Listen to the episode:

You can find the shownotes through this link.

---

Are you interested in how social inequality influences domestic water and thus broader water sustainability issues?

---

Our summary today works with the article titled Social inequality and water use in Australian cities: the social gradient in domestic water use from 2021 by Paul Satur and Jo Lindsay, published in the Local Environment – The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability. This is a great preparation to our next interviewee, Paul Satur who deeply cares about water use and social inequality. Since we are investigating the future of cities, I thought it would be interesting to see how the social gradient influences domestic water use. This article presents the complex social and environmental dynamics that shape water use in urban areas, and highlights the need for more equitable and sustainable water management strategies.

[intro music]

Welcome to today’s What is The Future For Cities podcast and its Research episode; my name is Fanni, and today I will introduce a research paper by summarising it. The episode really is just a short summary of the original paper, and, in case it is interesting enough, I would encourage everyone to check out the whole paper. Stay tuned until because I will give you the 3 most important things and some questions which would be interesting to discuss.

[music]

Sustainable, resilient and liveable water-sensitive cities should not just be for those with the capacity and resources to access them, but for everyone. Yet in modern urban contexts where economic, material, social, and cultural resources are highly varied between communities, how do we ensure this accessibility? This paper explores the impact social inequality has on the way different communities experience and use water, and suggests how integrated urban water management could be used more socially inclusive.

The literature has ample evidence on developing nations battling inequalities and the challenges they present for drinking water access and sanitation and urban water resource management. However, there is less research regarding advanced economies in this aspect. For urban water specifically, the discussion has been dominated by the technical and economic aspects, the social dynamics are under-developed. Yet, inequalities have been found in the opportunities and requirements people have to use and save water, access technologies and engage in resource management processes and initiatives in Australia and the US. Studies have found links between domestic water use and the contextual economic, social, material and cultural resources water users possess and can access.

Notably, the link between inequality and domestic resource use is present not only in domestic water use but how these links influence social inequality, and thus liveability, sustainability and resilience. The authors explored the relationship between inequality and water use through a study of diverse community contexts in two divergent Australian cities of Melbourne and Perth. They examined how the economic, material, cultural and social resources within communities vary and influence the ways water is used, saved and experienced in daily life.

In Perth and Melbourne, the participants used water in their everyday lives for activities such as bathing, dish and clothes washing, toilet and bathroom use, general cleaning and maintenance, and gardening. The authors found that variability in economic, social, cultural and material resources profoundly influenced the nature of water use practices. They proposed that there is a social gradient in water use where community levels of advantage and disadvantage have an impact on the meanings, materials and competencies associated with water use.

Increased financial resources allowed participants a greater capacity to ensure basic welfare needs, mitigate climatic impacts such as heat stresses and enrich their gardens and household aesthetic through water uses, which in turn allowed them opportunities to foster community connections and social networks. Likewise, increased community connections offered water use knowledge and competencies so residents could more effectively and efficiently meet their welfare needs and also enrich opportunities to use water for leisure and luxury based practices. By contrast, at the other end of the social gradient, financial disadvantage was compounded by degraded public and private spaces which further limited opportunities for social connection and support. Social and economic pressures combined with limited community resources meant households were more vulnerable to climate impacts such as drought heat stress.

The authors found significantly different living standards were linked to water use practices in communities that were socially advantaged, moderately advantaged and disadvantaged. The findings with the social gradient mirror observations in public health and epidemiology fields. Social gradient in water use seems varying according to spatial inequality within neighbourhoods and cities. The compounding pressures of inequality also mean that the most vulnerable are the less able to respond to climatic problems and challenges.

This research also highlighted why the more advantageous groups are more engaged with water saving technologies and programmes. They have greater technical water use knowledge and greater financial capacity to afford water saving technologies. It is the specific institutional elements, like policies and government grants of water resource management that shape the nature of engagement and disengagement and thus the opportunities for both the resource disadvantaged and advantaged to participate.

As Australian cities and cities worldwide continue to build momentum towards water-sensitive transitions and adopt processes of integrated water management, the need for a richer citizen participation in water resource planning and management has been increasingly recognised. The findings present important lines for consideration when implementing the necessary processes and initiatives to engage, promote and build community capacities for shared decision-making, management and stewardship. To ensure socially inclusive progress to water-sensitive cities and sustainability development in general, future implementations and initiatives will need to more effectively address the social gradient in water use.

[music]

---

What was the most interesting part for you? What questions did arise for you? Do you have any follow up question? Let me know on Twitter at WTF4Cities or on the wtf4cities.com website where the transcripts and show notes are available! Additionally, I will highly appreciate if you consider subscribing to the podcast or on the website. I hope this was an interesting paper for you as well, and thanks for tuning in!

---

[music]

Finally, as the most important things, I would like to highlight 3 aspects:

1. Sustainable, resilient and liveable water-sensitive cities should not just be for those with the capacity and resources to access them, but for everyone.
2. Variability in economic, social, cultural and material resources profoundly influences the nature of water use practices and there is a social gradient in water use where community levels of advantage and disadvantage have an impact on the meanings, materials and competencies associated with water use.
3. To ensure socially inclusive progress to water-sensitive cities and sustainability development in general, future implementations and initiatives will need to more effectively address the social gradient in water use.

Additionally, it would be great to talk about the following questions:

1. How important is water for you?
2. Do you think there are similar social gradients in other sectors, like agriculture, and if so, how might they be addressed?
3. How are you affected by this social gradient in your city and what would you recommend for policy makers to improve this effect?
4. What are lessons that you can learn or apply more broadly regarding your water use?

[outro music]

---