 61, 100968 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zuin, V. & Nicholson, M. The impact of pro-poor reforms on consumers and the water utility in Maputo, Mozambique. Water Altern. 14, 158–185 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Governo sufoca fornecedores privados que garantiram água por muitos anos nos bairros de expansão do Grande Maputo. Política Moçambicana (CDD, 2021); https://cddmoz.org/governo-sufoca-fornecedores-privados-que-garantiram-agua-por-muitos-anos-nos-bairros-de-expansao-do-grande-maputo-2/Cortez, E. et al. Costs and Consequences of the Hidden Debt Scandal of Mozambique (Centro de Integridade Pública and Chr. Michelsen Institute, 2021).WWF. Cape Town’s groundwater under the spotlight. https://africa.panda.org/?32522/Cape-Towns-groundwater-under-the-spotlight (2020).Robins, S. ‘Day Zero’, hydraulic citizenship and the defence of the commons in Cape Town: a case study of the politics of water and its infrastructures (2017–2018). J. South. Afr. Stud. 45, 5–29 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Savelli, E., Rusca, M., Cloke, H. & Di Baldassarre, G. Don’t blame the rain: social power and the 2015–2017 drought in Cape Town. J. Hydrol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125953 (2021).Enqvist, J. P. & Ziervogel, G. Water governance and justice in Cape Town: an overview. WIREs Water 6, e1354 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wilkinson, P. City profile: Cape Town. Cities 17, 195–205 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Miraftab, F. Governing post-apartheid spatiality: implementing city improvement districts in Cape Town. Antipode 39, 602–626 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Our Shared Water future: Cape Town’s Water Strategy (Water and Sanitation Department of the City of Cape Town, 2020); https://resource.capetown.gov.za/documentcentre/Documents/City%20strategies,%20plans%20and%20frameworks/Cape%20Town%20Water%20Strategy.pdfWater Outlook 2018 (Department of Water and Sanitation City of Cape Town, 2018); http://resource.capetown.gov.za/documentcentre/Documents/City%20research%20reports%20and%20review/Water%20Outlook%202018%20-%20Summary.pdfBig Six Monitor (CSAG, 2022); https://cip.csag.uct.ac.za/monitoring/bigsix.htmlAlzate González, L. D. & Peñaloza Lanza, R. A. Day Zero: The Role of Social Movements in the Face of Cape Town’s Water Crisis. MSc thesis, Linnaeus Univ. (2019).Ellis, E. Victory in court for Philippi Horticultural Area. Daily Maverick https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2020-02-18-victory-in-court-for-philippi-horticultural-area/ (2020).Grasham, C. F., Korzenevica, M. & Charles, K. J. On considering climate resilience in urban water security: a review of the vulnerability of the urban poor in sub‐Saharan Africa. WIREs Water 6, e1344 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Harris, L., Kleiber, D., Goldin, J., Darkwah, A. & Morinville, C. Intersections of gender and water: comparative approaches to everyday gendered negotiations of water access in underserved areas of Accra, Ghana and Cape Town, South Africa. J. Gend. Stud. 26, 561–582 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wutich, A. & Ragsdale, K. Water insecurity and emotional distress: coping with supply, access, and seasonal variability of water in a Bolivian squatter settlement. Soc. Sci. Med. 67, 2116–2125 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Truelove, Y. (Re-)Conceptualizing water inequality in Delhi, India through a feminist political ecology framework. Geoforum 42, 143–152 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wutich, A. Intrahousehold disparities in women and men’s experiences of water insecurity and emotional distress in urban Bolivia. Med. Anthropol. Q. 23, 436–454 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mehta, L. in The Limits to Scarcity: Contesting the Politics of Allocation (ed Metha, L.) 13–30 (Routledge, 2010).Kaika, M. Constructing scarcity and sensationalising water politics: 170 days that shook Athens. Antipode 35, 919–954 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cohen, D. A. The rationed city: the politics of water, housing, and land use in drought-parched São Paulo. Public Cult. 28, 261–289 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rusca, M., Alda-Vidal, C., Hordijk, M. & Kral, N. Bathing without water, and other stories of everyday hygiene practices and risk perception in urban low-income areas: the case of Lilongwe, Malawi. Environ. Urban. 29, 533–550 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Björkman, L. Pipe Politics, Contested Waters (Duke Univ. Press, 2015).Anand, N. Municipal disconnect: on abject water and its urban infrastructures. Ethnography 13, 487–509 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jaglin, S. Differentiating networked services in Cape Town: echoes of splintering urbanism? Geoforum 39, 1897–1906 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Drysdale, R. E., Bob, U. & Moshabela, M. Socio-economic determinants of increasing household food insecurity during and after a drought in the District of iLembe, South Africa. Ecol. Food Nutr. 60, 25–43 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Austin, K. F., Noble, M. D. & Berndt, V. K. Drying climates and gendered suffering: links between drought, food insecurity, and women’s HIV in less-developed countries. Soc. Indic. Res. 154, 313–334 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Musemwa, M. in African Cities (eds Locatelli, F. & Nugent, P.) 157–185 (Brill, 2009).Chitonge, H. Cities beyond networks: the status of water services for the urban poor in African cities. Afr. Stud. 73, 58–83 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Satur, P. & Lindsay, J. Social inequality and water use in Australian cities: the social gradient in domestic water use. Local Environ. 25, 351–364 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Taylor, V., Chappells, H., Medd, W. & Trentmann, F. Drought is normal: the socio-technical evolution of drought and water demand in England and Wales, 1893–2006. J. Hist. Geogr. 35, 568–591 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kallis, G. Droughts. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 33, 85–118 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Heynen, N., Kaika, M. & Swyngedouw, E. In the Nature of Cities: Urban Political Ecology and the Politics of Urban Metabolism Vol. 3 (Taylor & Francis, 2006).Tiwale, S., Rusca, M. & Zwarteveen, M. The power of pipes: mapping urban water inequities through the material properties of networked water infrastructures–the case of Lilongwe. Malawi Water Altern. 11, 314–335 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Giglioli, I. & Swyngedouw, E. Let’s drink to the great thirst! Water and the politics of fractured techno‐natures in Sicily. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 32, 392–414 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kallis, G. & Coccossis, H. Managing water for Athens: from the hydraulic to the rational growth paradigm. Eur. Plan. Stud. 11, 245–261 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vitz, M. A City on a Lake (Duke Univ. Press, 2018).Kimari, W. & Ernstson, H. Imperial remains and imperial invitations: centering race within the contemporary large-scale infrastructures of east Africa. Antipode 52, 825–846 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Anand, N. Hydraulic City: Water and the Infrastructures of Citizenship in Mumbai (Duke Univ. Press, 2017).Pihljak, L. H., Rusca, M., Alda-Vidal, C. & Schwartz, K. Everyday practices in the production of uneven water pricing regimes in Lilongwe, Malawi. Environ. Plan. C 39, 300–317 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Nevarez, L. Just wait until there’s a drought: mediating environmental crises for urban growth. Antipode 28, 246–272 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tomaz, P., Jepson, W. & de Oliveira Santos, J. Urban household water insecurity from the margins: perspectives from northeast Brazil. Prof. Geogr. 72, 481–498 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bakker, K. Neoliberal versus postneoliberal water: geographies of privatization and resistance. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 103, 253–260 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Furlong, K. Trickle-down debt: infrastructure, development, and financialisation, Medellín 1960–2013. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 45, 406–419 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bakker, K. J. Privatizing water, producing scarcity: the Yorkshire drought of 1995. Econ. Geogr. 76, 4–27 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Saurií, D. Lights and shadows of urban water demand management: the case of the metropolitan region of Barcelona. Eur. Plan. Stud. 11, 229–243 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ozan, L. A. & Alsharif, K. A. The effectiveness of water irrigation policies for residential turfgrass. Land Use Policy 31, 378–384 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Albiac, J., Hanemann, M., Calatrava, J., Uche, J. & Tapia, J. The rise and fall of the Ebro water transfer. Nat. Resour. J. 46, 727–757 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Jaffee, D. & Case, R. A. Draining us dry: scarcity discourses in contention over bottled water extraction. Local Environ. 23, 485–501 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Breyer, B., Zipper, S. C. & Qiu, J. Sociohydrological impacts of water conservation under anthropogenic drought in Austin, TX (USA). Water Resour. Res. 54, 3062–3080 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hackman, R. California drought shaming takes on a class-conscious edge. The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/16/california-drought-shaming-takes-on-a-class-conscious-edge (2015).Milbrandt, T. Caught on camera, posted online: mediated moralities, visual politics and the case of urban ‘drought-shaming’. Vis. Stud. 32, 3–23 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schwartz, K., Tutusaus Luque, M., Rusca, M. & Ahlers, R. (In)formality: the meshwork of water service provisioning. WIREs Water 2, 31–36 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hawkins, P. & Muxímpua, O. Developing Business Models for Fecal Sludge Management in Maputo Water and Sanitation Program Report (International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank, 2015).Greater Maputo: Urban Poverty and Inclusive Growth (World Bank, 2017); https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/29828Di Baldassarre, G. et al. Integrating multiple research methods to unravel the complexity of human‐water systems. AGU Adv. 2, e2021AV000473 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Garb, Y., Pulver, S. & VanDeveer, S. D. Scenarios in society, society in scenarios: toward a social scientific analysis of storyline-driven environmental modeling. Environ. Res. Lett. 3, 045015 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wiebe, K. et al. Scenario development and foresight analysis: exploring options to inform choices. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 43, 545–570 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rusca, M. & Di Baldassarre, G. Interdisciplinary critical geographies of water: capturing the mutual shaping of society and hydrological flows. Water 11, 1973 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Raju, E., Boyd, E. & Otto, F. Stop blaming the climate for disasters. Commun. Earth Environ. 3, 1 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cronin, P., Ryan, F. & Coughlan, M. Undertaking a literature review: a step-by-step approach. Br. J. Nurs. 17, 38–43 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Walsh, D. & Downe, S. Meta‐synthesis method for qualitative research: a literature review. J. Adv. Nurs. 50, 204–211 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
White, G. F. Changes in Urban Occupance of Flood Plains in the United States Vol. 57 (Univ. of Chicago, 1958).Adger, W. N. Vulnerability. Glob. Environ. Change 16, 268–281 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cutter, S. L. Vulnerability to environmental hazards. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 20, 529–539 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cutter, S. L., Boruff, B. J. & Shirley, W. L. Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Soc. Sci. Q. 84, 242–261 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pelling, M. The Vulnerability of Cities: Natural Disasters and Social Resilience (Routledge, 2012).Wisner, B., Blaikie, P., Cannon, T. & Davis, I. At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability and Disasters (Routledge, 2004).Adger, W. N., Quinn, T., Lorenzoni, I., Murphy, C. & Sweeney, J. Changing social contracts in climate-change adaptation. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 330–333 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
O’Brien, K. Global environmental change II: from adaptation to deliberate transformation. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 36, 667–676 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pelling, M. & Dill, K. Disaster politics: tipping points for change in the adaptation of sociopolitical regimes. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 34, 21–37 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Robinson, J. Comparisons: colonial or cosmopolitan? Singap. J. Trop. Geogr. 32, 125–140 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Robinson, J. Ordinary Cities: Between Modernity and Development (Routledge, 2013).Myers, G. From expected to unexpected comparisons: changing the flows of ideas about cities in a postcolonial urban world. Singap. J. Trop. Geogr. 35, 104–118 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Adelekan, I. et al. Disaster risk and its reduction: an agenda for urban Africa. Int. Dev. Plan. Rev. 37, 33–43 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dodman, D., Leck, H., Rusca, M. & Colenbrander, S. African urbanisation and urbanism: implications for risk accumulation and reduction. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 26, 7–15 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kareem, B. et al. Pathways for resilience to climate change in African cities. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 073002 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lawhon, M., Ernstson, H. & Silver, J. Provincializing urban political ecology: towards a situated UPE through African urbanism. Antipode 46, 497–516 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Simone, A. Straddling the divides: remaking associational life in the informal African city. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 25, 102–117 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Berman, B. Structure and process in the bureaucratic states of colonial Africa. Dev. Change 15, 161–202 (1984).Article 

Google Scholar 
Robinson, J. Comparative urbanism: new geographies and cultures of theorizing the urban. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 40, 187–199 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Randolph, G. F. & Storper, M. Is urbanisation in the Global South fundamentally different? Comparative global urban analysis for the 21st century. Urban Stud. https://doi.org/10.1177/00420980211067926 (2022).Kim, Y.-H., Min, S.-K., Zhang, X., Sillmann, J. & Sandstad, M. Evaluation of the CMIP6 multi-model ensemble for climate extreme indices. Weather Clim. Extrem. 29, 100269 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Beguería, S., Vicente‐Serrano, S. M., Reig, F. & Latorre, B. Standardized precipitation evapotranspiration index (SPEI) revisited: parameter fitting, evapotranspiration models, tools, datasets and drought monitoring. Int. J. Climatol. 34, 3001–3023 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
INE. População recendida por área de residência e categoria censitária, segundo sexo e idade. Maputo Província. http://www.ine.gov.mz/iv-rgph-2017/maputo-provincia/quadro-1-populacao-recenseada-por-area-de-residencia-e-categoria-censitaria-segundo-sexo-e-idade-maputo-provincia-2017.xlsx/view (2017).City of Cape Town by Numbers (COGTA, 2020); https://www.cogta.gov.za/ddm/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/City-of-CT-September-2020.pdfMcDonald, D. A. World City Syndrome: Neoliberalism and Inequality in Cape Town (Routledge, 2012).Morange, M., Folio, F., Peyroux, E. & Vivet, J. The spread of a transnational model: ‘gated communities’ in three Southern African cities (Cape Town, Maputo and Windhoek). Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 36, 890–914 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Baez, J. E., Caruso, G., Niu, C. & Myers, C. Mozambique Poverty Assessment: Strong But Not Broadly Shared Growth (World Bank, 2018).Andersen, J. E., Jenkins, P. & Nielsen, M. Who plans the African city? A case study of Maputo, part 1 – the structural context. Int. Dev. Plan. Rev. 37, 329 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
City of Cape Town Open Data Portal (COCT, 2020); https://web1.capetown.gov.za/web1/OpenDataPortal/Notisso, P. F. Aplicação do Modelo WEAP Na Avaliação de Alocação de áGua do Reservatório dos Pequenos Libombos, Moçambique. PhD dissertation, Universidade Federal de Goiás (2020).Kadibadiba, T., Roberts, L. & Duncan, R. Living in a city without water: a social practice theory analysis of resource disruption in Gaborone, Botswana. Glob. Environ. Change 53, 273–285 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
March, H. & Sauri, D. When sustainable may not mean just: a critical interpretation of urban water consumption decline in Barcelona. Local Environ. 22, 523–535 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Scheba, S. & Millington, N. Crisis temporalities: intersections between infrastructure and inequality in the Cape Town water crisis. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. (2018).Brewis, A. et al. Community hygiene norm violators are consistently stigmatized: evidence from four global sites and implications for sanitation interventions. Soc. Sci. Med. 220, 12–21 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brewis, A., Workman, C., Wutich, A., Jepson, W. & Young, S. Household water insecurity is strongly associated with food insecurity: evidence from 27 sites in low- and middle-income countries. Am. J. Hum. Biol. 32, e23309 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kallis, G. Coevolution in water resource development: the vicious cycle of water supply and demand in Athens, Greece. Ecol. Econ. 69, 796–809 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mehta, L. Contexts and constructions of water scarcity. Econ. Polit. Wkly. 38, 5066–5072 (2003).
Google Scholar 
Mehta, L. Whose scarcity? Whose property? The case of water in western India. Land Use Policy 24, 654–663 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Alberghini, M. et al. Sustainable polyethylene fabrics with engineered moisture transport for passive cooling. Nat. Sustain. 4, 715–724 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Singh, R. P., Mishra, S. & Das, A. P. Synthetic microfibers: pollution toxicity and remediation. Chemosphere https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.127199 (2020).Borrelle, S. B. et al. Why we need an international agreement on marine plastic pollution. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 9994–9997 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
DelRe, C. et al. Near-complete depolymerization of polyesters with nano-dispersed enzymes. Nature 592, 558–563 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sousa, A. F. et al. Biobased polyesters and other polymers from 2,5-furandicarboxylic acid: a tribute to furan excellency. Polym. Chem. 6, 5961–5983 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Guo, Z., Eriksson, M., Motte, H. D. L. & Adolfsson, E. Circular recycling of polyester textile waste using a sustainable catalyst. J. Clean. Prod. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124579 (2021).Chamas, A. et al. Degradation rates of plastics in the environment. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 8, 3494–3511 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bataineh, K. M. Life-cycle assessment of recycling postconsumer high-density polyethylene and polyethylene terephthalate. Adv. Civil Eng. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8905431 (2020).Häußler, M., Eck, M., Rothauer, D. & Mecking, S. Closed-loop recycling of polyethylene-like materials. Nature 590, 423–427 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Shieh, P. et al. Cleavable comonomers enable degradable, recyclable thermoset plastics. Nature 583, 542–547 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Rahman, M. H. & Bhoi, P. R. An overview of non-biodegradable bioplastics. J. Clean. Prod. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126218 (2021).Cucina, M., de Nisi, P., Tambone, F. & Adani, F. The role of waste management in reducing bioplastics’ leakage into the environment: a review. Bioresour. Technol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2021.125459 (2021).Hufenus, R., Yan, Y., Dauner, M. & Kikutani, T. Melt-spun fibers for textile applications. Materials 13, 4298 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Yang, Y. et al. Poly(lactic acid) fibers, yarns and fabrics: manufacturing, properties and applications. Text. Res. J. 91, 1641–1669 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kopf, S., Åkesson, D. & Skrifvars, M. Textile fiber production of biopolymers—a review of spinning techniques for polyhydroxyalkanoates in biomedical applications. Polym. Rev. https://doi.org/10.1080/15583724.2022.2076693 (2022).Khan, A. et al. Nitrogen nutrition in cotton and control strategies for greenhouse gas emissions: a review. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 24, 23471–23487 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Deguine, J. P., Ferron, P. & Russell, D. Sustainable pest management for cotton production. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 28, 113–137 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Xiao, Y. & Wu, K. Recent progress on the interaction between insects and Bacillus thuringiensis crops. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2018.0316 (2019).Veres, A. et al. An update of the Worldwide Integrated Assessment (WIA) on systemic pesticides. Part 4: alternatives in major cropping systems. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 27, 29867–29899 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Serrano-Ruiz, H., Martin-Closas, L. & Pelacho, A. M. Biodegradable plastic mulches: impact on the agricultural biotic environment. Sci. Total Environ. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141228 (2021).Bi, S. et al. Biodegradable polyester coated mulch paper for controlled release of fertilizer. J. Clean. Prod. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126348 (2021).Dai, J., Kong, X., Zhang, D., Li, W. & Dong, H. Technologies and theoretical basis of light and simplified cotton cultivation in China. Field Crops Res. 214, 142–148 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Felgueiras, C., Azoia, N. G., Gonçalves, C., Gama, M. & Dourado, F. Trends on the cellulose-based textiles: raw materials and technologies. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2021.608826 (2021).Biodiversity in Bamboo Forests: A Policy Perspective for Long Term Sustainability (International Network for Bamboo and Rattan, 2010).Song, X. et al. Carbon sequestration by Chinese bamboo forests and their ecological benefits: assessment of potential, problems, and future challenges. Environ. Rev. 19, 418–428 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sayyed, A. J., Deshmukh, N. A. & Pinjari, D. V. A critical review of manufacturing processes used in regenerated cellulosic fibres: viscose, cellulose acetate, cuprammonium, LiCl/DMAc, ionic liquids, and NMMO based lyocell. Cellulose 26, 2913–2940 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Beckwith, A. L., Borenstein, J. T. & Velásquez-García, L. F. Tunable plant-based materials via in vitro cell culture using a Zinnia elegans model. J. Clean. Prod. 288, 125571 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Koç, E. & Kaplan, E. An investigation on energy consumption in yarn production with special reference to ring spinning. Fibres Text. East. Eur. 15, 18–24 (2007).
Google Scholar 
Yin, R., Tao, X. & Jasper, W. A theoretical model to investigate the performance of cellulose yarns constrained to lie on a moving solid cylinder. Cellulose 27, 9683–9698 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Yang, K., Tao, X. M., Xu, B. G. & Lam, J. Structure and properties of low twist short-staple singles ring spun yarns. Text. Res. J. 77, 675–685 (2007).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ying, G. et al. Investigation and evaluation on fine Upland cotton blend yarns made by the modified ring spinning system. Text. Res. J. 85, 1355–1366 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Xue, J., Wu, T., Dai, Y. & Xia, Y. Electrospinning and electrospun nanofibers: methods, materials, and applications. Chem. Rev. 119, 5298–5415 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hasanbeigi, A. Energy-Efficiency Improvement Opportunities for the Textile Industry (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2010).Münkel, A., Gloy, Y. S. & Gries, T. Development and testing of a relay nozzle concept for air-jet weaving. IOP Conf. Seri. Mate. Sci. Eng. 254, 132003–132008 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jordan, J. V., Kemper, M., Renkens, W. & Gloy, Y.-S. Magnetic weft insertion for weaving machines. Text. Res. J. 88, 1677–1685 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Xiang, W. et al. Foam processing of fibers as a sustainable alternative to wet-laying: fiber web properties and cause–effect relations. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 6, 14423–14431 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Du, C., Meng, Z., Sun, Y. & Yu, J. Optimal design of the horn gear for rotary three-dimensional braiding machine. J. Text. Inst. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405000.2020.1716530 (2020).Yin, R. et al. Cleaner production of mulberry spun silk yarns via a shortened and gassing-free production route. J. Clean. Prod. 278, 123690 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jiang, G., Zhou, M., Zheng, B., Zheng, P. & Liu, H. Research progress of green and low-carbon knitting technology.J. Text.Res. 43, 67–73 (2022).
Google Scholar 
Lozano, L. M. et al. Optical engineering of polymer materials and composites for simultaneous color and thermal management. Opt. Mater. Express 9, 1990–2005 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ruiz-Clavijo, A. et al. Engineering a full gamut of structural colors in all-dielectric mesoporous network metamaterials. ACS Photon. 5, 2120–2128 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Banchero, M. Recent advances in supercritical fluid dyeing. Color. Technol. 136, 317–335 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hu, E., Shang, S., Tao, X., Jiang, S. & Chiu, K.-L. Minimizing freshwater consumption in the wash-off step in textile reactive dyeing by catalytic ozonation with carbon aerogel hosted bimetallic catalyst. Polymers 10, 193 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hu, E., Shang, S., Tao, X.-M., Jiang, S. & Chiu, K.-L. Regeneration and reuse of highly polluting textile dyeing effluents through catalytic ozonation with carbon aerogel catalysts. J. Clean. Prod. 137, 1055–1065 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Song, Y. et al. Green and efficient inkjet printing of cotton fabrics using reactive dye@copolymer nanospheres. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 12, 45281–45295 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Eid, B. M. & Ibrahim, N. A. Recent developments in sustainable finishing of cellulosic textiles employing biotechnology. J. Clean. Prod. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124701 (2021).Udhayamarthandan, S. & Srinivasan, J. Integrated enzymatic and chemical treatment for single-stage preparation of cotton fabrics. Text. Res. J. 89, 3937–3948 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Nambela, L., Haule, L. V. & Mgani, Q. A review on source, chemistry, green synthesis and application of textile colorants. J. Clean. Prod. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119036 (2020).Phan, K. et al. Non-food applications of natural dyes extracted from agro-food residues: a critical review. J. Clean. Prod. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126920 (2021).Boriskina, S. V. Optics on the go. Opt. Photon. News 28, 34–41 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Gauvreau, B. et al. Color-changing and color-tunable photonic bandgap fiber textiles. Opt. Express 16, 15677–15693 (2008).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hasanbeigi, A. & Price, L. A technical review of emerging technologies for energy and water efficiency and pollution reduction in the textile industry. J. Clean. Prod. 95, 30–44 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Muensterman, D. J. et al. Disposition of fluorine on new firefighter turnout gear. Environ. Sci. Technol. 56, 974–983 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hill, P. J., Taylor, M., Goswami, P. & Blackburn, R. S. Substitution of PFAS chemistry in outdoor apparel and the impact on repellency performance. Chemosphere 181, 500–507 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Konstantinou, I. K. & Albanis, T. A. TiO2-assisted photocatalytic degradation of azo dyes in aqueous solution: kinetic and mechanistic investigations: a review. Appl. Catal. B 49, 1–14 (2004).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Yaseen, D. & Scholz, M. Textile dye wastewater characteristics and constituents of synthetic effluents: a critical review. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 16, 1193–1226 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sondhi, S. in Sustainable Technologies for Fashion and Textiles (ed. Nayak, R.) 327–341 (Elsevier, 2020).Wang, B., Su, H. & Zhang, B. Hydrodynamic cavitation as a promising route for wastewater treatment—a review. Chem. Eng. J. 412, 128685 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bhatia, D., Sharma, N. R., Singh, J. & Kanwar, R. S. Biological methods for textile dye removal from wastewater: a review. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47, 1836–1876 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Götz, T. & Tholen, L. Stock model based bottom-up accounting for washing machines: worldwide energy, water and greenhouse gas saving potentials 2010–2030. Tenside Surfactants Deterg. 53, 410–416 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Koohsaryan, E., Anbia, M. & Maghsoodlu, M. Application of zeolites as non-phosphate detergent builders: a review. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2020.104287 (2020).Joondan, N., Angundhooa, H. D., Bhowon, M. G., Caumul, P. & Laulloo, S. J. Detergent properties of coconut oil derived N-acyl prolinate surfactant and the in silico studies on its effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19). Tenside Surfactants Deterg. 57, 361–374 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Farias, C. B. B. et al. Production of green surfactants: market prospects. Electron. J. Biotechnol. 51, 28–39 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Jimoh, A. A. & Lin, J. Biosurfactant: a new frontier for greener technology and environmental sustainability. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Safety https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2019.109607 (2019).Nondurable Goods: Product-Specific Data (EPA, 2021); https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and-recycling/nondurable-goods-product-specific-dataAshby, M. F. Materials and Sustainable Development (Butterworth-Heinemann, 2016).A New Textiles Economy: Redesigning Fashion’s Future (Ellen Macarthur Foundation, 2017); https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/publications/a-new-textiles-economy-redesigning-fashions-futureEsteve-Turrillas, F. A. & de la Guardia, M. Environmental impact of Recover cotton in textile industry. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 116, 107–115 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Beltrán, F. R., Lorenzo, V., Acosta, J., de la Orden, M. U. & Martínez Urreaga, J. Effect of simulated mechanical recycling processes on the structure and properties of poly(lactic acid). .J. Environ. Manage. 216, 25–31 (2018).Beltrán, F. R., Infante, C., de la Orden, M. U. & Martínez Urreaga, J. Mechanical recycling of poly(lactic acid): evaluation of a chain extender and a peroxide as additives for upgrading the recycled plastic. J. Clean. Prod. 219, 46–56 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Yousef, S. et al. A new strategy for using textile waste as a sustainable source of recovered cotton. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 145, 359–369 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Haslinger, S., Hummel, M., Anghelescu-Hakala, A., Määttänen, M. & Sixta, H. Upcycling of cotton polyester blended textile waste to new man-made cellulose fibers. Waste Manage. 97, 88–96 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Quartinello, F. et al. Highly selective enzymatic recovery of building blocks from wool–cotton–polyester textile waste blends. Polymers 10, 1107 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lv, F. et al. Recycling of waste nylon 6/spandex blended fabrics by melt processing. Composites B 77, 232–237 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ma, Z. et al. Biodegradable polyurethane ureas with variable polyester or polycarbonate soft segments: effects of crystallinity, molecular weight, and composition on mechanical properties. Biomacromolecules 12, 3265–3274 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sandvik, I. M. & Stubbs, W. Circular fashion supply chain through textile-to-textile recycling. J. Fashion Mark. Manage. 23, 366–381 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sodhi, M. & Knight, W. A. Product design for disassembly and bulk recycling. CIRP Ann. Manuf. Technol. 47, 115–118 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Groundwater storage variations by integrating GRACE/FO-derived TWS with other terrestrial water storage components for the past two decadesGRACE/FO TWS anomalies for the combined Sacramento, San Joaquin and Tulare basins (Fig. 1, Fig. 2a) were used to calculate groundwater storage anomalies in California’s Central Valley. The GRACE/FO time series (Fig. 2a) for the combined basins is indicative of a region that has experienced successive droughts, punctuated by brief wet periods, resulting in significant cumulative water loss during the study period.Fig. 2: Datasets used for groundwater storage anomaly calculation and GRACE/FO data evaluation in the Central Valley.a GRACE/FO observed monthly total water storage (TWS) anomalies. Red arrow indicates the driest winter in TWS for the past two decades at the begining of 2021. b Three water balance fluxes of precipitation (P), evapotranspiration (ET), and streamflow (Q). c Comparison of monthly change in TWS (dS/dt) between that derived from GRACE/FO and from an observed water balance. d Anomalies of three TWS components of soil moisture (SM), surface water (SW), and snow water equivalent (SWE). All variables are represented in equivalent water height in millimeters for the study region.Full size imageBefore estimating groundwater storage changes, GRACE/FO TWS were first evaluated by comparing its monthly changes to those from an observed water balance calculation (see Eq.(1) in Methods). Figure 2b shows the observed water flux components including precipitation (P), evapotranspiration (ET) and streamflow discharge (Q) for the combined river basins, while Fig. 2c shows a close correspondence between dS/dt derived from GRACE/FO, and that computed using P–ET–Q in Eq.(1). The Root Mean Squared Difference between the two is 26.4 mm/month, and is within the range of the mean uncertainty using GRACE/FO measurements (43.6 mm/month). Such a good agreement between GRACE/FO-derived and observed dS/dt demonstrates that GRACE/FO is capable of accurately monitoring basin-wide water balance changes, and provides further confidence in the groundwater storage change estimates described below12.Groundwater storage anomalies were estimated by subtracting the anomalies of soil moisture, surface water, and SWE (Fig. 2d) from GRACE/FO TWS anomalies (Fig. 2a) following Eq.(2) as detailed in Methods. The SWE, soil moisture and surface water datasets were obtained from operational, publicly available sources, including the National Oceanic Atmosphere Administration’s Snow Data Assimilation System (SNODAS)43, NASA’s North American Land Data Assimilation System (NLDAS)44, and the California Data Exchange Center45, respectively, ensuring data accessibility for potential routine monitoring following this approach.Figure 3a shows the monthly groundwater storage anomalies derived from GRACE/FO and the datasets shown in Figs. 2a, d in the Central Valley between September 2003 and December 2021. Three notable periods of groundwater recharge and loss were identified in the past 18 years. Groundwater recharge occurred during wet periods from October 2003 to July 2006, March 2011 to July 2011, and October 2018 to August 2019, shown as blue arrows in Fig. 3a. Groundwater loss phases correspond to the well-known droughts that occurred during that time period, namely August 2006–February 2011, August 2011–March 2017, and since September 2019, shown as red arrows in Fig. 3a. A pattern of short phases of recharge followed by longer phases of groundwater loss emerges, resulting in longer-term groundwater depletion over the last two decades. Estimated rates and the total volumes of groundwater gains and losses are summarized in Table 1.Fig. 3: Groundwater storage variations in California’s Central Valley.a GRACE/FO-derived groundwater storage anomalies from September 2003–December 2021 in the Central Valley. The green shaded margin is the uncertainty of groundwater storage. Red arrows represent groundwater loss trends during the droughts of 2006–2011, 2011–2017, and since 2019. Blue arrows represent the three short recharge periods. The black line shows the groundwater depletion trend from 2003–2021. b comparison of deseasonalized anomalies of GRACE/FO derived groundwater and water table depth anomalies from monitoring wells in the Central Valley.Full size imageTable 1 Groundwater change rates and total groundwater volume changes in the Central ValleyFull size tableA groundwater recharge phase (22.7 ± 16.0 mm/yr; 3.49 ±  2.5 km3/yr) in the Central Valley was observed at the beginning of the GRACE mission during 2003–2006 (1st recharge in Fig. 3a and Table 1), when the precipitation amounts were close to or slightly higher than the 20-year average. The NOAA National Weather Service report46 reveals that weak to moderate levels of El Niño events during 2004–2006 resulted in nearly normal amounts of precipitation and snow in the study region. A volume of 9.9 ± 4.2 km3of groundwater was replenished during this phase of the analysis.This period of groundwater increase was followed by the 4.5-year drought that began in August 2006. During the 2006–2011 drought (1st drought in Fig. 3a and Table 1), a groundwater loss rate of 42.9 ± 7.8 mm/yr (6.59 ± 1.20 km3/yr) was estimated, resulting in 30.2 ± 2.6 km3 of groundwater loss during that period. Compared with the earlier analysis in Ref. 12, an additional year of data was included here, and represented the complete drought phase through 2011, rather than through 2010, as in Ref. 12. Although the groundwater loss rate is slightly higher than the 38.9 ± 9.5 mm/yr reported in Ref. 12, the difference falls within the 95% confidence interval, confirming the consistency between the two analyses.Prior to the second drought, a short, rapid recharge phase (March–July 2011, 2nd recharge in Fig. 3a and Table 1) replenished 29.6 ± 15.7 km3 of groundwater (462.5 ± 157.8 mm/yr; 71.07 ± 24.25 km3/yr), as a result of the strong El Niño in 2010 that brought abundant precipitation in early 201147.The groundwater loss rate for the second phase of drought in the GRACE/FO record (2011–2017, 2nd drought in Fig. 3a and Table 1) was 42.7 ± 5.8 mm/yr (6.56 ± 0.89 km3). Although a similar groundwater loss rate was estimated for the drought of 2006–2011, the second drought lasted a year longer, resulting in roughly 7 km3 more groundwater loss (37.1 ± 2.1 km3 total), equivalent to about 23% of surface water storage in the Central Valley, and greater than the volume of Lake Mead (32.2 km3) at full capacity. The GRACE/FO-based groundwater estimated in this study reached an 18-year low by late 2016. This phase of drought was notable for widespread water conservation efforts across California, and for the passage of SGMA in 2014. This second phase of drought ended with atmospheric river events that brought heavy precipitation to California in early 201748.The original GRACE mission was decommissioned in late 2017 and transitioned to GRACE-FO after its launch in May 2018. Hence there is year-long data gap in the combined GRACE/FO record from August 2017–September. 2018. Studies of that time period23,34 suggest that groundwater recharge occurred during this data gap. We estimate that during the lifetime of original GRACE mission (2003–2017), 41.8 ± 1.2 km3 of groundwater were lost (Table 1).We assume that the groundwater depletion followed the 18-year historical trend (2003–2021), but made no assumption about its seasonal dynamics during the data gap between the GRACE and GRACE-FO missions. From October 2018 to August 2019 (3rd recharge in Fig. 3a) we estimated that groundwater storage increased by 26.6 ± 16.0 km3 (188.8 ± 108.9 mm/yr; 29.02 ± 16.73 km3/yr).The third phase of drought in the GRACE/FO record began in September 2019. After the recharge event in the winter of 2018, major water inputs in the region, including precipitation and SWE, significantly decreased in the winters of 2019 and 2020 (Figs. 2b and d). These two winters rank the years 2019 and 2020 as fourth driest consecutive 2-year period on record49. In particular, precipitation reached an 18 year low in the winter of 2020–2021 (Fig. 2b), and TWS (Fig. 2a) shows this same time period as the driest wet season in the GRACE/FO record. Between September 2019 and December 2021 (Present drought in Fig. 3a), total groundwater losses in the Central Valley were 20.0 ± 5.1 km3 (55.8 ± 21.8 mm/yr; 8.58 ± 3.35 km3/yr), which is roughly 31% faster than the previous two droughts.During the present megadrought in southwestern North America (2003–2021), groundwater anomalies observed from GRACE/FO in the Central Valley show a trend of groundwater depletion of 15.7 ± 1.4 mm/yr (2.41 ± 0.22 km3/yr), resulting in a total groundwater loss of 44.3 ± 0.9 km3, an amount that is nearly than 1.4 times the full capacity of Lake Mead.Longer-term trends and comparison to observationsThe GRACE/FO groundwater estimates were compared with water table depth anomalies observed from groundwater wells, as shown in Fig. 3b. A valley-wide water table depth was obtained by averaging measurements from available wells located within Central Valley, managed by California’s DWR and USGS23 (see Methods). Seasonal variations of GRACE/FO derived groundwater storage changes and the observed water table depth were removed by subtracting their climatologies, i.e. deseasonalized groundwater storage and water table anomalies, to avoid seasonal inconsistencies between the two measurements, and to only examine their long term trends. Overall, the two measurements demonstrate similar trends from 2003 to 2021. While there is a greater difference between the well and GRACE/FO estimates following 2017, Fig. 3b shows that the groundwater estimates using GRACE/FO are capable of capturing the periods of loss and recovery observed on the ground, and in particular, the greater rate of groundwater loss since 2019, which appears even stronger in the well observations than in the GRACE/FO estimates. Discrepancies may be attributed to the irregular availability of groundwater well data, and to a major decline in available well observations since late 2018 (see Methods, Supporting Information, and Fig. S3). Both of these factors underscore the challenges of estimating large-area groundwater dynamics from well data alone, and of validating groundwater models and satellite observations.Figure 4 shows cumulative groundwater losses from 1962–2021 using the CVHM13 and GRACE/FO. From 2003 to 2014 when both CVHM and GRACE data were available, the groundwater depletion rate for the CVHM was 16.3 ± 6.3 mm/yr (2.51 ± 0.97 km3), matching that from GRACE, 14.7 ± 6.0 mm/yr (2.25 ± 0.92 km3), indicating that the two methods are compatible and may be combined for the further analysis. The combined CVHM-GRACE/FO groundwater depletion rate was calculated by using both CVHM estimations from 1962–2014 and GRACE-derived groundwater storage changes from 2003–2021 through linear regression analysis. The result shows that the groundwater depletion rate from 1962 to 2021 was 12.1 ± 0.8 mm/yr (1.86 ± 0.12 km3/yr), shown as the black line in Fig. 4, resulting in a total groundwater loss of 111.5 ± 0.9 km3. In addition, Fig. 4 shows that the periods for groundwater recovery were shorter, and mostly driven by extreme weather events46,47,48,50 in the nearly two decades of the GRACE/FO record. Although groundwater was recharged, these extreme wet events typically generated flooding, and had significant negative social, environmental and economic consequences46,47,48,50. This sequence of extreme hydrological events—long-term extremely dry conditions with considerable groundwater losses, punctuated by short-term extremely wet conditions with short bursts of groundwater recharge—underscores the challenge of sustainable groundwater management under changing climate.Fig. 4: Yearly cumulative groundwater losses in the Central Valley.Groundwater losses combining the USGS’s Central Valley Hydrologic Model (CVHM)13 and the GRACE/FO estimates since 1962. The black line represents the overall groundwater depletion from 1962 to 2021 calculated by combining the CVHM and GRACE estimates.Full size imageFigures 3a and 4, along with Table 1, show that the rate of groundwater loss is accelerating in the Central Valley. Groundwater loss rates observed from GRACE/FO (15.7 ± 1.4 mm/yr; 2.41 ± 0.22 km3/yr) between 2003 and 2021 are 28% faster than the longer-term (1962–2021) depletion rate of the combined CVHM-GRACE/FO record (12.1 ± 0.8 mm/yr; 1.86 ± 0.12 km3/yr). The most recent phase of groundwater loss, between September 2019 and August 2021 (55.8 ± 21.8 mm/yr; 8.58 ± 3.35 km3/yr), is nearly 31% faster than GRACE/FO estimated losses the previous two drought phases during the GRACE/FO record, and nearly five times faster than the long-term depletion rate.Relationship between surface water allocations and estimated groundwater storage changesFigure 5a compares GRACE/FO estimated monthly groundwater storage variations to annual surface water allocations (in % of annual maximum) via the two primary aqueducts in the Central Valley, the California State Water Project (SWP)51 and the federal Central Valley Water Project (CVP)52. The two aqueducts transport surface water from northern California to the south. Figure 5b compares the annual groundwater storage changes (net fluxes) to the total surface water deliveries from both the CVP and SWP (in km3). The annual groundwater change was calculated as the difference of the mean annual groundwater anomalies between two consecutive years. Figure 5a, b show that when surface water is abundant, greater allocations are made to farmers, relieving stress on groundwater and allowing for recovery, and vice versa.Fig. 5: Groundwater and surface water management in Central Valley.a Comparison between annual surface water allocations in the aqueducts of the California State Water Project (SWP) and the federal Central Valley Water Project (CVP) and GRACE/FO-derived groundwater storage anomalies. b Comparison between annual surface water deliveries (dark blue bars) of SWP and CVP to the GRACE/FO derived groundwater changes (red and green bars) in Central Valley. The groundwater changes in 2003, 2017, and 2018 are not included because GRACE/FO-derived data do not have complete coverage over the year.Full size imageBetween 2003 and 2007, surface water storage was increasing (Fig. 2d), allowing for larger allocations ( >60%) from both aqueducts, less reliance on groundwater, and hence increasing groundwater storage. Surface water deliveries in Central Valley reached a high for the study period in 2016, resulting in about 5 km3 recharge (Fig. 5b). Surface water storage, and hence allocations, decreased between 2007 and 2009, resulting in significant groundwater storage decline. Surface water deliveries decreased to 2.30 km3 in 2009, corresponding to the highest annual groundwater storage loss by 7.86 km3 during the 1st drought period.The second drought in the GRACE/FO record began in August 2011, triggering decreasing surface water allocations that resulted in heavy groundwater demand. During this period, CVP cut its allocation to 0% in 2014 and 2015, and 5% in 2016, while the SWP reached its lowest allocation for the study period, 5% in 2014. The low surface water delivery volumes in 2014 and 2015 drove corresponding annual groundwater losses of 9.66 and 7.64 km3, respectively, and led to intensified groundwater pumping through 2016 (Fig. 5b).Groundwater storage variations continued to reflect surface water allocations, increasing in 2017 and 2019 with above-average surface water storage, followed by major losses in both surface water allocations, and groundwater storage, through the end of 2021. For example, in 2020, aqueduct allocations decreased to 20% for both projects, and to 0% and 5% in 2021 for the CVP and SWP, explaining in part the increased rate of groundwater loss during this time period. In 2021, the annual groundwater loss was 9.22 km3, matching the greatest annual loss during the study period, which occurred in 2014.Demonstration of GRACE/FO-derived groundwater storage changes to support regional groundwater managementGRACE/FO-derived groundwater storage changes were also estimated in the Sacramento, San Joaquin, and Tulare basins, as shown in Fig. 6 and Table 2. The same periods of groundwater recharge and loss in the Central Valley are used to calculate the gains and losses for the three basins, including longer-term depletion rates. Overall, the individual basin follows similar trends, i.e. three short recharge phases, followed by three longer droughts, as was presented for the entire Central Valley. During the 1st recharge phase, similar rates of groundwater recharge can be observed in the Sacramento and Tulare basins, with increasing rates of 39.0 ± 20.0 and 27.5 ± 15.8 mm/yr (2.81 ± 1.44 and 1.17 ± 0.67 km3/yr (Fig. 6a, c and Table 2)), resulting in groundwater increases of 8.0 ± 2.4 km3 and 3.3 ± 1.1 km3 in the two basins, respectively. Although a slight groundwater loss of 0.7 ± 2.0 km3 (6.4 ± 29.6 mm/yr; 0.26 ± 1.21 km3/yr) in the San Joaquin basin is observed for this period (Fig. 6b and Table 2), the loss rate is not statistically significant (within an uncertainty of 95% confidence interval), indicating that groundwater supply and consumption were nearly balanced in the basin.Fig. 6: Groundwater storage variations in the three Central Valley sub-basins.GRACE/FO-derived groundwater anomalies during September 2003–December 2021 in the (a) Sacramento, (b) San Joaquin, and (c) Tulare basins. The green shaded margins are the uncertainty of groundwater storage estimates. Red arrows represent groundwater loss trends during the droughts of 2006–2011, 2011–2017, and since 2019. Blue arrows represent the three short recharge periods. The black line shows the overall groundwater depletion trend from 2003–2021. Comparison of deseasonalized anomalies of GRACE/FO derived groundwater and water table depth anomalies from monitoring wells for the (d) Sacramento, e San Joaquin, and (f) Tulare basins.Full size imageTable 2 Groundwater change rates and total groundwater volume changes in the three sub-basins in the study regionFull size tableWhen entering to the 1st drought phase, results show that the Sacramento, San Joaquin, and Tulare basins all experienced similar groundwater loss rates of ~42 mm/yr (40–44 mm/yr) (Fig.6a–c and Table 2). The drought ended with the strong El Niño in 201047.During the 2nd drought, all three basins experienced significant losing trends. Figure 6a–c, and Table 2 show that the Tulare basin suffered more severe groundwater losses than the other basins, with a loss rate of 62.9 ± 4.4 mm/yr (−2.67 ± 0.19 km3/yr). The total groundwater loss in the Tulare basin was 15.1 ± 0.4 km3, which was nearly 40% of the total loss in Central Valley, yet the area of the Tulare basin only occupies about one quarter of the study region. The groundwater storage changes during the 18 year study period show that the depletion rates in the Sacramento, San Joaquin, and Tulare basins, were 12.9 ± 1.8, 16.2 ± 1.9, and 20.6 ± 1.5 mm/yr (0.93 ± 0.13, 0.67 ± 0.08, and 0.88 ± 0.06 km3/yr) (Fig. 6a–c and Table 2), respectively, indicating that the southern Central Valley (combined San Joaquin and Tulare) lost more groundwater than the north, similar to the findings of earlier studies23,30. However, the situation was reversed in the drought that began in September 2019 (present drought in Fig. 6a–c), during which we found higher groundwater loss rates of 76.1 ± 28.1 mm/yr (5.48 ± 2.02 km3/yr) in the Sacramento basin compared to those of 38.1 ± 25.2 and 60.1 ± 14.0 mm/yr (1.56 ± 1.03 and 2.55 ± 0.60 km3/yr) for the San Joaquin and Tulare basins, respectively.The deseasonalized GRACE/FO-derived groundwater storage and observed water table anomalies are compared for each of the three basins. Similar to the approach for the whole Central Valley, wells with available measurements within a particular basin boundary were averaged to represent the water table depth variation for the basin (see Methods and Supplementary Information). The two measurements show similar trends and variations for the Sacramento and Tulare basins, except for a strong water table rise in the winter of 2019 for the Tulare basin. As discussed earlier for the entire Central Valley, a dramatic decrease in the number of available well observations after late 2018 may have resulted in an inconsistent record of water table depth.While the Sacramento and Tulare basins showed generally good agreement between GRACE/FO-derived groundwater storage changes and observed well measurements, less correspondence was observed in the San Joaquin basin, particularly during the 1st drought period. However, the two drought phases from 2011–2017 and after 2019 are clearly recognizable, with water table observations falling in response to increased groundwater pumping.Figure 6 highlights both strengths and weaknesses of using the GRACE/FO approach at the sub-basin scale of the individual Sacramento, San Joaquin, and Tulare basins. On the one hand, sub-basin analyses provide important insights into groundwater storage variations across the Valley, in particular, sub-basin trends, which could ultimately inform SGMA performance and provide early warning (in the case of the Sacramento basin) for those regions where groundwater losses are unexpected. On the other, the sub-basins are considerably smaller than the ~154,000 km2 area of the Central Valley, which corresponds the lower area limit for an acceptable level of error for monthly TWSA detection36,53,54,55. (Note that the longer time period associated with the trend calculations mitigates this issue somewhat, resulting in greater confidence in the sub-basin trends than the monthly variations). Hence the GRACE/FO-derived groundwater storage variations at these sub-basin scales should be used judiciously.As with the whole-valley comparisons to observations, the sub-basin analyses are faced with the same challenges as described above, i.e. the difficulties in assembling larger-area water table depth averages from unevenly distributed well observations collected at disparate times and for varying periods of time. In spite of these challenges, the regional groundwater analyses for the sub-basins demonstrates the potential utility of GRACE/FO-derived groundwater storage changes for supporting regional groundwater management efforts. More

A river created by a melting glacier in Iceland: SWOT will track the world’s water bodies in unprecedented detail.Credit: Nejc Gostincar/E+/Getty

From swirling ocean eddies that help shape the global climate to millions of lakes and rivers, scientists are about to get an unprecedented view of Earth’s water.The US$1.2-billion Surface Water and Ocean Topography satellite (SWOT), which is due to launch on 15 December from the Vandenberg Space Force Base in California, promises to transform research into the global water cycle and provide climate scientists with a fresh lens on a warming world.A joint mission led by NASA and the French National Centre for Space Studies, SWOT will bounce radar off the surface of Earth’s water bodies — including many that are too small to be tracked from space by current methods. The satellite will enable scientists to measure and track the elevation, extent and movement of water across the planet in ground-breaking detail.“It’s a game changer,” says Rosemary Morrow, an oceanographer at the Laboratory of Space, Geophysical and Oceanographic Studies in Toulouse, France and one of the science leads for the mission. “It will be like putting on a pair of glasses when you are short-sighted: things are sort of vague, and then suddenly everything comes into clarity.”Lakes and riversThere are currently publicly available data for just 10,000–20,000 of the roughly 6 million lakes and reservoirs larger than one hectare on the planet today, says Tamlin Pavelsky, a hydrologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and another of SWOT’s science leads. SWOT will measure nearly all 6 million every 10 or 11 days. “We’ve never had measurements like this before,” says Pavelsky. “We don’t even have a baseline.”In 2021, a team led by Sarah Cooley, a geographer at Oregon State University in Eugene pieced together existing satellite measurements of surface area and water elevation for some 227,000 lakes1, but Cooley says those are available only every 90 days. “The data that will be provided by SWOT is orders of magnitude beyond what we were able to do,” says Cooley.SWOT has already helped to generate advances in river hydrology. In anticipation of the satellite’s launch, researchers developed new ways to convert measurements of water height, extent and elevation change into flow estimates2. Applying those techniques to existing satellite data, scientists estimated that rivers carried up to 17% more fresh water into the Arctic Ocean between 1984 and 2018 than previously thought3; SWOT is expected to refine this estimate while enabling similar work across the globe.“If SWOT does what we think it’s going to do, it’s going to change the face of hydrology,” says Colin Gleason, a geographer at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and an author on both studies.Ocean eddiesSimilar advances are expected at sea, where SWOT is expected to provide high-resolution measurements that will allow scientists to track currents, swirling eddies and the ebb and flow of tides. These will bolster understanding of water circulation and improve high-resolution models that can track the transfer of heat and carbon dioxide from the warming atmosphere into the depths of the ocean.SWOT will give scientists their first 3D view of eddies, for example, and will be able to detect perturbations around 10 kilometres wide — one-tenth the scale of the best measurements that are currently available, says Morrow. Even these small features are crucial to understanding and predicting the climate, she says.An international consortium involving the United States, France, Australia and others is planning field expeditions at 18 ocean sites around the world next year. These will help to calibrate the SWOT data against on-site measurements under a variety of ocean conditions.“We’re really really excited, but the proof is in the pudding,” Morrow says. “We’re waiting to see what information comes out.” More

Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda (2015).About the JMP. JMP https://washdata.org/how-we-work/about-jmp (2019).Do you know all 17 goals? United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs https://sdgs.un.org/goals (2021).Delivering the promise: Safe water and sanitation for all by 2030: The SDG 6 Global Acceleration Framework: In Brief (UN Water, 2020).Progress on household drinking water, sanitation and hygiene: five years into the SDGs (WHO and UNICEF, 2021).Cronk, R., Slaymaker, T. & Bartram, J. Monitoring drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene in non-household settings: priorities for policy and practice. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 218, 694–703 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bain, R., Johnston, R., Mitis, F., Chatterley, C. & Slaymaker, T. Establishing sustainable development goal baselines for household drinking water, sanitation and hygiene services. Water 10, 1711–1729 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
JMP Drinking water, sanitation and hygiene in schools: global baseline report 2018 (WHO and UNICEF, 2018); https://washdata.org/sites/default/files/documents/reports/2018-11/JMP%20WASH%20in%20Schools%20WEB%20final.pdfJMP Progress on drinking water, sanitation and hygiene in schools: 2000–2021 data update (WHO and UNICEF, 2022).Blanton, E. et al. Evaluation of the role of school children in the promotion of point-of-use water treatment and handwashing in schools and households—Nyanza Province, Western Kenya, 2007. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 82, 664–671 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hunter, P. R. et al. Impact of the provision of safe drinking water on school absence rates in Cambodia: a quasi-experimental study. PLoS ONE 9, 5 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Talaat, M. et al. Effects of hand hygiene campaigns on incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza and absenteeism in schoolchildren, Cairo, Egypt. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 17, 619–625 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
O’Reilly, C. E. et al. The impact of a school-based safe water and hygiene programme on knowledge and practices of students and their parents: Nyanza Province, western Kenya, 2006. Epidemiol. Infect. 136, 80–91 (2008).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Freeman, M. C., Clasen, T., Brooker, S. J., Akoko, D. O. & Rheingans, R. The impact of a school-based hygiene, water quality and sanitation intervention on soil-transmitted helminth reinfection: a cluster-randomized trial. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 89, 875–883 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Khanna, A., Goyal, R. & Bhawsar, R. Menstrual practices and reproductive problems: a study of adolescent girls in Rajasthan. J. Health Manag. 7, 91–107 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Shah, V. et al. Effects of menstrual health and hygiene on school absenteeism and drop-out among adolescent girls in rural Gambia. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 19, 3337 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Adukia, A. Sanitation and education. Am. Econ. J.: Appl. Econ. 9, 23–59 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Njuguna, V. et al. The Sustainability and Impact of School Sanitation, Water and Hygiene Education in Kenya (International Water and Sanitation Centre and UNICEF, 2008).Caruso, B. A., Dreibelbis, R., Ogutu, E. A. & Rheingans, R. If you build it will they come? Factors influencing rural primary pupils’ urination and defecation practices at school in western Kenya. J. Water Sanit. Hyg. Dev. 4, 642–653 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mooijman, A., Snel, M., Ganguly, S. & Shordt, K. Strengthening water, sanitation and hygiene in schools – a WASH guidance manual with a focus on South Asia (International Water and Sanitation Centre, 2009).Garn, J. V. et al. A cluster-randomized trial assessing the impact of school water, sanitation, and hygiene improvements on pupil enrollment and gender parity in enrollment. J. Water Sanit. Hyg. Dev. 3, 592–601 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Trinies, V., Garn, J. V., Chang, H. H. & Freeman, M. C. The impact of a school-based water, sanitation, and hygiene program on absenteeism, diarrhea, and respiratory infection: a matched-control trial in Mali. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 94, 1418–1425 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Grant, M., Lloyd, C. & Mensch, B. Menstruation and school absenteeism: evidence from rural malawi. Comp. Educ. Rev. 57, 260–284 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dreibelbis, R. et al. Water, sanitation, and primary school attendance: a multi-level assessment of determinants of household-reported absence in Kenya. Int. J. Educ. Dev. 33, 457–465 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jasper, C., Le, T.-T. & Bartram, J. Water and sanitation in schools: a systematic review of the health and educational outcomes. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 9, 2772–2787 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
McMichael, C. Water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) in schools in low-income countries: a review of evidence of impact. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 16, 359 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pérez-Foguet, A., Giné-Garriga, R. & Ortego, M. I. Compositional data for global monitoring: the case of drinking water and sanitation. Sci. Total Environ. 590–591, 554–565 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schools. JMP https://washdata.org/monitoring/schools (2018).Hutton, G., Haller, L. & Bartram, J. Global cost-benefit analysis of water supply and sanitation interventions. J. Water Health 5, 481–502 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Song, L., Appleton, S. & Knight, J. Why do girls in rural China have lower school enrollment? World Dev. 34, 1639–1653 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mahmud, S. & Amin, S. Girls’ schooling and marriage in rural Bangladesh. Res. Sociol. Educ. 15, 71–99 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Drèze, J. & Kingdon, G. G. School participation in rural India. Rev. Dev. Econ. 5, 1–24 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Iddrisu, A. M. The effect of poverty, household structure and child work on school enrolment. J. Educ. Pract. 5, 145–156 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Daoud, J. I. Multicollinearity and regression analysis. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 949, 012009–012015 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Farrar, D. E. & Glauber, R. R. Multicollinearity in regression analysis: the problem revisited. Rev. Econ. Stat. 49, 92–107 (1967).Article 

Google Scholar 
Keller, K. R. I. Investment in primary, secondary, and higher education and the effects on economic growth. Contemp. Econ. Policy 24, 18–34 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kiran, B. Testing the impact of educational expenditures on economic growth: new evidence from Latin American countries. Qual. Quant. 48, 1181–1190 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Myrskylä, M., Kohler, H.-P. & Billari, F. C. Advances in development reverse fertility declines. Nature 460, 741–743 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ward, J. L. & Viner, R. M. The impact of income inequality and national wealth on child and adolescent mortality in low and middle-income countries. BMC Public Health 17, 8 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Koolwal, G. & van de Walle, D. Access to water, women’s work, and child outcomes. Econ. Dev. Cult. Change 61, 369–405 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Freeman, M. C. et al. Assessing the impact of a school-based water treatment, hygiene and sanitation programme on pupil absence in Nyanza Province, Kenya: a cluster-randomized trial. Trop. Med. Int. Health 17, 380–391 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Swanson, E. World Development Indicators 2007 81 (World Bank Publications, 2007).Chatterley, C. et al. Institutional WASH in the SDGs: data gaps and opportunities for national monitoring. J. Water Sanit. Hyg. Dev. 8, 595–606 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vedachalam, S. et al. Underreporting of high-risk water and sanitation practices undermines progress on global targets. PLoS ONE 12, 20 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Exley, J. L. R., Liseka, B., Cumming, O. & Ensink, J. H. J. The sanitation ladder, what constitutes an improved form of sanitation? Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 1086–1094 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Nganyanyuka, K., Martinez, J., Wesselink, A., Lungo, J. H. & Georgiadou, Y. Accessing water services in Dar es Salaam: are we counting what counts? Habitat Int. 44, 358–366 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Evans, B. et al. Limited services? The role of shared sanitation in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. J. Water Sanit. Hyg. Dev. 7, 349–351 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bain, R., Johnston, R., Khan, S., Hancioglu, A. & Slaymaker, T. Monitoring drinking water quality in nationally representative household surveys in low- and middle-income countries: cross-sectional analysis of 27 multiple indicator cluster surveys 2014–2020. Environ. Health Perspect. 129, 19 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Morgan, C., Bowling, M., Bartram, J. & Lyn Kayser, G. Water, sanitation, and hygiene in schools: status and implications of low coverage in Ethiopia, Kenya, Mozambique, Rwanda, Uganda, and Zambia. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 220, 950–959 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sommer, M. & Sahin, M. Overcoming the taboo: advancing the global agenda for menstrual hygiene management for schoolgirls. Am. J. Public Health 103, 1556–1559 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Elledge, M. F. et al. Menstrual hygiene management and waste disposal in low and middle income countries—a review of the literature. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 15, 20 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Spears, D. Exposure to open defecation can account for the Indian enigma of child height. J. Dev. Econ. 146, 17 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
World Bank Open Data https://data.worldbank.org/ (World Bank, 2019).Gelman, A. & Hill, J. Data Analysis Using Regression and Hierarchical/Multilevel Models Vol. 1 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007).Fertility rate, total (births per woman) https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.iN (World Bank, 2018).Breierova, L. & Duflo, E. The Impact of Education on Fertility and Child Mortality: Do Fathers Really Matter Less Than Mothers? Working Paper No. 10513 (National Bureau of Economic Research, 2004); http://www.nber.org/papers/w10513.pdfDuflo, E., Dupas, P. & Kremer, M. Education, HIV, and early fertility: experimental evidence from Kenya. Am. Econ. Rev. 105, 2757–2797 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Osili, U. O. & Long, B. T. Does female schooling reduce fertility? Evidence from Nigeria. J. Dev. Econ. 87, 57–75 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sen, A. Development as Freedom (Oxford Univ. Press, 1999).Graham, J. P., Hirai, M. & Kim, S.-S. An analysis of water collection labor among women and children in 24 Sub-Saharan African countries. PLoS ONE 11, 14 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Progress on Drinking Water and Sanitation: 2014 Update (WHO and UNICEF, 2014).Beckman, P. J. & Gallo, J. Rural education in a global context. Glob. Educ. Rev. 2, 1–4 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Bhatia, A., Krieger, N. & Subramanian, S. V. Learning from history about reducing infant mortality: contrasting the centrality of structural interventions to early 20th-century successes in the United States to their neglect in current global initiatives. Milbank Q. 97, 285–345 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
RStudio: Integrated Development for R v.1.2.1335 (RStudio, 2018); http://www.rstudio.com/Robitzsch, A. & Grund, S. miceadds: Some additional multiple imputation functions, especially for ‘mice’. R package version 3.9.0 (2020).Wickham, H. ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. R package version 3.3.2 (2016).Becker, R. A., Wilks A. R., Brownrigg, R., Minka T. P. & Deckmyn, A. maps: Draw geographical maps. R package version 3.3.0 https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/maps/index.html (2018).Auguie, B. egg: Extensions for ‘ggplot2’: Custom geom, custom themes, plot alignment, labelled panels, symmetric scales, and fixed panel size. R package version 0.4.5 (2019). More

To develop flood risk management strategies, governments need to consider what really matters, namely how and over what period floods affect societal welfare. To do so, we advocate the adoption of a resilience lens in flood risk management. Here, resilience is understood as the ability of a society to cope with flood hazards by resisting, absorbing, accommodating, adapting to, transforming and recovering from the effects of floods on people’s welfare3,4. To analyze and enhance resilience, we need to consider how and over what period floods affect societies and how measures could affect flood impacts and society5. Questions to consider include whether floods will hamper economic activities; whether people can earn sufficient income or their livelihoods are destroyed and whether their health will be affected.Adopting a resilience lens means taking societal welfare as our starting point. From there, the interaction with flood hazards and flood risks can be considered6. For frequent events resistance may be required to allow societies to continue functioning without facing frequent damage. Damage as a result of rare and extreme events may not be avoidable, but such events must be included in our considerations in order to make sure that those events, although damaging, do not turn into disasters. This requires a deep understanding of what makes people vulnerable to floods and how resilience can be improved. We offer four elements linked to this resilience lens to understand what makes a flood disastrous. We aim to enable an informed discussion on how to arrive at appropriate flood risk management strategies (see Fig. 1).Fig. 1: Adopting a resilience lens by operationalizing the four elements into an integrated flood risk management approach.A welfare and recovery capacity (element 1 and 2): Different effects of floods on different areas or societal groups: some have a larger deterioration of welfare or a slower recovery than others. Both the maximum impact and the recovery together determine the impact of a flood disaster. B include beyond-design events (element 3). The grey curve shows the impacts as a function of event extremity. The standard assessment integrates over this curve and uses the resulting expected annual damage as risk measure; this aggregation undermines the role of high-impact but low-probability events. The extreme events must be given attention as well; (C) distributional impacts (element 4). Distributional impacts can be considered spatially or for different social groups. Welfare economics principles can be applied to capture the utility of different communities and vulnerable groups. By aggregating the effects, we may not see how some groups benefit from measures while others pay for them, or still face large risks. Therefore, next to total cost and benefits, also distributed impacts must be used and weighted to enhance equity.Full size imageImpacts on welfare, instead of on asset lossesFloods hit socially vulnerable people harder, because poorer communities often lack the capacity to recover quickly. Vulnerable people or communities have a lower capacity to anticipate, cope with, resist or recover from the impact of hazards7. They may be forced to live in hazardous places, have less access to flood warnings, a less effective network to enhance recovery, and fewer resources to protect their homes or livelihoods. Especially people that already live in poverty may need to shift to destructive strategies such as selling land or cattle or consume seeds to meet other short-term needs. Such strategies can lead to a vicious circle.Using absolute asset-based damages as yardsticks, as is often done in flood risk management, largely underestimates the disproportionally large welfare impact relatively small absolute losses can have on poor people and may lead to biased planning8. As one dollar does not count equally for all people, flood risk planning should move beyond asset-based valuations and put the welfare of people at the core of the assessment9. This can be done, for example, by considering social impacts such as loss of houses (irrespective of their value), deprivation cost, loss of percentage of income, or considering the effect on income generating ability.There are further merits to placing welfare upfront. First, it opens the possibility of better aligning flood risk management with the larger development agenda3, for instance by linking flood risk management to spatial and economic planning. Second, it allows for a better inclusion of non-structural measures in flood risk management strategies, such as adaptive social protection systems that can quickly disburse financial assistance to households when a disaster hits10. Such measures may not reduce asset-based damages but can have significant benefits of increasing recovery rate and dampening welfare losses.Recovery capacityWhen recovery from floods takes longer, the impact of the floods is more disastrous because of the many indirect and cascading effects, which often exceed the direct damage11. Differences in flood impacts across societal groups often link to differences in their ability to recover from flood impacts. To recover, physical damage must be repaired and income generating options must be restored. Accounting for disruption of services of critical infrastructure, cascading impacts12 or addressing people’s recovery capacity are thus crucial to understand the impact of floods on societal welfare. If we consider recovery as part of flood risk management, the effect of recovery enhancing measures can be included to reduce longer-term welfare loss. Measures such as citizen training, micro-credits, affordable insurance to compensate for flood losses and improving critical infrastructure (enhancing its robustness, redundancy, or flexibility) then become relevant.Beyond-design eventsThe July 2021 floods in Europe have shown the devastating impact of beyond-design events, events that exceed the known risks. The flood peak discharge in July 2021 in the Ahr valley was roughly five times higher than the extreme event scenario of the official flood map13 and its return period was estimated to be around 500 years. Such an event was beyond the imagination of people and authorities, which led to high numbers of fatalities and massive destruction.The complexity of flood risk systems, limitations of scientific knowledge but also motivational and cognitive biases in perception and decision making contribute to such surprises14,15. In many regions, climate change and other drivers of change, such as population growth or increasing vulnerability, lead to more frequent situations where current protection systems are overwhelmed. Our third element targets this blind spot of flood risk management: extreme events beyond current design standards to prevent disastrous surprises.This can be done for example by using a storyline approach, narrative scenarios or training exercises and simulation games that stimulate decision-makers to think through the full disaster cycle. Such exercises are known to inspire discussion of potentially long-term unexpected or unintended cascading effects across different systems16. Outliers in ensemble forecasts may be used as a starting point for such scenarios. These explorations guide dialogues towards achieving the desired level of protection and preparedness for extreme events, to reduce the impact to the most crucial objects, locations, or groups of a society, and provide the basis for training of decision-makers.Distributional impacts and equityA resilience lens requires asking the distributional questions of “the five Ws“17: for whom, when, what, where, and why? Most flood risk analyses aggregate risks and flood protection benefits and disregard their distribution across people, space and time. The resilience lens requires unpacking this aggregation by assessing the distributional impacts of alternative measures. Making explicit who wins and who loses can support distributive justice and prevent unintended distributional consequences. Additional measures for compensating worse-off groups can also be prepared. It is one option, for example, to target flood risk protection measures18 at the most socially vulnerable instead of selecting measures based on utilitarian principles. To do so, a risk analysis that shows distributed impacts on a range of social groups and regions must be carried out. These distributional questions also play out between current and future generations (intergenerational justice).The distributional performance of alternative plans can be assessed through a normative analysis. Various ethical principles drawn from theories of distributive justice can be operationalized to evaluate the fairness of alternative measures19. Multiple principles can also be combined. In the Netherlands, the flood protection standard is designed such that every person has at least a minimum level of safety (sufficientarian principle), while additional safety margin is allowed if it is economically sensible (utilitarian principle)20. More