World Water Day: Three steps towards gender equity in water governance

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Sadaf Mehrabi, Postdoctoral Research Associate, Environmental Engineering, Iowa State University

Every March, the United Nations marks World Water Day to raise awareness about water scarcity and inequality. This year’s theme — water and gender — focuses on how women and girls often face the brunt of water inequities.

Highlighting how unequal access to water impacts women and girls is essential, but even when issues of leadership and participation are acknowledged, the dominant narrative remains incomplete.

Gender inequity is still framed primarily as a problem of access and representation. It’s also a governance problem.

When people hear “water and gender,” a familiar image may come to mind: women and girls in the Global South walking long distances to collect water, missing out on education and employment as a result. That reality remains urgent but the conversation cannot stop there.

In high-income countries, gendered water inequities have not vanished but shifted into less visible forms embedded in governance, trust and crisis response. These inequities are not limited to moments of failure; they are built into how water systems are governed.

Modern water infrastructure creates an image of neutrality and efficiency. Water appears as a service delivered through pipes and utilities. However, even when systems function, decisions about risk, cost and communication are not neutral.

When systems fail and crises occur, gendered burdens become more visible in households: managing bottled water, protecting children, bearing financial and emotional strain and navigating institutions that may no longer be trusted.

Water burdens and governance

The years-long water crisis in Flint, Mich., made gendered inequities painfully clear. Residents experienced sustained stress, anxiety and financial hardship alongside a collapse in trust in public institutions. But for women in particular, the crisis meant more than inconvenience.

Research shows that when confidence in piped water collapsed, the burden of securing safe water shifted back onto households, disproportionately onto women as they navigated conflicting official advice and decided which water sources could be trusted for different household uses.

Water crises are not just technical malfunctions but governance failures that redistribute risk and responsibility downward.

Another example comes from Detroit, where households had their water supply shut off due to unpaid water bills. The shutoffs disproportionately impacted low-income and racially marginalized women and their families.

In Canada, nearly 40 long-term drinking water advisories persist in Indigenous communities where, often, women hold domestic responsibilities as water carriers and advocates for water stewardship.

These examples highlight how even in “developed countries” water inequity can emerge through health, systemic and policy issues. These outcomes are not accidental but produced by water system governance.

Water decisions are made by regulators, municipalities and other public agencies. These institutions determine which risks are prioritized, how problems are framed, and whose concerns are taken seriously, often compounding challenges for those at the intersection of gender, race, income and caregiving roles.

Those with the most power over water policy, from governments to the heads of international organizations, are still predominantly men. This shapes not only who is represented, but how risks are interpreted and decisions are made.

When leadership spaces remain narrow, so do the assumptions behind water policy. This is where gender becomes an issue. One way this becomes visible is in how people perceive and respond to water crises.

Research consistently shows that more diverse decision-making groups produce more effective, equitable and sustainable outcomes. This is a finding reflected in global governance frameworks such as those advanced by UN Women.

Yet, increasing diversity in these spaces is not just a matter of access or representation. It is also shaped by how majority groups respond to the threats embedded in water crises that can influence how underrepresented individuals are viewed, judged or heard.

Trust and decision-making in water relations

Water crises are often both technical and psychological problems. How these crises are framed can evoke fear. Decades of social psychology research has found that when people face existential threats, they tend to disengage, deny risk or gravitate toward those with similar identity and values, which creates distance from those who are different.

In our research, we found that these responses can reinforce gender biases in how water decision-makers are perceived and evaluated. People may be more likely to trust those who look like them, making it harder to diversify decision-making spaces precisely when diverse perspectives are needed most.

In systems where leadership is already concentrated, they can reinforce existing power structures and narrow whose expertise is trusted. If water governance is to be both effective and inclusive, these psychological dynamics cannot be ignored.

Importantly, other emotional responses bring opportunities for enhanced water relations. Awe, empathy and compassion can strengthen feelings of connection, belonging and trust. These are essential components for effective water governance and diplomacy.

Resilient water systems depend on more than engineering capacity. They depend on institutional legitimacy and public trust. Research on water reuse, one of the most contested areas of water policy, shows that public support varies widely depending on experience, perceived risk and confidence in water systems.

Towards gender equity in water governance

A serious water policy agenda should do at least three things:

First, move beyond diversity head counts. Utilities and regulators should track both representation as well as who holds decision-making authority, especially during crises.

Without transparency about who shapes operational, emergency and communication decisions, commitments to equity remain superficial.

Second, governments must consider women’s unequal burden in crisis planning. Water policy continues to assume uniform public behaviour and equal capacity and responsibility to adapt.

However, emergency frameworks should assess how crisis communication, compliance demands and service disruptions will affect different groups, especially those with care-giving responsibilities, low incomes or limited institutional trust.

Third, apply gender analysis where systems fail, not just where systems are measured. Analytical tools such as Gender-Based Analysis Plus help highlight all who are impacted by the issue or action at hand, identify and address challenges early, and call attention to ways in which actions can be tailored to meet diverse needs.

However, these tools should be used not only for access and representation but also for system governance, emergency response, affordability pressures, policy development and public communication. This is where governance decisions most clearly translate into unequal lived outcomes.

World Water Day’s focus on gender is a start, but it’s not enough. If gender inequity is treated only as an access issue, we miss how it shapes authority, trust and decision-making. Water policy may appear gender-neutral, but it’s not. Crises makes this visible. They do not create inequity but expose what governance has already produced.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. World Water Day: Three steps towards gender equity in water governance – https://theconversation.com/world-water-day-three-steps-towards-gender-equity-in-water-governance-279048