种族, 种族, and the Case for - 麻省理工学院人工智能研究专业

种族, 种族, and the Case for
Intersectional Water Security

(西德:129)
Cameron Harrington, Phellecitus Montana,
Jeremy J. 施密特, and Ashok Swain*

抽象的

This Forum article reports on a meta-review of more than 19,000 published works on water
安全, of which less than 1 percent explicitly focus on race or ethnicity. This is deeply con-
cerning, because it indicates that race and ethnicity—crucial factors that affect the provision
of safe, reliable water—continue to be ignored in academic and policy literatures. 在
response to this ﬁnding the Forum calls for building intersectional water security frameworks
that recognize how empirical drivers of social and environmental inequality vary both
within and across groups. Intersectional frameworks of water security can retain policy focus
on the key material concerns regarding access, safety, and the distribution of water-related
risks. They can also explicitly incorporate issues of race and ethnicity alongside other vectors
of inequality to address key, overlooked concerns of water security.

Water security scholarship almost uniformly excludes an explicit treatment of race
or ethnicity. This is a critical issue, because without an adequate account of water
security’s relationships to race and ethnicity, crucial factors affecting the provision
of safe, reliable water will continue to go unaddressed. In response to this exclusion,
we call for intersectional analyses of water security as an anti-oppressive approach
that can orient academic and policy analysis to multiple dimensions of inequality
and insecurity, including ones dependent on ethnic and racial discrimination.

This Forum article proceeds in two steps. 第一的, it highlights the limited
attention given to race and ethnicity within water security scholarship. It does
so by reporting and discussing the ﬁndings from a meta-review of water security
奖学金, where less than 1 percent of that scholarship explicitly references

* We acknowledge support from the Durham-Uppsala Seedcorn Fund, which facilitated the orig-
inal academic exchange that led to this article. We also thank Dr. Cat Button and participants of
这 2021 British International Studies Association panel “Water Security across Scales,” the edi-
tors of Global Environmental Politics, and two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments
and suggestions.

Global Environmental Politics 23:2, 可能 2023, https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00702
© 2023 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 根据知识共享署名发布 4.0
国际的 (抄送 4.0) 执照.

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

我

e
d
你
G
e
p
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

2
3
2
1
2
0
7
9
5
7
0
G
e
p
_
A
_
0
0
7
0
2
p
d

我

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

2 (西德:129) 种族, 种族, and the Case for Intersectional Water Security

factors of race or ethnicity. 第二, it makes the case for an intersectional framing of
water security. A core concern of an intersectional approach is an understanding
that differences of race, 性别, 班级, 种族, and other aspects of inequality vary
within groups and among them (Crenshaw 1991). To treat categories of race, 种族的-
性, 性别, or class as singular or homogenous is inadequate to the task of empir-
ically specifying water inequalities. We argue for an intersectional framing that
combines the strength of wider studies on race, 种族, 性别, 贫困, and vul-
nerability in ways that enhance accounts of, and policy responses to, water security.
In so doing, we follow and support the small number of water scholars calling for
greater attention to the multiple and interacting vulnerabilities that shape experi-
ences of water insecurity (例如, Sultana 2020; Gerlak et al. 2022).

A Meta-review of the Water Security Literature

Water security is a contested but dominant concept (Pahl-Wostl et al. 2016). 在
its initial public-facing use around the 1980s and 1990s, it was closely tied to
the specter of wars over dwindling water resources (Starr 1991; 卡普兰 1994).
The concept has since evolved, cutting across different scales, 指标, and dis-
纪律 (Octavianti and Staddon 2021). 最后, there have been several
English language meta-reviews of water security (例如, Cook and Bakker 2012;
Garrick and Hall 2014; Lankford et al. 2013; Pahl-Wostl et al. 2016; Zeitoun
等人. 2016; Gerlak et al. 2018; Hoekstra et al. 2018). These meta-reviews make
reference to the commonly cited deﬁnitions from Grey and Sadoff (2007) 和
the Global Water Partnership (2000). Two of the most inﬂuential reviews have
systematically organized the water security literature through binary framings:
narrow and broad or reductive versus integrative (Cook and Bakker 2012;
Zeitoun et al. 2016). What is common among all reviews, 然而, is the liter-
ature’s silence on race and ethnicity. 同样地, the gray literatures produced in
the water sector—reports, policy assessments, and strategic guidance produced
by international organizations—are noted as key contributors shaping the dis-
course of water governance (Varady et al. 2009). As our results show, 他们, 也,
frame water security largely without reference to race or ethnicity.

Our review employed a comparable method to Cook and Bakker’s (2012)
to ﬁnd relevant water security publications. We ﬁrst undertook a quantitative
review of the Web of Science database, searching for the exact phrase “water
security” for all available years up until February 2022. This yielded 3,001 arti-
克莱斯. We cross-referenced these articles with searches on “race” and cognate
条款 (种族主义, racist, 种族, racialization) and “ethnic” and “ethnicity,” elimi-
nating incidental occurrences (例如, “the race for water security”). We allowed
publications to count in different categories, 例如, if they covered issues
of both race and ethnicity. Using the exact phrase “water security” returned only
fourteen unique results on race and ten on ethnicity. We then relaxed the search
parameters to capture “water AND security” and repeated the exercise. We cross-
referenced results to avoid duplicate counting, and as Table 1 节目, 这

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

我

e
d
你
G
e
p
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

2
3
2
1
2
0
7
9
5
7
0
G
e
p
_
A
_
0
0
7
0
2
p
d

我

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

C. Harrington, 磷. Montana, J. J. 施密特, 和一个. Swain (西德:129) 3

桌子 1
结果: “Water Security,” Race, and Ethnicity

Key Words (二月 2022)

“Water security”

Water security
“Water security” and race, 种族, 种族主义, racialization
“Water security” and ethnic, 种族

Water security and race, 种族, 种族主义, racialization

Water security and ethnicity, 种族

Total articles

来源: Web of Science Database.

数字

3,001

19,568

132

expanded pool (n = 19,568) increased the overall number of publications to
132, 其中 55 were on race and 77 on ethnicity. In each respective search,
少于 1 percent of the articles on water security explicitly address race or
种族. The qualitative review of the resulting articles showed no clear
emergence of race, 种族, and water security issues. 不出所料, 这
high-proﬁle case of Flint, Michigan, where systemic environmental racism
factored into water security outcomes, was prominent in the search (Pauli 2019,
2020). Other articles focused on shifting conceptual understandings of water
security to incorporate racial and ethnic concerns. These included articles advo-
cating for understanding water through Indigenous forms of relationality
(Wilson et al. 2019) or “embodied urban political ecology” (Truelove 2019).

We extended our search to examine critical studies of water security that
frame similar material concerns through water insecurity (results shown in Table 2).

桌子 2
结果: “Water Insecurity,” Race, and Ethnicity

Key Words (二月 2022)

“Water insecurity”

Water insecurity
“Water insecurity” and race, 种族, 种族主义, racialization
“Water insecurity” and ethnic, 种族

Water insecurity and race, 种族, 种族主义, racialization

Water insecurity and ethnic, 种族

Total articles

来源: Web of Science Database.

数字

425

1,565

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

我

e
d
你
G
e
p
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

2
3
2
1
2
0
7
9
5
7
0
G
e
p
_
A
_
0
0
7
0
2
p
d

我

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

4 (西德:129) 种族, 种族, and the Case for Intersectional Water Security

This was designed to capture two things. 第一个, as Zeitoun et al. (2016) 有
争论, is that the proliferation of water security discourse has coincided with the
emergence of competing policy, 治理, and disciplinary frames that seek to
accommodate multiple perspectives. These frames may include, exclude, or occlude
different water security concerns, and this raises critical ethical issues for policy and
治理 (Schmidt and Peppard 2014). The second is that the limited number of
studies regarding race, 种族, and cognate concerns is not evidence that such con-
siderations are not inﬂuencing water security. 相当, it is evidence that they are not
explicitly factoring into most studies identiﬁed in the large Web of Science database.
We therefore recognized the adjacent framing of water insecurity in studies critical of
prevailing politics regarding “water security” but concerned with similar material
concerns of water access and risk. The results show that race and ethnicity are sim-
ilarly excluded from water insecurity studies. Many of the same articles appear across
both Tables 1 和 2. One prominent article argued that US household water inse-
curity was highly racialized by examining the geographic inequality of “plumbing
poverty” (Deitz and Meehan 2019).

最后, as reported in Table 3, we repeated our earlier search with both
exact (IE。, “water security”) and relaxed terms (IE。, “water AND security”). 到
identify other areas of concern regarding inequalities, we also searched place-
holder categories relevant to water security, such as gender and justice. As Table 3
节目, notions of marginalization, 贫困, 性别, vulnerability, Indigeneity,
and justice are more common categories than race or ethnicity. Although these
still form a small fraction of water security research, they are potential pathways
through which race or ethnicity may be indirectly addressed. Despite this poten-
提尔, it is difﬁcult to gauge how issues of racial or ethnic inequality are addressed
through indirect means. The turn to water insecurity, while not a precise contra-
nym to water security, does not alleviate these concerns. 然而, 批判的
appraisals of water insecurity have begun to identify intersecting issues of race,

桌子 3
结果: “Water Security” and Placeholder Categories

Key Words (二月 2022)

“Water security”
“Water security” and marginalized
“Water security” and poor, 贫困, impoverished
“Water security” and inequality
“Water security” and justice
“Water security” and gender
“Water security” and Indigenous

来源: Web of Science Database.

数字

3,001

266

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

我

e
d
你
G
e
p
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

2
3
2
1
2
0
7
9
5
7
0
G
e
p
_
A
_
0
0
7
0
2
p
d

我

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

C. Harrington, 磷. Montana, J. J. 施密特, 和一个. Swain (西德:129) 5

班级, 和性别 (例如, Jepson et al. 2017A, 2017乙; Wutich et al. 2016; Meehan
等人. 2020) in ways that elude the water security literature. 例如, Wutich
等人. (2016) found race critical to ascertaining whether the human right to water
can be met through informal water networks. 相似地, adjacent literature on
water and environmental justice contains examples of explicitly intersectional
approaches to inequalities (例如, Pulido 2016; Switzer and Teodoro 2018; Sze
2020; Gerlak et al. 2022), though not always with respect to water security spe-
ciﬁcally. Without explicit attention to race and ethnicity in the framing of water
(在)security itself, the extent to which indirect categories address water security
challenges that are speciﬁc to these issues is indeterminate.

重要的是要注意, by design, our method and analysis are not
综合的. We cannot offer a deﬁnitive account of, nor fully trace, the var-
ious disciplinary, empirical, and conceptual directions of the literature and how
they could tangentially address themes of race and ethnicity. 例如, 一些
of the pioneering work of Wendy Jepson is absent from our review data despite
its ﬁndings—demonstrating how US household water insecurity intersects with
systems of exclusion—resonating with our own analysis (Jepson 2014). 如何-
曾经, closer examination of the work shows that, though it deals with systemic
exclusion, it avoids explicit mention of race and ethnicity. Despite limitations,
we believe that our ﬁndings indicate something clear and compelling: race and
ethnicity do not factor explicitly into the water security literature.

These ﬁndings suggest three main points of discussion. 第一的, 虽然
neither race nor ethnicity is explicitly acknowledged in the vast majority of water
security studies, they may be implicitly addressed through other categories, 这样的
as poverty. 第二, the rise of water insecurity literature is important, though it
does not explicitly take up issues of race or ethnicity in a signiﬁcant manner.
最后, the proliferation of studies on poverty and water justice demonstrates
concerns that are germane to intersecting issues of class, 种族, 性别, 等等;
they therefore provide further warrant to examine the shape that an intersec-
tional approach to water security might take.

Given these results, we call for scholars and practitioners to extend frames
of water (在)security to develop an explicitly intersectional approach. The ﬁnal
section explains our rationale and details what intersectional water security
might entail.

Intersectional Water Security

We propose an explicitly intersectional framing of water security. In her original
formulation of intersectionality, Crenshaw (1991) details how Black women
experience compounded forms of discrimination by virtue of being both Black
and female. For scholars of intersectionality, concepts like “discrimination” can
be too rigid when they depend on the homogenizing function of a single class
or category (国王 1988; Yuval-Davis 2006). Single-axis frameworks overlook
how individuals may be vulnerable to multiple, often compounding forms of

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

我

e
d
你
G
e
p
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

2
3
2
1
2
0
7
9
5
7
0
G
e
p
_
A
_
0
0
7
0
2
p
d

我

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

6 (西德:129) 种族, 种族, and the Case for Intersectional Water Security

oppression, which may work together or apart, depending on the context, 但
nevertheless produce something distinct from any single type of discrimination
(Cho et al. 2013).

An intersectional framing of water security provides two interrelated
strengths. 第一的, it can overcome the tendency to reduce explanations of people
and their environment to singular and/or homogenous categories of analysis.
The corollary is a treatment of social positions as inherently ﬂuid, plural, 和
relational that provides points of engagement for water security studies. 第二,
an intersectional approach avoids negatively framing water security (IE。, 作为
water insecurity) in ways that require “holistic” changes to policy. By positively
reframing water security, intersectionality produces a greater focus on the empir-
ical drivers of inequality. Many of these drivers are already recognized indirectly,
yet intersectionality frames these and other excluded concerns for explicit policy
engagement. The aim is not to prioritize any particular aspect of discrimination
but to understand how inequalities operate empirically. Understanding how
inequality operates empirically, intersectionality orients attention to race, 班级,
性别, 种族, 国家, 能力, colonialism, and so on not as mutually exclu-
sive but as co-constituted phenomena (柯林斯 2015). 的确, intersectionality
does not simply “add” issues of race or ethnicity to concerns regarding poor,
边缘化, or vulnerable communities. It recognizes that individuals and
groups experience inequality through multiple, asymmetric power relations
and that those inequalities are interpreted through categories that are not a
direct match to existing categories framing water security (Yates et al. 2017).

Intersectional water security counters dominant binary framings of water
security as “reductionist” versus “integrative” or “broad” versus “narrow,” which
fail to explicitly address race and ethnicity. It also acknowledges how the empir-
ical effects of this omission have historically limited and continue to limit how
frames of water security overlook issues of race and ethnicity and misdiagnose
important issues that intersect with them, such as gender, colonialism, 班级, 和
种姓. 在此背景下, intersectional water security identiﬁes shortcomings of cur-
rent water security framings and provides a way to address them by reframing
shared material concerns that add necessary context to the empirical drivers of
不等式. 例如, an intersectional approach recognizes how social differ-
ences are refracted through conﬂicts affecting water access, 使用, and the distribu-
tion of risk. Instead of turning to negative framings of water insecurity, 然而,
an intersectional approach retools water security to more accurately reﬂect the
empirical reality of how inequalities manifest differentially owing to factors of
种族, 种族, 性别, 班级, and colonialism. 最后, in all cases, intersectional
water security must be an explicitly antioppressive framework.

结论

Water security has come close to achieving conceptual hegemony in water gov-
ernance literature, yet it largely excludes explicit treatment of race and ethnicity.

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

我

e
d
你
G
e
p
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

2
3
2
1
2
0
7
9
5
7
0
G
e
p
_
A
_
0
0
7
0
2
p
d

我

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

C. Harrington, 磷. Montana, J. J. 施密特, 和一个. Swain (西德:129) 7

这, despite numerous scholars cited herein, as well as the consistent ﬁndings
of the inﬂuential World Water Development Reports, which highlight the need
to address intersecting forms of inequality (UN Water 2006, 2020). We delib-
erately avoid the question of why this exclusion exists or whether other para-
digms, such as water justice, are better equipped for questions of race and
种族. 反而, we argue that, without speciﬁcally addressing how race and
ethnicity intersect with other dimensions of inequality, using the existing water
security paradigm intrinsically limits policy responses intended to enhance
social well-being. We thus call for a reframing of water security in intersectional
条款. This provides a substantive alternative to the inﬂuential, binary framings
of water security as narrow/reductionist or broad/integrative.

Policy uses of water security that do not address inequality through anti-
oppressive approaches tolerate moral harms against individuals, 社团, 和
环境. 在此背景下, one can abandon the policy frame or seek a
new one. We have argued for the latter—a reframing of water security that
orients water security toward intersectional justice.

Cameron Harrington is an assistant professor of international relations in the
School of Government and International Affairs at Durham University. He is a
coauthor of Security in the Anthropocene: Reﬂections on Safety and Care (2017) 和
coeditor of Climate Security in the Anthropocene: Exploring the Approaches of United
Nations Security Council Member-States (即将推出).

Phellecitus Thuli Montana is a PhD candidate in the School of Government
and International Affairs at Durham University. Her research project on “The
Politics and Ethics of Water Security in Cape Town, South Africa” is funded
by the Global Challenges Research Fund–Centre for Doctoral Training.

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

我

e
d
你
G
e
p
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

2
3
2
1
2
0
7
9
5
7
0
G
e
p
_
A
_
0
0
7
0
2
p
d

我

Jeremy Schmidt is an associate professor of geography at Durham University.
He is the author of Water: Abundance, Scarcity and Security in the Age of Humanity
(2017) and coeditor of Water Ethics: Foundational Readings for Students and
Professionals (2010).

Ashok Swain is a professor and head of the department of peace and conﬂict
研究, as well as UNESCO chair of International Water Cooperation at
Uppsala University, 瑞典. He is also the founding editor-in-chief of the
peer-reviewed journal Environment and Security. He is a coeditor of Handbook
of Security and the Environment (2021).

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

参考

给, S。, K. 瓦. Crenshaw, 和L. McCall. 2013. Toward a Field of Intersectionality Studies:
理论, 应用领域, and Praxis. Signs 38 (4): 785–810. https://doi.org/10.1086
/669608

8 (西德:129) 种族, 种族, and the Case for Intersectional Water Security

柯林斯, 磷. 2015. Intersectionality’s Deﬁnitional Dilemmas. Annual Review of Sociology 41:

1–20. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-073014-112142

厨师, C。, and K. Bakker. 2012. Water Security: Debating an Emerging Paradigm. 全球的
Environmental Change 22 (1): 94–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011
.10.011

Crenshaw, K. 1991. Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, 和
Violence Against Women of Color. Stanford Law Review 43 (6): 1241–1299.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039

Deitz, S。, and K. Meehan. 2019. Plumbing Poverty: Mapping Hot Spots of Racial and
Geographic Inequality in US Household Water Insecurity. Annals of the Association
of American Geographers 109 (4): 1092–1109. https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452
.2018.1530587

Garrick, D ., 和 J. 大厅. 2014. Water Security and Society: Risks, 指标, and Pathways.
Annual Review of Environment and Resources 39: 611–639. https://doi.org/10.1146
/annurev-environ-013012-093817

Gerlak, A. K., L. House-Peters, 右. G. Varady, 时间. Albrecht, A. Zúñiga-Terán, 右. Routson de
Grenade, C. 厨师, 和C. A. 斯科特. 2018. Water Security: A Review of Place-Based
研究. Environmental Science and Policy 82: 79–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.envsci.2018.01.009

Gerlak, A。, 乙. Louder, 和H. Ingram. 2022. Viewpoint: An Intersectional Approach to

Water Equity in the US. Water Alternatives 15 (1): 1–12.

Global Water Partnership. 2000. Towards Water Security: A Framework for Action.

斯德哥尔摩, 瑞典: Global Water Partnership.

灰色的, D ., 和C. 瓦. Sadoff. 2007. Sink or Swim? Water Security for Growth and Devel-

选项. Water Policy 9: 545–571. https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2007.021

Hoekstra, A。, J. Buurman, and K. van Ginkel. 2018. Urban Water Security: A Review.
Environmental Research Letters 13 (5): 053002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748
-9326/aaba52

Jepson, 瓦. 2014. Measuring “No-Win” Waterscapes: Experience-Based Scales and
Classiﬁcation Approaches to Assess Household Water Security in Colonias on the
US–Mexico Border. Geoforum 51: 107–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum
.2013.10.002

Jepson, W., J. Budds, L. Eichelberger, L. 哈里斯, 乙. Norman, K. O’Reilly, A. 皮尔逊, S.
Shah, J. Shinn, C. Staddon, J. Stoler, A. Wutich, 和S. Young. 2017A. Advancing
Human Capabilities for Water Security: A Relational Approach. Water Security 1:
146–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasec.2017.07.001

Jepson, W., A. Wutich, S. 中号. 柯林斯, G. 氧. Boateng, 和S. L. Young. 2017乙. Progress in
Household Water Insecurity Metrics: A Cross-Disciplinary Approach. WIREs Water
4 (3): e1214. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1214

卡普兰, 右. 1994. The Coming Anarchy. The Atlantic Monthly 273 (2): 44–76.
国王, D. 1988. Multiple Jeopardy, Multiple Consciousness: The Context of a Black

Feminist Ideology. Signs 14 (1): 42–72. https://doi.org/10.1086/494491

Lankford, B., K. Bakker, 中号. Zeitoun, 和D. 康威, 编辑. 2013. Water Security:
Principles, Perspectives, 实践. 伦敦, 英国: 劳特利奇. https://doi.org/10.4324
/9780203113202

Meehan, K., 瓦. Jepson, L. 中号. 哈里斯, A. Wutich, 中号. Beresford, A. Fencl, J. 伦敦, G.
Pierce, L. Radonic, C. 韦尔斯, 氮. J. Wilson, 乙. A. Adams, 右. Arsenault, A. Brewis,
V. Harrington, 是. Lambrinidou, D. 麦格雷戈, 右. Patrick, 乙. Pauli, A. L. 皮尔逊,

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

我

e
d
你
G
e
p
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

2
3
2
1
2
0
7
9
5
7
0
G
e
p
_
A
_
0
0
7
0
2
p
d

我

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

C. Harrington, 磷. Montana, J. J. 施密特, 和一个. Swain (西德:129) 9

S. Shah, D. Splichalova, C. Workman, 和S. Young. 2020. Exposing Myths of
Household Water Insecurity in the Global North: A Critical Review. WIREs Water
7 (6): e1486. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1486

Octavianti, T。, 和C. Staddon. 2021. A Review of 80 Assessment Tools Measuring Water

安全. WIREs Water 8 (3): e1516. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1516

Pauli, 乙. J. 2019. Flint Fights Back: Environmental Justice and Democracy in the Flint Water
Crisis. 剑桥, 嘛: 与新闻界. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11363.001
.0001

Pauli, Benjamin J. 2020. The Flint Water Crisis. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water

7 (3): e1420. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1420

Pahl-Wostl, C。, A. Bhaduri, 和 J. 古普塔, 编辑. 2016. Handbook on Water Security.
切尔滕纳姆, 英国: 爱德华·埃尔加. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781782548010
Pulido, L. 2016. Flint, Environmental Racism, and Racial Capitalism. 资本主义, 自然,
社会主义 27 (3): 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10455752.2016.1213013
施密特, J。, 和C. Peppard. 2014. Water Ethics on a Human Dominated Planet:
Rationality, Context and Values in Global Governance. WIREs Water 1 (6):
533–547. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1043

Starr, J. 右. 1991. Water Wars. Foreign Policy 82 (1): 17–36. https://doi.org/10.2307

/1148639

Sultana, F. 2020. Embodied Intersectionalities of Urban Citizenship: Water, Infra-
结构, and Gender in the Global South. Annals of the American Association of
Geographers 110 (5): 1407–1424. https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2020
.1715193

Switzer, D ., 和M. Teodoro. 2018. 班级, 种族, Ethnicity and Justice in Safe Drinking
Water Compliance. Social Science Quarterly 99 (2): 524–535. https://doi.org/10
.1111/ssqu.12397

Sze, J. 2020. Environmental Justice in a Moment of Danger. Oakland: 大学

加州出版社. https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520971981

Truelove, 是. 2019. Rethinking Water Insecurity, Inequality and Infrastructure Through an
Embodied Urban Political Ecology. WIREs Water 6 (3): e1342. https://doi.org/10
.1002/wat2.1342

UN Water. 2006. Water: A Shared Responsibility—The United Nations World Water Develop-

ment Report 2. 巴黎, 法国: UNESCO.

UN Water. 2020. Water and Climate Change: United Nations World Water Development

报告 2020. 巴黎, 法国: UNESCO.

Varady, R。, K. Meehan, and E. McGovern. 2009. Charting the Emergence of “Global
Water Initiatives” in World Water Governance. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth,
Parts A/B/C 34 (9): 150–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2008.06.004

Wilson, 氮. J。, L. 中号. 哈里斯, A. Joseph-Rear, J. Beaumont, 和T. Satterﬁeld. 2019. Water Is
药品: Reimagining Water Security Through Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in Relationships
to Treated and Traditional Water Sources in Yukon, 加拿大. Water 11 (3): 624.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w11030624

Wutich, A。, 中号. Beresford, 和C. Carvajal. 2016. Can Informal Water Vendors Deliver on
the Promise of a Human Right to Water? Results from Cochabamba, 玻利维亚. 世界
发展 79: 14–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.10.043

Yates, J. S。, L. 中号. 哈里斯, and N. J. Wilson. 2017. Multiple Ontologies of Water: 政治,
Conﬂict and Implications for Governance. Environment and Planning D, 社会 &
空间 35 (5): 797–815. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263775817700395

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

我

e
d
你
G
e
p
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

2
3
2
1
2
0
7
9
5
7
0
G
e
p
_
A
_
0
0
7
0
2
p
d

我

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

10 (西德:129) 种族, 种族, and the Case for Intersectional Water Security

Yuval-Davis, 氮. 2006. Intersectionality and Feminist Politics. European Journal of Women’s

学习 13 (3): 79–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350506806065752

Zeitoun, M。, 乙. Lankford, 时间. Krueger, 时间. Forsyth, 右. Carter, A. 是. Hoekstra, 右. 泰勒, 氧.
Varis, F. Cleaver, 右. Boelens, L. Swatuk, D. Tickner, C. A. 斯科特, 氮. Mirumachi, 和
氮. Matthews. 2016. Reductionist and Integrative Research Approaches to Complex
Water Security Policy Challenges. Global Environmental Change 39: 143–154.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.04.010

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

我

e
d
你
G
e
p
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

2
3
2
1
2
0
7
9
5
7
0
G
e
p
_
A
_
0
0
7
0
2
p
d

我

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3
下载pdf