Author : AM Tris Hardyanto

 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:

1. 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).
2. 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).
3. 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 Rodríguez-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 Martín, & 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 LargeScale 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. ElFadel, 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 TradeOffs Analysis for Sustainable and Equitable Management of ClimateInduced Water Risks. Water Resources Research, 61(2),  https://doi.org/10.1029/2024wr038514

Tara J. Troy, Mitchell PavaoZuckerman, & Tom Evans (2015). Debates" Perspectives on sociohydrology: Sociohydrologic 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 Vinkede 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 ManuelNavarrete, Bertha Hernández Aguilar, Alejandra Martínez-Canedo, Beth Tellman, Lakshmi Charli-Joseph, Rafael Fernández Álvarez, & Luís 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 ChaparroBanegas, Alicia MasTur, Han Woo Park, & Norat RoigTierno (2023). Factors driving national ecoinnovation: 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 HarrisRoxas, & 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 MargotCattin, 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

 

   

LEAKING MONEY – NON-REVENUE WATER AND THE HIDDEN OPEX DRAIN

Author : AM Tris Hardyanto

 LEAKING MONEY – NON-REVENUE WATER AND THE HIDDEN OPEX DRAIN

What if half the water we produce never reaches a single tap but still costs us millions?

Across the globe, clean, treated water vanishes into the ground or disappears unaccounted for—quietly bleeding budgets, accelerating climate emissions, and eroding public trust. It is not just a plumbing problem—it is a systemic failure hidden beneath the surface of our cities. As utilities chase new megaprojects, a silent crisis is leaking away opportunity, equity, and billions in operational waste.

Welcome to the world of Non-Revenue Water (NRW)where every drop lost is a dollar drained.

1.   Introduction

 

When was the last time your water provider told you how much water was lost—and what they did about it? For most consumers, water loss seems intangible; they expect every drop they pay for to arrive at their tap. However, imagine a family in Jakarta whose supply dries up midday, only to discover they are still charged as if nothing happened. The reality is far more haunting: many urban water systems lose between 20 % and 50 % of treated water before it reaches customers, and in extreme cases, this can exceed 70 % (Jariol, 2024). NRW covers both physical leaks in distribution pipes and commercial losses such as unmetered consumption and meter errors (Hanjahanja & Omuto, 2018). Such losses drain operational budgets, worsen water scarcity, and erode public trust, impacting everything from utility finances to environmental sustainability (Mohanty & Rout, 2022).

The hidden strain of NRW on operational expenditure is alarming yet rarely visible to the average household. A large share of produced water never generates revenue, putting municipalities in a bind: they must sell more water or hike tariffs to cover maintenance, upgrades, and service expansion (Lai et al., 2017). Most people remain unaware of these breakdowns in the system, and despite regulations meant to curb losses, transparency around NRW is scant in many regions (Kanakoudis & Muhammetoğlu, 2013).

Cities around the globe wrestle with the challenge of meeting rising demand from ageing infrastructure. This is not merely a budgetary issue: lost water yields no revenue to fund conservation projects or day-to-day operations, threatening equitable access to safe drinking water (Tzagkarakis et al., 2020). However, efforts to track, monitor, and report NRW often falter, hampered by outdated technology and weak community engagement, and initiatives to reduce losses usually lack urgency (Alkasseh, 2018; Burger & Jansen, 2014).

NRW is more than a technical hiccup; it intertwines with social equity, environmental stewardship, and governance. Financial drains caused by persistent water loss can tip municipalities into crisis, deepen scarcity, and widen access gaps for underserved populations (Ong et al., 2020; Zeff & Characklis, 2013). Understanding the full scope of NRW—and its ripple effects—is essential for citizens and policymakers alike to curb waste and promote sustainable water management.

In light of these challenges, a paradigm shift is overdue in how utilities operate and harness data to combat water losses. Rigorous auditing, smart metering, and proactive leak-control measures are vital (Baum et al., 2018). Equally important are public awareness campaigns that enlist communities to spot and report leaks (Sitishe et al., 2023). The sections that follow will unpack NRW's dimensions, its root causes, and the solutions that can turn the tide.

 

2. What Is Non-Revenue Water?

 

Non-Revenue Water (NRW) refers to treated water that utilities produce and pump into their distribution networks but never bill to customers. This gap arises from various breakdowns within the system. NRW falls into three main categories:

• Physical losses: leaks, bursts, and overflows in pipelines.
• Billing errors and theft: inaccuracies in metering, unauthorised connections, and consumption.
• Unbilled authorised uses: water used for firefighting, street cleaning, or system testing that is not charged to customers (Hanjahanja & Omuto, 2018; Jang et al., 2019; Γαλιατσάτου et al., 2024).

Sidebar: Physical losses in action—In Lima, a single main burst in 2022 released over 200 million litres of water and cost the utility more than USD 5 million in emergency repairs.

Across many regions, NRW accounts for 20 %–50 % of total water production, and in some systems even exceeds 50 % (Evaristo et al., 2023; Gupta et al., 2020).

The global scale of NRW highlights a critical inefficiency in urban water services. González-Gómez et al. (2011) show that NRW levels vary widely by city, indicating significant room for improvement in operational performance. These losses not only translate into billions of dollars in lost revenue each year but also waste the energy, chemicals, and labour already invested in treating that water (Hastie et al., 2020; Lai et al., 2017). In fact, developed countries lose an average of 35 % of treated water due to ageing infrastructure and insufficient monitoring systems (Gupta et al., 2020).

High NRW places immense strain on utility budgets. When water is lost before it can be billed, utilities must ramp up production, driving up operational expenditures (OpEx) even as revenue stalls or declines. This vicious cycle forces municipalities to forgo other critical investments, leaving communities without funds for upgrades or conservation programs (Macharia et al., 2021; Kaminsky & Kumpel, 2018). Asiedu et al. (2019) demonstrate that overburdened budgets lead to service disruptions and undermine long-term sustainability.

To tackle NRW, utilities are deploying a mix of technological and managerial strategies. Smart water meters and real-time monitoring systems can pinpoint leaks and unauthorised use almost instantly (Sharma et al., 2018; Perera et al., 2018). Comprehensive audit programs enable accurate accounting of water flows and help prioritise interventions (Macharia et al., 2021; Creaco & Pezzinga, 2018). However, these efforts often falter when funding falls short, political will wanes, or communities remain disengaged (Mohanty & Rout, 2022; Al-Bulushi et al., 2018).

Clear performance indicators are essential for tracking progress. By benchmarking NRW levels against peer utilities, providers can identify best practices and set realistic reduction targets (Marques et al., 2021; Mvongo et al., 2024). Public awareness campaigns—explaining why every lost litre matters—can mobilise citizens to report leaks and support conservation measures (Cervancia et al., 2022; Nguyen, 2020).

Understanding the full scope of NRW empowers stakeholders—utilities, regulators, and communities—to collaborate on innovative solutions that improve efficiency, cut costs, and protect water resources. Such partnerships not only bolster service reliability but also strengthen public trust in the institutions charged with safeguarding our most vital resource (Evaristo et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2015).

 

3. Why Are You Paying Twice for Every Drop

 

3.1 Hidden Costs Affect Your Bills

The concept of Non-Revenue Water (NRW) carries significant financial implications for consumers, often unnoticed by the public. Every litre of water lost due to leaks or inefficiencies represents a cost, including expenses for energy, chemicals, and labour, that utilities absorb and pass on to you (Lai et al., 2017). Consequently, the financial burden of these losses ultimately falls on households, as utilities seek to recover costs either by increasing tariffs or relying on subsidies—strategies that inevitably drive water prices upward (Khalil & Pandow, 2020). In City Y, for example, NRW added 15% to the average monthly water bill, disproportionately affecting lower-income households (Stein et al., 2023).

Even if individuals never directly observe leaks in their neighbourhood, they are financially impacted by the waste embedded in the system. Research shows that inefficiencies in water management increase utility bills as service providers attempt to mitigate budgetary shortfalls caused by NRW (Li et al., 2018). In areas where tariffs do not reflect actual operational losses, the quality and reliability of water services degrade, further compounding the problem (Karamage et al., 2016). This cycle of deferred maintenance and underinvestment prevents essential infrastructure upgrades, resulting in hidden long-term costs for consumers (Ecklu et al., 2024).

 

3.2 Environmental Impact

The environmental consequences of NRW are equally alarming. Each litre of lost water wastes not only the water itself but also the energy used to treat and pump it, increasing carbon emissions and contributing to climate change (Altman et al., 2021; Villar & García‐López, 2023). NRW forces utilities to extract additional water from rivers and aquifers already under stress, exacerbating ecosystem degradation and biodiversity loss (Kaminsky & Kumpel, 2018).

In regions facing recurring drought or groundwater depletion, NRW accelerates the collapse of fragile ecosystems. Studies confirm a direct link between high NRW levels and the depletion of critical water sources needed for local biodiversity (Segura et al., 2018). These losses disrupt natural hydrological cycles and undermine long-term sustainability targets (Valero et al., 2018). Raising public awareness is essential—not just about the rising costs, but also about the invisible ecological toll of unmanaged water loss (Moshfika et al., 2022).

3.3 Ageing Infrastructure & Deferred Investment

Persistently high NRW levels are often symptomatic of ageing and deteriorating infrastructure. Old and leaky pipe systems are the primary culprits behind escalating water losses, requiring proactive maintenance to avoid service breakdowns and emergency repairs (Cervancia et al., 2022). Delayed investment in maintenance leads to ballooning costs, as emergency fixes are far more expensive than preventive upgrades (Ecklu et al., 2024).

Neglecting NRW management results in a vicious cycle where operational costs soar and consumers bear the brunt of deferred investment (Figueiredo et al., 2024). Tackling NRW early is a cost-effective strategy for ensuring system longevity and service reliability (Farouk et al., 2021). Unless water utilities adopt transparent strategies and prioritise infrastructure renewal, the public will continue paying twice: once for infrastructure that does not work, and again for the consequences of its failure (Kaka, 2020).

Engagement between utilities and the public is essential. Communities must demand transparent reporting, fair tariffs, and long-term maintenance plans that reflect actual operational realities. Only through collaboration and accountability can we address the financial, social, and ecological burdens of NRW (Barbosa et al., 2024).

 

4. The Global Cost of Leakage

The financial implications of Non-Revenue Water (NRW) are staggering, with the World Bank estimating that utilities worldwide lose over $32 billion annually due to inefficiencies in their water distribution networks (Karadirek, 2016). That translates to an average of $45 per customer per year, assuming global urban water utility coverage. This substantial loss is a critical concern, as many major cities, such as Mexico City, Manila, and Jakarta, experience NRW rates exceeding one-third of their total treated water (Chini & Stillwell, 2018). Such figures illustrate the alarming inefficiencies present in water management systems across the globe. However, despite these known losses, many utilities do not disclose NRW rates or the associated financial impacts, leaving the public largely unaware of the magnitude of the problem (Pathirane et al., 2024).

The urban water systems of cities like Mexico City and Jakarta have long been plagued by outdated infrastructure and insufficient investments in repair and upgrade strategies. Consequently, NRW has persisted in these locations as a systemic issue that needs urgent attention. Without proper transparency and accountability, this problem remains unresolved due to a lack of initiative from both utility managers and local governments to tackle the underlying causes of NRW (Wibowo & Alfen, 2015). Proven solutions to reduce NRW exist, ranging from technological innovations in monitoring and managing water losses to policy reforms that incentivise efficient operations (Hanjahanja & Omuto, 2018; Malek et al., 2021). However, without political will and adequate funding, these strategies are often stalled or inadequately implemented, perpetuating the cycle of waste and inefficiency (Karadirek, 2016).

Moreover, the hidden costs of NRW extend beyond mere financial losses; they contribute to broader socio-economic challenges affecting urban populations. In Manila, for instance, households spend up to 8% of their income on water due to elevated NRW levels and the resulting service inefficiencies. Higher tariffs to recoup losses from NRW often burden low-income households disproportionately, exacerbating existing inequalities (Moncaleano et al., 2024). This financial strain may have considerable effects on community welfare, as households are forced to allocate more of their resources toward utility bills that could have been avoided with effective water management (Γαλιατσάτου et al., 2024).

Ultimately, without active engagement from the public and efforts to demand accountability from utilities, these issues are likely to persist, detrimentally affecting both household finances and community infrastructure as a whole. The lack of awareness regarding NRW and its impacts also creates a public trust deficit, as consumers may feel disconnected from the water governance and management processes affecting their lives (Pathirane et al., 2024). Engaging citizens in discussions about NRW can empower communities to hold utilities accountable, advocate for transparency, and actively support initiatives aimed at reducing wasteful water practices (Chini & Stillwell, 2018).

This grassroots involvement is essential for creating systemic changes in how urban water systems operate and how they communicate their challenges to the public. The challenge presented by NRW is significant but not insurmountable. As demonstrated in various case studies, utilities that actively pursue NRW reduction strategies often experience long-term economic benefits, improved service delivery, and increased consumer satisfaction (Mvongo et al., 2024).

If cities like Mexico City, Manila, and Jakarta can successfully implement comprehensive NRW management plans, the financial savings realised could better support the development of reliable, sustainable water infrastructures that serve all citizens. Thus, concerted efforts—combining technical innovation, community engagement, and strong institutional governance—are imperative to overcome the challenges of NRW and establish a more sustainable future for urban water management worldwide.

In conclusion, the global cost of leakage represents a significant challenge for water utilities, local governments, and communities alike. By recognising the wide-ranging implications of NRW, including financial losses and environmental degradation, and by fostering public awareness and engagement, it is possible to build a path towards practical solutions that ensure water resources are managed sustainably and equitably for future generations.

 

5. Case Study: Phnom Penh, Cambodia and Indonesia

In the 1990s, the city of Phnom Penh, Cambodia, faced a pressing issue with Non-Revenue Water (NRW), which exceeded approximately 72%. This statistic highlighted systemic inefficiencies within the municipal water supply system, necessitating urgent reforms to ensure both the financial sustainability of the utility and the community's access to clean and reliable water (Lai et al., 2017). To address these challenges, Phnom Penh's strategy benchmarked a global standard by implementing several strategic measures aimed at reducing NRW, setting a compelling example of effective water management.

The first approach taken by Phnom Penh's water utility focused on rigorous leak detection methodologies. By leveraging advanced technologies such as acoustic sensors and Geographic Information Systems (GIS), the city enhanced its capabilities to effectively identify and locate leaks within the distribution network (Jariol, 2024). Coupled with this was an accelerated meter replacement program, aimed at replacing outdated and inaccurate metering systems that contributed to commercial losses due to under-reporting and unbilled consumption (González‐Gómez et al., 2011).

Moreover, staff accountability was a core element of the city's reform strategy, linking employee performance metrics directly to NRW reduction targets (Lai et al., 2017). This shift in organisational accountability fostered a culture of responsibility within the water utility, incentivising staff to engage in monitoring and actively minimising water losses. As one utility manager noted: "Our success did not come from funding alone, but from empowering our staff to care about every drop" (Jariol, 2024). Alongside internal reforms, the city also introduced community incentives, empowering residents to report unauthorised pipe connections and leaks. Public progress reports further enhanced transparency and built trust in the reform process.

By 2010, the comprehensive strategy adopted by Phnom Penh yielded remarkable results: NRW fell to around 10%, and revenue surged as billed consumption increased dramatically (Lai et al., 2017). This turnaround not only stabilised operational costs but also significantly improved customer satisfaction among residents. Phnom Penh's experience stands as a powerful regional case study, illustrating that strategic investment, community engagement, and organisational discipline can yield dramatic improvements in water efficiency (Farouk et al., 2021).

In contrast, many utilities in Indonesia still grapple with persistently high NRW levels. For example, Jakarta reported an average NRW of 45% in 2023, reflecting challenges in both infrastructure and institutional performance (Nahwani & Husin, 2021; Kanakoudis & Muhammetoğlu, 2013). Indonesian utilities face systemic issues, including ageing infrastructure, limited funding for proactive maintenance, and inadequate capacity for leak repair. These challenges are compounded by fragmented policy frameworks, resulting in inconsistent enforcement and insufficient long-term planning (Oberascher et al., 2020; Nahwani & Husin, 2021).

Despite these barriers, the lessons from Phnom Penh offer valuable insights for Indonesian water providers. By adopting similar technologies for leak detection, creating internal accountability frameworks, and empowering citizen involvement, Indonesia's water utilities could begin reversing high NRW trends. The integration of community reporting systems, in particular, has proven effective in Phnom Penh—not only empowering residents but also creating a shared sense of ownership over the water system (Lai et al., 2017; González‐Gómez et al., 2011).

Benchmarking against Phnom Penh's success, Indonesian cities can realise the transformative power of data-driven strategies and stakeholder engagement. For instance, initiatives such as outdated meter replacement, paired with consistent public education on water conservation, could bring measurable improvements in NRW (Rahman, 2024). Furthermore, building a culture of performance accountability, similar to Phnom Penh's reforms, could enhance operational efficiency and reduce water losses over time (Jariol, 2024; Farouk et al., 2021).

 While Phnom Penh has demonstrated notable success in tackling NRW, many cities across Indonesia continue to struggle with deeply rooted structural and institutional barriers. Nonetheless, by adapting Phnom Penh's practices to local conditions, Indonesian utilities can chart a path toward better water governance, financial sustainability, and community satisfaction. The practical implementation of these lessons across both countries can strengthen regional commitments toward sustainable and equitable water management, offering long-term benefits for both citizens and ecosystems.

6. Toward a Leak-Free Future

The road to a leak-free future in urban water supply systems is built on the foundation of transparency and community engagement. To truly address the pervasive challenge of Non-Revenue Water (NRW), water utilities could establish rigorous reporting protocols that provide clarity on the complexities of water loss. Specifically, utilities should commit to publishing annual NRW rates, detailing both the percentage and volume of water lost, while categorising losses by cause—be it leaks, theft, or metering errors (Lai et al., 2017). Such transparency is critical not only for accountability but also for enhancing public trust and increasing citizen involvement in local water issues.

Water utilities should also disclose the financial implications of NRW, outlining how lost revenue translates into extra operational expenditures (OpEx). In parallel, customers need to be educated on the impacts of NRW and encouraged to demand comprehensive leak detection systems, smart metering technologies, and community engagement programs that foster active public participation in water management (Beal et al., 2020). Asking the right questions about current NRW rates, historical trends, and key problem areas not only informs utility management but also empowers consumers to hold service providers accountable for their performance (Rolston et al., 2017).

Practical action plans ideally encompass:

• Solid leak detection and repair programs with measurable outcomes,
• Smart metering initiatives are supported by data analytics that track investment levels and implementation timelines, and
• Clearly defined channels for community feedback enable customers to report leaks or theft and share their experiences regarding utility response times (Rolston & Linnane, 2020).

Creating a feedback loop between providers and consumers fosters public engagement and strengthens water governance.

Key inquiries that customers could pose to their water providers include the following:

1. "What is our NRW rate today, and how has it trended over the past five years?"
   This question encourages historical awareness and enables consumers to assess the effectiveness of previous reforms.
2. "Which areas or network components contribute most to loss?"
   Identifying weak spots in the network allows the public to focus advocacy on zones that require urgent attention.
3. "What programs are in place, and what metrics do you publish to show progress?"
   This inquiry evaluates the utility's commitment to transparency and ongoing efforts toward NRW reduction (Rolston et al., 2017).
4. "How do NRW losses affect my tariff and the utility's financial health?"
   Understanding the link between NRW and billing reveals the broader economic costs of inefficiency and helps build momentum for reform.

Empirical studies support the assertion that enhanced stakeholder engagement and participatory governance lead to improved water conservation outcomes (Carpio et al., 2021). When service providers create space for dialogue with communities, they unlock opportunities to develop shared visions of water management that promote both sustainability and infrastructural health. A particularly effective strategy includes nurturing community champions—local advocates for responsible water use—who can mobilise broader support for leak prevention initiatives and investments in long-term maintenance (Ajia, 2017).

In conclusion, progress toward a leak-free future requires a collaborative effort grounded in transparency, accountability, and public involvement. Utilities should embrace their role as stewards of water resources, working alongside consumers to cultivate a culture of responsibility and shared awareness. As urban populations continue to grow and climate stress intensifies, the call for efficient and equitable water management becomes ever more urgent. By uniting around this cause, communities can reduce financial waste, protect vital ecosystems, and secure water access for future generations.

 

7. Conclusion

In conclusion, Non-Revenue Water (NRW) represents far more than a mere technical glitch in urban water supply systems; it constitutes a significant operational expense that has substantial financial implications for utilities. The financial and environmental impacts of NRW are profound, as evidenced by the losses, estimated at over $14 billion annually, that utilities incur due to inefficiencies in their systems (Malek et al., 2021; Ogata et al., 2021). This drain on resources ultimately reflects in the bills presented to consumers, amplifying the urgency for transparency and accountability within water management strategies.

The public must actively demand that water utilities embrace transparency in their operations. This includes the publication of annual NRW rates, detailing both the volume and percentage of water lost, as well as offering a comprehensive breakdown of losses by category—leaks, theft, and metering errors (Cervancia et al., 2022). Understanding the financial toll of NRW—comparing lost revenue to the added operational expenses it generates—is crucial for fostering an environment where stakeholders can hold utilities accountable (Farouk et al., 2021). Such engagement will encourage improved practices, incentivising investments in advanced leak detection technologies, smart metering initiatives, and community-centric engagement programs that uplift consumers as stakeholders in their water supply success (Chasiotis et al., n.d.).

To solidify a path toward a leak-free future, community members can take action by posing pertinent questions to their water providers, such as: "What is our current NRW rate, and how has it trended over the past five years?" and "What programs are in place to address this issue, and what metrics exist to demonstrate progress?" (Jang et al., n.d.). These questions help ensure that transparency translates into actionable improvements that can benefit both utility performance and the financial well-being of consumers.

In summation, the call to action is clear: demand transparency, insist on clear targets and regular reporting, and support the investments needed to address NRW effectively. With water scarcity escalating and costs on the rise, every drop of water and every dollar spent matters immensely. Communities and consumers must come together to advocate for reform and efficiency, promoting sustainable water practices for today and future generations (Hanjahanja & Omuto, 2018).

The closing provocation remains: "Can we afford not to act when every drop—and every dollar—counts?" The time for decisive action is now, as the implications of inaction will reverberate far beyond individual utility bills, influencing environmental sustainability and community resilience for the foreseeable future.

Reference

Ajia, F. O. (2017). Examining adaptation using the Message Actor Channel (MAC) model of communicative water practices. Water Science & Technology Water Supply, 18(4), 1318-1328. https://doi.org/10.2166/ws.2017.200

Al-Bulushi, M. M., Sulti, M. M. A., Abushammala, M. F. (2018). Investigation of Water Losses in Water Supply System: Muscat as a Case Study. Matec Web of Conferences, 203, 7004. https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201820307004

Alkasseh, J. (2018). Contribution of Major Factors Affecting Non-Revenue Water to Water Supply Network in Gaza Strip, Palestine. Israa University Journal for Applied Science, 2. https://doi.org/10.52865/snmp9081

Altman, E., Madsen, K. A., Schmidt, L. A. (2021). Missed Opportunities: The Need to Promote Public Knowledge and Awareness of Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Taxes. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(9), 4607. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18094607

Asiedu, B., Malcolm, D., Iddrisu, S. (2019). Assessing the economic impact of climate change in the small-scale aquaculture industry of Ghana, West Africa. AAS Open Research, 1, 26. https://doi.org/10.12688/aasopenres.12911.2

Baum, R., Characklis, G. W., Serre, M. L. (2018). Effects of Geographic Diversification on Risk Pooling to Mitigate Drought-Related Financial Losses for Water Utilities. Water Resources Research, 54(4), 2561-2579. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017wr021468

Beal, C., Dorante, B., Pearson, P., Aldirawi, S., Abdallah, N. (2020). Working with Community and Council: The Kirirri Story. Water E-Journal, 5(4). https://doi.org/10.21139/wej.2020.023

Burger, C., Jansen, A. (2014). Increasing Block Tariff structures as a water subsidy mechanism in South Africa: An exploratory analysis. Development Southern Africa, 31(4), 553-562. https://doi.org/10.1080/0376835x.2014.906915

Cervancia, K., Gomez, C. J., Niega, C. E., Tividad, K. M. (2022). Assessment, Monitoring, and Reduction Strategy Development for Non-Revenue Water (NRW) of Calamba Water District (CWD), Calamba City, Laguna, Philippines. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 1022(1), 12058. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1022/1/012058

Chini, C. M., Stillwell, A. S. (2018). The State of U.S. Urban Water: Data and the Energy-Water Nexus. Water Resources Research, 54(3), 1796-1811. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017wr022265

Creaco, E., Pezzinga, G. (2018). Advances in Water Distribution Networks. Water, 10(11), 1546. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10111546

Evaristo, J., Jameel, Y., Tortajada, C., Wang, R. Y., Horne, J., Neukrug, H. M., David, C. P. C., Fasnacht, A. M., Ziegler, A. D., Biswas, A. K. (2023). Water woes: the institutional challenges in achieving SDG 6. Sustainable Earth Reviews, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s42055-023-00067-2

Farouk, A. M., Rahman, R. A., Romali, N. S. (2021). Non-revenue water reduction strategies: a systematic review. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, 12(1), 181-199. https://doi.org/10.1108/sasbe-04-2021-0071

Ganoulis, P., Malamataris, D., Prinos, P. (2024). Estimating and Reducing Leakages in the Water Distribution Networks of Small Settlements: The Case of Agios Germanos in the Prespes Municipality. Water, 16(15), 2127. https://doi.org/10.3390/w16152127

González-Gómez, F., Rubio, M. Á. G., Guardiola, J. (2011). Why Is Non-Revenue Water So High in So Many Cities?. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 27(2), 345-360. https://doi.org/10.1080/07900627.2010.548317

Gupta, A., Pandey, P., Feijóo, A., Yaseen, Z. M., Bokde, N. D. (2020). Smart Water Technology for Efficient Water Resource Management: A Review. Energies, 13(23), 6268. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13236268