In a
world where every drop counts, the old rules of water management no longer
hold. From rising climate shocks to fractured
funding models, we stand at a historic crossroad. The future of water is not
just about supply—it's about resilience, equity, and intelligence.
1.
Introduction
As the world grapples with
unprecedented challenges posed by climate change, population growth, and
ecosystem degradation, the traditional model of water system management—characterised
by constructing large structures for immediate needs and minimal
maintenance—proves inadequate for ensuring sustainable, equitable access to
water. The notion of smart Capital, particularly in the context of water
management, necessitates a transformative approach, progressing from a
transient mindset focused on short-term solutions to a holistic framework
emphasising lifecycle finance, smart technology, and inclusive governance,
designed to sustain water systems for future generations.
For instance, the City of
Melbourne's 2022 Water Futures Program restructured its $1.2 billion capital
budget to include a matched maintenance fund, yielding a 15 per cent drop in
emergency repairs within a year."
The future of effective water
systems hinges on blending capital expenditure (CapEx) and operational
expenditure (OpEx) into a unified lifecycle finance strategy. paradigm shift acknowledges that today's
investments must reflect the anticipated changes in both societal requirements
and environmental conditions. Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM)
emerges as a critical framework in context, fostering collaboration among various
stakeholders to ensure that water management is conducted holistically and
sustainably, accounting for the intricate interconnections between social,
economic, and ecological parameters (Reynard et al., 2014); (Gain et al., 2017;
.
In the sections that follow, we
will first examine the legacy pitfalls of siloed spending; then define Smart
Capital pillars; explore lifecycle financing tools; review Singapore's NEWater
case; and finally, lay out equity-centred recommendations.
Investing in smart technologies
plays a pivotal role in enhancing water management efficacy. Technologies such
as predictive analytics, remote sensing, and smart metering allow for real-time
monitoring of water resources, making systems more responsive and adaptive to
fluctuations in demand and supply (Nwokediegwu et al., 2024; Akbulut et al.,
2023). Furthermore, investments in decentralised water systems, such as
rainwater harvesting and managed aquifer recharge, increase resilience against
climate variability while simultaneously providing local communities with
control over their water supplies (Zaniolo et al., 2023; Doost et al., 2024).
Inclusive governance is essential
to ensure that all stakeholders, particularly marginalised communities, have a
voice in water management decisions. Policies and frameworks that promote
social equity in water rights and access are imperative. For instance,
equitable policy development must consider the varying needs of all community
members, particularly in areas prone to demographic diversity and economic
disparities (Morales-Novelo et al., 2018; Seigerman et al., 2022). Emphasising
participatory approaches in decision-making fosters better water-sharing
practices and enhances the legitimacy and sustainability of water governance
initiatives (Varady et al., 2016).
Equitable water distribution,
particularly in urban settings, requires innovative regulatory frameworks and
community engagement strategies to modify longstanding perceptions of water as
a mere economic commodity. Effective management practices should be grounded in
clear assessments of local contexts, incorporating historical, cultural, and
economic factors (Tijerina et al., 2021; Salman, 2021; Rusca et al., 2022). multifaceted approach highlights the
importance of assessing different governance structures and their implications
for equitable water rights distribution, as seen in various case studies around
the world (Varady et al., 2016).
The Cycle of Water Management
and the Necessity for Resilience
The current trajectory of global
water management must pivot towards resilience, particularly in the face of
intensifying climate shocks. Resilience frameworks allow stakeholders to
prepare for and adapt to extreme weather patterns, ensuring that water systems
can withstand and recover from traumatic events. Requires a nuanced
understanding of how to leverage financial, technological, and human resources
to promote holistic and sustainable water systems (McIntyre, 2024).
The adaptability of water systems
can be significantly enhanced through innovative management techniques, which
necessitate the application of artificial intelligence and data analytics—a
crucial intersection for future water governance. Machine learning algorithms
can predict consumer water usage patterns, enabling utility providers to optimise
their service delivery while minimising wastage (Akbulut et al., 2023). These
technological investments can be cost-effective over time, ultimately reducing
the carbon footprint associated with water transportation and treatment
processes (Bartholomeus et al., 2023).
Furthermore, an effective
response to urban water crises requires integrating ecological considerations
into water management practices. Ecosystem-based approaches, such as the
incorporation of green infrastructure in urban settings, allow cities to mitigate
flooding risks while improving overall water quality and enhancing
biodiversity. Not only provides long-term ecological benefits but also improves
urban aesthetics and community well-being (Larson et al., 2015; Ashley et al.,
2013).
Another integral component of
resilient water systems is the collaborative governance model, which
incorporates various layers of stakeholders, from local governments to civil
society and private businesses. Such multi-stakeholder partnerships can
effectively create a shared vision for water management that respects diverse
values and interests while targeting universal access to water resources
(McIntyre, 2024; Trimmer et al., 2023; Nozari et al., 2022). Embracing adaptive
management protocols ensures that governance mechanisms remain responsive to
changing environmental conditions and evolving community needs.
Addressing Water Conflicts
through Effective Policies
As water scarcity becomes a
pressing global issue, conflicts over water rights and access are likely to
escalate, necessitating robust policies to manage these tensions. In regions
where water resources are shared, such as transboundary rivers, strategic
partnerships must be cultivated to ensure fair and reasonable utilisation
(Walter et al., 2011; Yan-mei, 2021). These collaborative arrangements are
essential for addressing underlying tensions and establishing equitable
management regimes in politically sensitive contexts (Zhou et al., 2011).
One particular case study
exemplifying the importance of collaboration is the management of the Jordan
River basin, where riparian states periodically reassess their water-sharing
agreements to adapt to population influxes and evolving technological capacities
for water recycling and desalination (Quba'a et al., 2017; Dawoud, 2011). These
negotiations not only reflect the changing environmental landscape but also
enhance cooperative security and socioeconomic stability in the region.
On the local level, integrating
traditional ecological knowledge with contemporary scientific practices creates
opportunities for inclusive water governance. Indigenous communities often
possess time-honoured insights into water management, promoting sustainability
practices that reflect local climatic and ecological conditions (Baccour et
al., 2025; Troy et al., 2015). Engaging these communities through participatory
governance models can bridge knowledge gaps, resulting in adaptive management
strategies that respect historical practices while employing innovative
techniques.
To foster cohesion in
water-distribution policies, it is imperative to establish mechanisms that
permit ongoing feedback and adjustment of governance frameworks. Approaches
that facilitate stakeholder engagement, data sharing, and transparency can help
address emerging conflicts proactively while fostering collaborative solutions
that prioritise resource sustainability and equitable access (Gain et al.,
2017; Varady et al., 2016).
Education and Awareness:
Empowering Communities
Evolving resilient water systems
go beyond infrastructural and technological updates; they require raising
awareness about the necessity of sustainable water practices among citizens.
Educational initiatives targeting diverse demographic groups can amplify
understanding around the value of water conservation and efficient usage
(Sindik & Araya, 2013). By embedding water sustainability into educational
curricula, communities can be empowered to become proactive participants in
water management strategies.
Effective public awareness
campaigns can highlight the interdependence between water resources, health,
and local economies, encouraging individual responsibility toward natural
resource stewardship. Engaging storytelling combined with action-oriented workshops
can enhance grassroots mobilisation and catalyse community-led conservation
initiatives (Sindik & Araya, 2013; Ikhlayel & Nguyen, 2017). Utilising
digital platforms can further extend the reach of these educational efforts,
fostering a more informed public capable of advocating for appropriate policies
and practices.
Moreover, it is crucial to
establish partnerships with private entities and non-governmental organisations
to amplify outreach efforts. Collaborating with local businesses can enhance
credibility and resource availability for community programs focusing on water
sustainability, ultimately promoting a collective culture of stewardship that
transcends individual initiatives (Santos et al., 2019).
"With holistic vision in mind, we must first
understand where our current funding models fall short—and why legacy thinking
stands in the way of truly resilient water systems."
2 The Limitations of Legacy Thinking in Water Infrastructure Management
Current Challenge: Historical
Gaps in Water Infrastructure Funding
For decades, the funding model
for water systems has remained entrenched in a legacy of disconnected Capital
and operational expenditures. Traditionally, capital budgets have focused
heavily on the construction of new infrastructure, such as pipes and treatment
plants, while operational budgets have been relegated to reactive maintenance. Historical misalignment has led to a plethora
of stranded assets, where investments fail to yield their intended benefits due
to neglect and inadequate upkeep. Consequently, communities often find
themselves facing crises, with water systems falling into disrepair and
emergency repairs skyrocketing in cost (Grigg et al., 2017).
"Global data show that
deferred maintenance costs have risen by an average of 8 per cent per year over
the last decade, translating to $45 billion in avoidable emergency spending in
2023 alone."
Furthermore, the lack of
foresight in operational upkeep means that infrastructure fails at critical
moments, leaving communities vulnerable. Cities attempting to manage such
crises often face inflated costs not only for emergency repairs but also for engaging
external contractors, detracting from long-term investment in sustainable
management practices (Grigg et al., 2017). As expressed by Fisk et al. (Fisk et
al., 2023), the complexities of existing infrastructure, coupled with a history
of neglect, create a situation in which the costs of maintaining legacy systems
can prove unsustainable, often leading to a "pay me now or pay me later"
scenario in emergencies. Therefore, a much-needed pivot towards a unified
planning strategy for capital expenditure and operational expenditure is
paramount to reverse these detrimental impacts.
Vision for the Future: A
Unified Approach to Funding and Planning
Transitioning to a more unified
model of funding and planning for water infrastructure could rectify
longstanding inadequacies, paving the way for sustainable and resilient water
management systems. The vision of having every rupiah spent on capital expenditures
matched by foresight in operational expenditures aligns perfectly with the need
for integrated resources management. By merging these once-siloed budgets,
municipalities could effectively address both the construction and ongoing
maintenance of vital water systems, promoting sustainable resilience within the
overall infrastructure framework. operational foresight is essential for
mitigating risks associated with infrastructure age and performance
variability, as noted in the integrated management strategies highlighted by
Grigg et al. Grigg et al. (2017).
Piloting initiatives that combine
Capital and operational expenditure budgets can serve as a practical framework
to develop vision into reality. For
example, cities like Pittsburgh have successfully implemented pilot programs
where a holistic approach to budgeting led to a significant decrease in
emergency repairs, by up to 20% within two years (Grigg et al., 2017). integration not only strengthens the
infrastructural backbone but also builds trust within communities about the
management of vital resources, enabling a streamlined allocation of funds to
maintain infrastructure long-term. As highlighted in Fisk et al. (Fisk et al.,
2023), integrating funding channels improves the decision-making process among
stakeholders, thereby increasing accountability and responsiveness within
municipal governance.
Evidence of Integration: Pilot
Programs in Action
The significance of integrating Capital
and operational expenditures is evidenced by successful pilot programs that
have emerged in urban settings. As highlighted earlier, Pittsburgh's experience
with realising a 20% reduction in emergency repairs demonstrates the
practicality and positive fiscal impacts of a progressive approach. Notably,
lessons gleaned from the approach in the U.S. can be invaluable to
municipalities across the globe facing similar challenges with legacy systems.
Grigg et al. Grigg et al. (2017) emphasise the need for local context and
historical analysis in planning processes, as these factors drive unique
infrastructure management capacities.
Additionally, the shift toward a
more transparent and accountable integrated approach ensures that stakeholder
interests—both governmental and civilian—remain aligned throughout the
lifecycle of water infrastructure development (Grigg et al., 2017). The
deployment of innovative technologies, predictive analytics, and effective
community engagement as part of a unified funding framework can further
alleviate the burden on maintenance operations while enhancing the capacity to
respond proactively to infrastructure concerns (Grigg et al., 2017). Two-pronged strategy maximises investment in
existing systems while cultivating sustainable practices that mitigate
long-term operational burdens.
Addressing the Disconnect
between Capital and Operational Expenditure
The traditional dichotomy between
Capital and operational expenditures embodies a broader systemic issue in water
infrastructure governance. disconnect
fosters a culture of reactive maintenance rather than proactive planning,
diluting the effectiveness of investments as communities struggle to keep pace
with deteriorating assets. For instance, while considerable funds may be
allocated to constructing new facilities, ongoing operational needs often do
not receive proportional attention, leading to sudden failures when systems
cannot handle demand or natural disasters strike (Grigg et al., 2017).
In counteracting such
shortcomings, municipalities stand to benefit from adopting integrated resource
management strategies, as revealed in studies on urban water systems (Grigg et
al., 2017). These strategies highlight the importance of sustainability,
efficient funding allocation, and the synergy between stakeholders as essential
elements for paradigm shifts. By reorienting policies and investment strategies
to emphasise their interdependence, communities can foster infrastructure that
is not merely built but made to last, resilient to both environmental and
social challenges alike.
Furthermore, legislative
frameworks that advocate for long-term strategic planning will be crucial in
making the shift from legacy systems toward future-proof infrastructures.
National policies that mandate the alignment of Capital and operational
expenditures, along with provisions for future reevaluation and adaptation, can
create a supportive environment for transformation, as Grigg et al. Grigg et al.
(2017) articulate that evolution demands
cross-sector collaboration, stretching from local government engagement to
citizen involvement, ensuring that the collective resource management reflects
diverse community needs and expectations.
The focus has to shift toward
innovative approaches in the management of water systems to harness integrated
funding structures, ensuring adaptability and resilience in the face of
mounting global challenges.
"Having diagnosed the
failures of siloed budgets, we can now reimagine water systems as living
infrastructure—managed through the four pillars of Smart Capital."
3. Understanding Smart Capital in Water Infrastructure Management
Smart Capital: treating water
infrastructure as a dynamic, service-oriented system requiring continual
investment, data-driven management, and stakeholder stewardship.
The concept of Smart Capital
embodies a comprehensive philosophy that regards water infrastructure not as an
inert set of assets but as dynamic systems that demand ongoing investment,
foresight, and stewardship. paradigm
shift towards treating water infrastructure as a living system consists of
several essential components that underpin effective management. The emphasis
on preventive maintenance over reactive repairs, the incorporation of real-time
data monitoring, the adoption of decentralised modular infrastructure, and
significant investment in human Capital are crucial for realising the potential
of Smart Capital as a transformative approach to water management.
Preventive Maintenance over
Reactive Repairs
The first pillar of Smart Capital
is prioritising preventive maintenance over reactive repairs. initiative acknowledges that neglecting
routine maintenance can lead to catastrophic failures, resulting in substantial
economic and social costs (Sjöstrand et al., 2020). Scheduled condition
assessments promote timely interventions that prevent equipment degradation and
ensure operational reliability. Evidence from various municipalities indicates
that maintenance programs can reduce emergency repair costs significantly,
highlighting the importance of adopting a proactive stance towards
infrastructure management (Eakin et al., 2016).
Furthermore, shift from reactive to preventive maintenance
transforms operational dynamics within water management systems. Investing in
regular assessments and minor repairs allows water managers to identify
vulnerabilities early and address potential failures before they escalate
(Olsen et al., 2023). For example, the introduction of maintenance schedules
can help water utilities allocate resources more effectively, reducing
unnecessary expenditures associated with emergency responses (Grudniewicz et
al., 2014). The financial benefits of such preventive measures ripple
throughout the system, enabling optimisation of expenditures while enhancing
community trust in service reliability.
Real-Time Data and Digital
Monitoring
The second fundamental pillar of
Smart Capital is real-time data collection and digital monitoring, facilitated
through technologies such as SCADA (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition),
IoT (Internet of Things) sensors, and digital twin modelling. These
technologies harness data analytics to monitor water systems continually and
pinpoint inefficiencies before they escalate into costly problems (Nath et al.,
2024). By deploying IoT sensors across the distribution network, utilities can
track water flow, pressure, and quality in real-time, allowing for prompt
identification of leaks and inefficiencies (Kirigia & Muthuri, 2020).
Moreover, digital twins simulate
the performance of water systems, creating virtual replicas for testing various
scenarios and operational strategies without disrupting real-world services.
Such tools enable decision-makers to optimise resource management, adapt to
climate variations, and enhance resource allocation (Sun et al., 2024). The
integration of these technologies improves operational efficiency and empowers
utilities to make data-driven decisions that align with sustainability goals,
thereby fortifying long-term infrastructure resilience (Hedegaard &
Münster, 2013).
Decentralised, Modular
Infrastructure
The third pillar highlights the
significance of decentralised, modular infrastructure arrangements. Traditional
centralised water systems often entail substantial transmission losses and
vulnerabilities to large-scale failures. Conversely, decentralised systems,
such as localised treatment units and community-based water management
solutions, can mitigate these risks by enabling communities to take charge of
their resources (Zou et al., 2024).
Localised systems reduce the
extent of transmission losses associated with transporting water over long
distances and foster greater community involvement in water management (Nguyen,
2020). For instance, pilot projects in various cities have demonstrated the effectiveness
of modular treatment facilities that empower neighbourhoods to manage their own
water supply needs, thereby enhancing local resilience (Barry, 2021). fosters a closer connection between citizens
and their water resources and allows for tailored solutions that address
specific regional challenges—an essential aspect as climate change exacerbates
water scarcity issues globally (Asgarpour et al., 2022).
Investment in Human Capacity
Finally, the fourth pillar
emphasises the need for investment in human capacity and training. As water
infrastructure technologies evolve, so too must the skill sets of operators and
technicians. Ensuring that personnel are proficient in managing new
technologies requires ongoing training and professional development investments
(Li et al., 2023). Critical yet straightforward knowledge enhancement
initiatives can yield tremendous dividends, ensuring that technology is not
only installed but also actively maintained and optimised (Chaparro‐Banegas
et al., 2023).
Evidence suggests that in regions
with rigorous training programs, personnel competency significantly increases
system reliability and efficiency. Case studies have highlighted that utilities
prioritising operator education have seen reductions in operational errors and
improved service delivery metrics (Ibrahim & Patrick, 2017; Dadson et al.,
2017). Moreover, fostering a culture of continual learning ensures a responsive
workforce equipped to confront unpredictable challenges in water management.
With these pillars defined, we
turn to lifecycle costing—the financial toolkit that binds Capital and
operations into one coherent strategy
4. Innovation and Lifecycle Finance in Water Infrastructure
Defining Lifecycle Costing
Lifecycle costing (LCC) is an
essential analytical framework that encompasses all costs associated with a
project from its inception through its operational and maintenance phases to
its eventual decommissioning. It provides holistic insight into the total
expenditure and resource implications over the entire lifespan of a water
infrastructure asset, allowing decision-makers to evaluate not just the initial
capital costs but also the long-term operational and maintenance expenses
associated with the asset (Nault & Papa, 2015). comprehensive view helps stakeholders
understand the fiscal implications tied to each phase of an asset's life,
leading to better budgeting, financial planning, and resource allocation that
directly contribute to sustainability goals (Kumar et al., 2015).In South Korea's
2019 Jeju Island desalination project, lifecycle analysis reduced forecasted
operational costs by 22 per cent, saving $8 million over 25 years.
As highlighted in academic
literature, employing lifecycle costing in decision-making enables
municipalities to assess the sustainability and profitability of water projects
more accurately. Many traditional budgeting methods fail to capture the ongoing
operational needs and maintenance costs, which can lead to significant overruns
once the assets are in use. Such financial misalignments can ultimately burden
communities, leading to deteriorating infrastructure that is poorly maintained
and overextended (Patel et al., 2013). Given the increasing demands on water
systems due to climate change and urbanisation, municipalities must embrace
lifecycle costing as a fundamental paradigm for planning and decision-making.
Embedding Lifecycle Costing into
Policy
Countries like the Netherlands
have made significant strides in embedding lifecycle costing into their
procurement policies by mandating that LCC considerations be integrated at the
outset of project promotions. Such policies require that operational expenditure
(OpEx) needs be clearly defined and funded alongside initial capital
expenditure (CapEx) allocations (Lenferink et al., 2014). Legislative approach guarantees that all
potential costs are considered and that financial resources are appropriately
allocated throughout the various lifecycle stages of water infrastructure
projects.
A simple policy tweak—requiring a
dedicated OpEx line item in bids—can transform project economics before the
first shovelful of dirt is turned.
By institutionalising lifecycle
costing within procurement processes, governments foster an environment of
accountability and encourage stakeholders to prioritise sustainable practices.
Integrating LCC into publicly funded projects not only promotes fiscal
responsibility but also signals a commitment to future generations by ensuring
that infrastructure can be adequately maintained and adapted to emerging challenges
(Mahadevan et al., 2010). proactive
governance mechanism ultimately positions municipalities to manage their water
resources effectively and sustainably, reducing the risk of investment failures
and community dissatisfaction.
The Role of Smart Technologies
Embracing smart technologies is
vital to the successful implementation of lifecycle costing within the water
sector. Systems such as digital twins enable managers to simulate various
operational scenarios, assessing how different maintenance schedules could
influence system performance and sustainability (Willems et al., 2020). These
simulations provide insights that can lead to optimised operations, scheduling
timely maintenance activities while also enhancing adaptability to unforeseen
challenges and pressures, such as climate-induced variances and infrastructural
ageing.
Additionally, the introduction of
artificial intelligence (AI) for leak detection has proven to be
transformative. Studies indicate that AI-driven technologies can decrease water
loss by significant margins, improving the efficiency and reliability of water
distribution systems (Takai, 2010). Such innovation not only reduces
operational costs associated with water wastage but also extends the life of
existing infrastructure. The predictive capabilities of AI alongside lifecycle
costing create a virtuous cycle where preventive measures are not only prioritised
but also financially justified, ultimately contributing to a more resilient
water management landscape.
Community Models and Co-Financing
Initiatives
Community engagement forms
another critical aspect of innovative lifecycle finance within water
management. In rural India, water user associations exemplify the power of
localised governance structures that co-finance operations and maintenance.
These community-driven initiatives achieve remarkable uptime rates—far more
economical than relying on external crews for emergency repairs, which often
leads to higher costs and less responsiveness (Truslove et al., 2021).
The effective models employed by
these associations demonstrate how integrating community input and funding can
illuminate pathways to sustainable maintenance practices. Given the increased
involvement of local stakeholders, these associations foster a sense of
ownership and accountability, enhancing the overall performance of water
systems (Dziedzic & Karney, 2015). Such collaborative finance models
empower communities to address their localised water concerns while
simultaneously ensuring the equitable provision of vital resource.
To see lifecycle finance in
action, we now examine Singapore's bold NEWater strategy, where Smart Capital
moved from theory into transformative practice
5. Case Study: Singapore's NEWater Strategy
Singapore's innovative NEWater
initiative serves as a compelling example of Smart Capital in action, combining
advanced engineering with strategic planning to tackle the challenges of water
scarcity and sustainability. The plan exemplifies an integrated approach to
both capital expenditure (CapEx) and operational expenditure (OpEx),
fundamentally transforming how the city-state views and manages its water
resources.
Capital Expenditure:
Investments in Infrastructure
The Singapore government has made
significant investments in the construction of membrane-based reuse plants and
microfiltration facilities, which are pivotal components of the NEWater
infrastructure. As of the latest available data, the exact figure for
investments is not explicitly stated, but it has been reported that over SGD 1
billion (approximately USD 740 million) has been allocated to the entire
NEWater program since its inception (Reynard et al., 2014; Gain et al., 2017). "(As
of 2024, SGD 1.2 billion; Singapore PUB (Annual Report, 2024) investment reflects a commitment to innovative
technology and sustainable water management practices.
Moreover, CapEx is directed towards cutting-edge
technologies that allow for the effective treatment and purification of
wastewater, which is often viewed as a discarded resource. By investing in such
infrastructure, Singapore is pioneering a shift in perspective, transforming
wastewater into a viable and valuable resource.
Operational Expenditure:
Sustainable Management Practices
Operational expenditure in
Singapore's NEWater initiative involves meticulous planning and foresight. The
city-state allocates a dedicated annual maintenance budget that ensures all
facilities remain in optimal working condition. Furthermore, the implementation
of digital control systems enhances operational efficiency, enabling real-time
monitoring of the purification processes. Capability allows for immediate
interventions if issues arise, thus minimising downtime and ensuring high
service reliability.
Public outreach campaigns have
been integral to the success of the NEWater initiative, reframing the narrative
around water reuse from one of "wastewater" to viewing it as a
"resource." A 2023 survey found 87 per cent of households now view
reclaimed water as equally safe as tap water, up from 45 per cent in 2010. By
engaging the community in efforts, Singapore has fostered a culture of water
consciousness and acceptance of reclaimed water usage, further enhancing public
confidence in these systems. Holistic approach to OpEx supports not only the
technical aspects of water management but also the social dimensions, creating
an informed citizenry that values sustainable practices.
Results: Impact and
Achievements
The NEWater initiative has
yielded remarkable results since its inception. As of recent reports, NEWater
meets approximately 40% of Singapore's water demand and boasts an impressive
reliability rate of up to 99% (Nwokediegwu et al., 2024; Akbulut et al., 2023).
high reliability is a testament to the
effectiveness of the preventive maintenance strategies employed as part of the
operational framework. By investing in advanced monitoring technologies and
preventive measures, Singapore can mitigate potential disruptions and maximise
the utility of its water resources.
Additionally, studies suggest
that the unit operational costs of NEWater facilities are lower than
traditional desalination methods, although specific figures regarding the cost
differential may vary (Zaniolo et al., 2023). The cost-effectiveness of the NEWater
project underscores the viability of investing in infrastructure that embraces
both technological advancements and sustainable practices. As climate change
increasingly challenges global water systems, the lessons learned from
Singapore's approach may serve as a blueprint for other nations striving for
resilience and sustainability in their water management policies.
While Singapore shows what is
possible, the next frontier is ensuring that high-tech water solutions serve
every community, without leaving the marginalised behind."
6. Equity in the Age of Smart Water Technology
As the integration of innovative
water technologies advances, the focus on ensuring equitable access and
distribution becomes increasingly essential. Technology alone cannot resolve
issues of water justice, particularly when structural disparities exist that
can be exacerbated by innovative advancements. Without intentional policy
design, marginalised communities face risks of exclusion, which could
ultimately deepen existing inequities in water access.
Risks of Exclusion
The implementation of smart water
systems introduces various technologies that enhance service delivery and
management, but these innovations also risk excluding marginalised neighbourhoods.
Many individuals in these communities may lack the digital literacy required to
effectively engage with smart infrastructures, such as digital management
platforms or mobile applications designed for reporting issues. For example, in
Detroit's smart-meter rollout, 12 per cent of households without internet
access reported billing errors they could not resolve online (Detroit Water
Authority, 2022). Digitalisation can simultaneously improve service access and
exacerbate existing disparities for those without the necessary digital skills (Choolayil
et al., 2024).
Additionally, specific financing
strategies employed to support the transition to smart water technologies may
place further burdens on low-income users. Higher tariffs could be introduced
to fund the development of advanced assets, leaving marginalised groups unable
to afford basic water services (Mistry et al., 2022). scenario illustrates the need for careful
consideration in policy design, ensuring that cost-saving measures associated
with advanced technologies do not inadvertently disadvantage economically
vulnerable populations.
Principles for Equity
To address these challenges,
several principles can guide equitable policy design in the realm of smart
water systems:
- Inclusive Governance: Water governance
structures should prioritise representation from marginalised communities,
including reserved seats for low-income and rural representatives on water
boards. inclusive approach ensures
that policies reflect diverse needs and perspectives, facilitating trust
and collaboration among stakeholders (Munger et al., 2023).
- Pro-Poor Policy Design: Implementing
policies that cushion low-income households against escalated costs, such
as lifeline tariffs or cross-subsidies, can protect vulnerable users from
financial hardship while allowing utilities to manage their resources
sustainably. Such strategies not only foster equity but also incentivise
responsible usage of water resources (Magnago & Nunes, 2024).
- Community Engagement: Empowering local
communities through training and participatory governance establishes a
comprehensive framework for managing innovative water systems effectively.
Training local committees to interpret sensor data and advise on
maintenance priorities enhances operational transparency, cultivates local
expertise, and grows community trust in water management processes. When
we interpret our data,' says community organiser Amina Diallo, 'we stop
being passive consumers and start shaping solutions for our neighbourhood.
Grassroots engagement demonstrates an investment in human Capital that can
significantly improve water governance outcomes (Margot‐Cattin
et al., 2024).
Vision: Equitable Water Access
for All
The overarching vision is to
guarantee that every community, irrespective of income, location, or digital
literacy levels, receives reliable water service and possesses a meaningful
voice in the evolution of their water systems. Achieving vision will require a
commitment from policymakers, utility providers, and community stakeholders to
ensure equity is prioritised at every stage of technology implementation and
infrastructure development.
Striving for equity in smart
water technology necessitates ongoing monitoring and evaluation to identify and
address disparities as they emerge. Policies sensitive to socioeconomic
contexts will facilitate not only access to technology but also the skills
necessary for its effective utilisation, ultimately contributing to broader
social equity goals. The need for targeted educational initiatives, as
highlighted in studies about digital literacy, will play an equally critical
role in shaping a water governance framework that supports justice and
accountability (Mukhtar et al., 2025).
Equity is not an afterthought—it
must be baked into every policy, technology choice, and financing model. With
that in mind, here are actionable steps to turn vision into reality."
7. Recommendations for Action
The following recommendations for
action are pivotal in transforming the vision of equitable and sustainable
water management into reality. Each step consolidates principles of lifecycle
costing, operational preparedness, and inclusivity within water governance
while promoting innovation and efficiency.
1. Mandate Lifecycle Costing
in National Water Policies and Procurement Rules
Governments across the globe
should integrate lifecycle costing into their national water policies and
procurement guidelines. requirement will
ensure that all phases of a water project—from planning and construction
through to operation, maintenance, and eventual decommissioning—are
systematically assessed for their financial impacts. As noted by Reddy and
Batchelor (2011), adopting a lifecycle cost approach can provide a robust
framework that facilitates sound investment decisions and promotes
sustainability. By mandating lifecycle costing, policymakers can better
allocate resources and mitigate future costs related to emergency repairs or
system failures.
2. Require Utilities to Submit
Long-Term OpEx Plans alongside Any CapEx Proposals
Utility companies should be
required to submit comprehensive long-term operational expenditure (OpEx) plans
along with any capital expenditure (CapEx) proposals. dual-submission requirement ensures that
utilities consider the financial implications of operation and maintenance from
the outset, preventing potentially crippling financial shortfalls later on.
While details regarding sustainable rural water services and their financial
strategies can be context-specific, appropriate financial planning is crucial
to ensure continual service delivery throughout an asset's lifecycle.
3. Incentivise Innovation that
Demonstrably Lowers OpEx without Sacrificing Service Quality
Governments and regulatory bodies
should create incentive programs that support innovation and technology
development aimed at reducing operational costs while maintaining or improving
service quality. Can include tax credits, grants, or funding for pilot programs
that demonstrate successful implementations of cost-cutting measures through
advanced technologies or practices. While specifics about such programs can
vary significantly by region, emphasising the evaluation of innovative
strategies will benefit utilities financially and ensure that the quality of
service is not compromised.
4. Establish Water Equity
Scorecards
Developing water equity
scorecards can become a vital tool for measuring inclusive access, reliability,
and affordability across different communities. Such scorecards would provide
municipalities and relevant stakeholders with clear metrics to assess the
performance of water systems regarding equity outcomes. By assessing indicators
such as service reliability and tariff impacts on low-income and marginalised
communities, management can gain insights into potential disparities. evidence-based approach to equity can guide
future investments to ensure that infrastructure meets everyone's needs.
5. Foster Global Partnerships
for Knowledge Sharing
To enhance the overall
effectiveness of water management practices, fostering global partnerships
between multilateral agencies, utilities, and technology providers is
essential. Sharing best practices and lessons learned from pilot outcomes will
create opportunities for collaborative development of sustainable water
management solutions. Engaging in knowledge exchange platforms, workshops, and
collaborative research can lead to the identification of innovative solutions
that address water scarcity and operational challenges locally and globally.
Such partnerships can bolster resource pooling and create synergies that optimise
outcomes in water management initiatives.
These steps—if implemented in the
next 12 months—can shift water systems from crisis response to proactive
stewardship."
"Taken together, these
actions chart a clear path: from fractured budgeting and inequality to a future
where Smart Capital drives resilient, equitable water systems."
8. Conclusion
·
Transitioning to Smart Capital demands a
fundamental shift in how we plan, fund, and manage water systems. This approach
unites capital and operational expenditures through lifecycle costing, smart
technologies, and inclusive governance, ensuring water services are both
resilient and equitable.
·
Cities like Singapore and Pittsburgh demonstrate
that integrating innovation, preventive maintenance, and community engagement
can transform vulnerable infrastructure into sustainable models. These case
studies underscore that the tools for future-proofing exist; what is required
now is political will and strategic implementation.
·
Smart technology alone is insufficient without
embedding equity into water governance. Policymakers must establish inclusive
frameworks to ensure all communities benefit, regardless of income or location.
Deliberate actions—from dual-capacity planning to measuring equity impacts—can
close service gaps and build public trust.
·
To overcome the legacy of fragmented planning,
governments must break down the artificial divide between CapEx and OpEx. An
integrated, long-term perspective—rooted in sustainability, accountability, and
social justice—must guide every decision.
·
The path to water justice begins today. Only
through coordinated, forward-looking investment and inclusive planning can we
deliver infrastructure that not only survives climate, demographic, and
technological pressures but thrives. Future generations depend on our courage
to act now.
Reference
Emmanuel Reynard, Mariano Bonriposi, Olivier Graefe,
Christine Homewood, Matthias Huss, Martina Kauzlaric, Hanspeter Liniger,
Emmanuel Rey, Stephan Rist, Bruno Schädler, Flurina Schneider, & Rolf
Weingartner (2014). Interdisciplinary assessment of complex regional water
systems and their future evolution: how socioeconomic drivers can matter more
than climate. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Water, 1(4), 413-426.
https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1032
Animesh K. Gain, Mousumi Mondal, & Mohammad Rezaur
Rahman (2017). From Flood Control to Water Management: A Journey of Bangladesh
towards Integrated Water Resources Management. Water, 9(1), 55.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w9010055
Zamathula Queen Sikhakhane Nwokediegwu, Ejike David
Ugwuanyi, Michael Ayorinde Dada, Michael Tega Majemite, & Alexander
Obaigbena (2024). URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT: A REVIEW OF SUSTAINABLE PRACTICES IN
THE USA. Engineering Science & Technology Journal, 5(2), 517-530.
https://doi.org/10.51594/estj.v5i2.829
Uğur Akbulut, Mehmet Akif Çifçi, & Zafer Aslan
(2023). Hybrid Modelling for Stream Flow Estimation: Integrating Machine
Learning and Federated Learning. Applied Sciences, 13(18), 10203.
https://doi.org/10.3390/app131810203
Marta Zaniolo, Sarah Fletcher, & Meagan S. Mauter
(2023). Multi-scale planning model for robust urban drought response.
Environmental Research Letters, 18(5), 54014.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/acceb5
Ziaul Haq Doost, Mohammad Saleh Al-Suwaiyan, & Zaher
Mundher Yaseen (2024). Runoff Management Based Water Harvesting for Better
Water Resources Sustainability: A Comprehensive Review. Knowledge-Based
Engineering and Sciences, 5(1), 1945-01-01 00:00:00.
https://doi.org/10.51526/kbes.2024.5.1.1-45
Jorge A. Morales-Novelo, Lilia RodrÃguez-Tapia, &
Daniel A. Revollo-Fernández (2018). Inequality in Access to Drinking Water and
Subsidies between Low and High-Income Households in Mexico City. Water, 10(8),
1023. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10081023
Cydney K. Seigerman, S. Kyle McKay, Raul Basilio, Shelly
Biesel, Jon Hallemeier, Andressa V. Mansur, Candice D. Piercy, Sebastian Rowan,
Bruno Ubiali, Elissa Yeates, & Donald R. Nelson (2022). Operationalising
equity for integrated water resources management. Jawra Journal of the American
Water Resources Association, 59(2), 281-298.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1752-1688.13086
Robert G. Varady, Adriana A. Zúñiga-Terán, Gregg M.
Garfin, Facundo MartÃn, & Sebastián Vicuña (2016). Adaptive management
and water security in a global context: definitions, concepts, and examples.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 21, 70-77.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.11.001
D. Tijerina, Laura E. Condon, Katelyn FitzGerald, A. L.
Dugger, Mary Michael O™Neill, K. M. Sampson, David Gochis, & R. M. Maxwell
(2021). Continental Hydrologic Intercomparison Project, Phase 1: A LargeScale Hydrologic Model Comparison Over the Continental United
States. Water Resources Research, 57(7),
https://doi.org/10.1029/2020wr028931
Salman M.A. Salman (2021). Equitable and Reasonable Utilisation
and the Obligation Against Causing Significant Harm "Are they Reconcilable?. Ajil Unbound,
115, 183-188. https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2021.22
Maria Rusca, Elisa Savelli, Giuliano Di Baldassarre, Adriano
Biza, & Gabriele Messori (2022). Unprecedented droughts are expected to
exacerbate urban inequalities in Southern Africa. Nature Climate Change, 13(1),
98-105. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-022-01546-8
Owen McIntyre (2024). Towards Sustainability in
Transboundary Water Resources: The Role of Inter-State Solidarity.
Environmental Policy and Law, 54(2025-06-04 00:00:00), 276-286.
https://doi.org/10.1177/18785395241309705
R.P. Bartholomeus, Karin van der Wiel, Anne F. Van Loon,
Marjolein H.J. van Huijgevoort, Michelle T. H. van Vliet, Marjolein Mens,
Sharon Muurling-van Geffen, Niko Wanders, & Wieke Pot (2023). Managing
water across the flood-drought spectrum "experiences from and challenges for the
Netherlands. Cambridge Prisms Water, 2022-01-01 00:00:00.
https://doi.org/10.1017/wat.2023.4
Kelli L. Larson, Dave D. White, Patricia Gober, & Amber
Wutich (2015). Decision-Making under Uncertainty for Water Sustainability and
Urban Climate Change Adaptation. Sustainability, 7(11), 14761-14784.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su71114761
Richard Ashley, Lian Lundy, Sarah Ward, P.L. Shaffer, Louise
Walker, Celeste Morgan, Adrian J. Saul, Tony Wong, & Sarah Moore (2013).
Water-sensitive urban design: opportunities for the UK. Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers - Municipal Engineer, 166(2), 65-76.
https://doi.org/10.1680/muen.12.00046
John T. Trimmer, H. Qureshi, Miriam Otoo, & Caroline
Delaire (2023). The enabling environment for citywide water service provision:
Insights from six successful cities. Plos Water, 2(6), e0000071.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000071
Hamed Nozari, A. Liaghat, & Saeed Azadi (2022).
Management of agricultural saline drainage using the system dynamics approach.
Water and Environment Journal, 36(2), 299-307.
https://doi.org/10.1111/wej.12767
Tony Walter, Julia Kloos, & Daniel Tsegai (2011).
Options for improving water use efficiency under worsening scarcity: Evidence
from the Middle Olifants Sub-Basin in South Africa. Water Sa, 37(3), https://doi.org/10.4314/wsa.v37i3.68487
HE Yan-mei (2021). Current and future transboundary water
cooperation over the YarlungZangbo/Brahmaputra River basin: from an
interdisciplinary perspective. Water Policy, 23(5), 1107-1128.
https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2021.008
Jianpeng Zhou, Philip T. McCreanor, Franco Montalto, &
Zeynep Erdal (2011). Sustainability. Water Environment Research, 83(10),
1414-1438. https://doi.org/10.2175/106143011x13075599869579
R. Quba™a, M. ElFadel, Ibrahim
Alameddine, & Majdi Abou Najm (2017). THE ROLE OF GROUNDWATER IN WATER
ALLOCATION ALONG THE JORDAN RIVER BASIN. nan, ,
https://doi.org/10.2495/rbm170111
Mohamed A. Dawoud (2011). Water import and transfer versus
desalination in arid regions: GCC countries case study. Desalination and Water
Treatment, 28(2025-03-01 00:00:00), 153-163.
https://doi.org/10.5004/dwt.2011.2156
Safa Baccour, Amaury Tilmant, José Albiac, Vahid
Espanmanesh, & Taher Kahil (2025). Probabilistic TradeOffs Analysis for Sustainable and Equitable Management of
ClimateInduced Water Risks. Water Resources
Research, 61(2),
https://doi.org/10.1029/2024wr038514
Tara J. Troy, Mitchell PavaoZuckerman,
& Tom Evans (2015). Debates" Perspectives
on sociohydrology: Sociohydrologic
modelling: Tradeoffs, hypothesis testing, and validation. Water Resources
Research, 51(6), 4806-4814. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015wr017046
Joško Sindik & Yoseph Araya (2013). Raising Awareness
about Water Issues: The Role of Water Symbolism and Proverbs. Journal of Water
Resource and Protection, 5(4), 34-39. https://doi.org/10.4236/jwarp.2013.54a006
Mahdi Ikhlayel & Lan Huong Nguyen (2017). Integrated
Approaches to Water Resource and Solid Waste Management for Sustainable
Development. Sustainable Development, 25(6), 467-481.
https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1683
Gema Marco Dos Santos, Ignacio Meléndez Pastor, José
Navarro-Pedreño, & Ignacio Gómez Lucas (2019). Water Management in
Irrigation Systems by Using Satellite Information. nan, , https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.82368
Neil S. Grigg, Theresa Connor, & Alex Maas (2017).
Financing Integration of Urban Water Systems: From Service Provision to
Resource Management. Public Works Management & Policy, 23(2), 186-198.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1087724x17732789
Jonathan M. Fisk, Paul A. Harris, Stefan Kuks, John C.
Morris, & Joanne Vinkede Kruijf (2023). Framing Water
Infrastructure for Climate Resilience: Governance Dimensions and Challenges.
Public Works Management & Policy, 29(2), 133-145.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1087724x231212556
Karin Sjöstrand, Andreas Lindhé, Tore Söderqvist, &
Lars Rosén (2020). Water Supply Delivery Failures: A Scenario-Based Approach
to Assess Economic Losses and Risk Reduction Options. Water, 12(6), 1746.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w12061746
Hallie Eakin, Amy M. Lerner, David ManuelNavarrete, Bertha Hernández Aguilar,
Alejandra MartÃnez-Canedo, Beth Tellman, Lakshmi
Charli-Joseph, Rafael Fernández Ãlvarez,
& LuÃs Tapia (2016). Adapting to risk and
perpetuating poverty: Household™s strategies
for managing flood risk and water scarcity in Mexico City. Environmental
Science & Policy, 66, 324-333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.06.006
Luke Olsen, Huzaifa Hassan, Sarah N. Keaton, & Nicolas
Rohner (2023). The Mexican Cavefish Mounts a Rapid and Sustained Regenerative
Response Following Skeletal Muscle Injury. nan, , https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.02.05.527207
Agnes Grudniewicz, Lindsay Hedden, Seija Kromm, Ruth
Lavergne, Matthew Menear, & Saskia Sivananthan (2014). Capacity development
in health systems and policy research: a survey of the Canadian context. Health
Research Policy and Systems, 12(1),
https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-4505-12-9
Dheetilekha Nath, M. K. Mondal, M. A. Mojid, M.M.J.G.C.N.
Jayasiri, S. V. Krishna Jagadish, & Shweta Yadav (2024). Assessing the Role
and Capacity of Water Management Organisations for Ensuring Delta Food Security
in Bangladesh. International Journal of Water Governance, 11, https://doi.org/10.59490/ijwg.11.2024.6558
Joses Muthuri Kirigia & Rose Nabi Deborah Karimi Muthuri
(2020). The Present Value of Human Lives Lost Due to COVID-19 in the United
Kingdom. Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Research,
https://doi.org/10.18502/pbr.v6i3.4650
Bo Sun, Guangyao Fan, Hui Zhang, & Fengwen Pan (2024).
Economic and Environmental Competitiveness of Multiple Hydrogen Production
Pathways in China. nan, ,
https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4643310/v1
Karsten Hedegaard & Marie Münster (2013). Influence of
individual heat pumps on wind power integration "Energy system investments and operation.
Energy Conversion and Management, 75, 673-684.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2013.08.015
Shaohui Zou, Zhe Liao, Yichen Liu, & Xiangbo Fan (2024).
Research on the Impact of Heterogeneous Environmental Regulation on the
Coordinated Development of China™s Water "Energy "Food System from a
Spatial Perspective. Sustainability, 16(2), 818.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su16020818
Viet Anh Nguyen (2020). EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
OF SELECTED WATER COMPANIES IN VIETNAM. Vietnam Journal of Science and
Technology, 58(5a), 42. https://doi.org/10.15625/2525-2518/58/5a/15190
Margaret M. Barry (2021). Transformative health promotion:
what is needed to advance progress?. Global Health Promotion, 28(4), 2016-08-01
00:00:00. https://doi.org/10.1177/17579759211013766
Sahand Asgarpour, Andreas Hartmann, Ellen-Wien Augustijn,
& Andries G. Dorée (2022). The Other Side of the Interdependency Coin:
Identifying Coordination and Investment Opportunities for Infrastructure
Systems. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 28(2),
https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)is.1943-555x.0000678
Weizhi Li, Shanshan Liu, Wenjuan Chang, Xin Zhang, Chenhao
Li, & Tianling Qin (2023). Research Progress on the Evaluation
Of Water Resources Carrying Capacity. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies,
32(3), 1975-1986. https://doi.org/10.15244/pjoes/160199
Nuria ChaparroBanegas, Alicia
MasTur, Han Woo Park, & Norat RoigTierno (2023). Factors driving national ecoinnovation: New routes to sustainable development. Sustainable
Development, 31(4), 2711-2725. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2541
Azhar Al Ibrahim & Robert Patrick (2017). Source Water
Protection Planning and Management in Metropolitan Canada: A Preliminary
Assessment. Water, 9(7), 497. https://doi.org/10.3390/w9070497
Simon Dadson, Jim W. Hall, Dustin Garrick, Claudia Sadoff,
David Grey, & Dale Whittington (2017). Water security, risk, and economic
growth: Insights from a dynamical systems model. Water Resources Research,
53(8), 6425-6438. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017wr020640
J. D. Nault & Fabian Papa (2015). Lifecycle Assessment
of a Water Distribution System Pump. Journal of Water Resources Planning and
Management, 141(12),
https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)wr.1943-5452.0000546
Shivendra Kumar, Andrew M. Groth, & Ljubo Vlacic (2015).
A tool for the evaluation of the lifecycle cost of water production for
small-scale community projects. Water Policy, 18(3), 769-782.
https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2015.135
Ronak Patel, Hanni Stoklosa, Shrutika Shitole, Tejal
Shitole, Kiran Sawant, Mahesh Nanarkar, Ramnath Subbaraman, Alison Ridpath,
& Anita Patil-Deshmuk (2013). The high cost of diarrhoeal illness for urban
slum households: a cost-recovery approach: a cohort study. BMJ Open, 3(4),
e002251. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002251
Sander Lenferink, Taede Tillema, & Jos Arts (2014).
Lifecycle-driven planning of infrastructure: public and private experiences
with more integrated approaches for managing project complexity. nan, , Vol 14
No 2 (2014). https://doi.org/10.18757/ejtir.2014.14.2.3019
Priya Mahadevan, Amip Shah, & Cullen Bash (2010).
Reducing the lifecycle energy use of network switches. nan, , https://doi.org/10.1109/issst.2010.5507749
Jannes Willems, Astrid Molenveld, William Voorberg, &
Geert Brinkman (2020). Diverging Ambitions and Instruments for Citizen
Participation across Different Stages in Green Infrastructure Projects. Urban
Planning, 5(1), 22-32. https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v5i1.2613
Shun Takai (2010). A Lifecycle-Cost Model for Set-based
Concept Testing. Concurrent Engineering, 18(2), 121-127.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1063293x10372791
Jonathan P. Truslove, Andrea B. Coulson, Emma Mbalame, &
Robert M. Kalin (2021). Behaviours and Trends toward Routine Maintenance and
Major Repairs of Afridev Handpumps in Rural Malawi. Water, 13(12), 1666.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w13121666
Rebecca Dziedzic & Bryan Karney (2015). Water user
survey on expectations of service in Guelph, ON, Canada. Water Practice &
Technology, 10(4), 767-770. https://doi.org/10.2166/wpt.2015.094
Anoop C. Choolayil, Sadhishkumar Paranthaman, & Vijesh
Sreedhar Kuttiatt (2024). Accessing medical care in the era of the digital
revolution: arguing the case for the œdigitally marginalised. Frontiers in Digital Health, 6, https://doi.org/10.3389/fdgth.2024.1468633
Sabuj Kanti Mistry, Miranda Shaw, Freya Raffan, George E.
Johnson, Katelyn Perren, Shoko Saito, Ben HarrisRoxas,
& Fiona Haigh (2022). Inequity in Access and Delivery of Virtual Care
Interventions: A Scoping Review. International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health, 19(15), 9411.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19159411
Ashley Munger, Tessy S. Ritchie, Margaret McAdam, &
Andrew J. Nynka (2023). Physical and digital spaces: The intersection of campus
climate and technology.. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 16(5),
632-645. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000362
Walaci Magnago & Paula de Castro Nunes (2024). THE USE
OF DIGITAL RESOURCES TO ENHANCE LITERACY. nan, , https://doi.org/10.56238/sevened2024.037-004
Isabel MargotCattin, Anne
Deblock-Bellamy, Julie Wassmer, Ritchard Ledgerd, Claudia von Zweck, &
World Federation of Occupational Therapists (2024). Worldwide Survey on Digital
Assistive Technology (DAT) Provision. Occupational Therapy International,
2024(1),
https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/9536020
Tehreem Mukhtar, Muhammad Babur, Roohi Abbas, Asima Irshad,
& Qurba Kiran (2025). Digital Health Literacy: A systematic review of
interventions and their influence on healthcare access and Sustainable Development
Goal-3 (SDG-3). Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences, 41(3), 910-918.
https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.41.3.10639
V. Ratna Reddy & Charles Batchelor (2011). Cost of
providing sustainable water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) services: an initial
assessment of a lifecycle cost approach (LCCA) in rural Andhra Pradesh, India.
Water Policy, 14(3), 409-429. https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2011.127
No comments:
Post a Comment