ArticleScientific reports2024
Indicator metrics and temporal aggregations introduce ambiguities in water scarcity estimates.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- City boundaries for global urban water scarcity assessment.Scientific data · 2026Article
- Global overlooked multidimensional water scarcity.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Experimental study of folded metal mesh for efficient fog harvesting.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Water scarcity is a global challenge affecting billions of people worldwide. This study systematically assesses differences in the estimation of the global population exposed to water scarcity based on 7 water scarcity indicators and 11 Environmental Flow Requirements (EFR) evaluated at various spatial and temporal resolutions. All indicators show an increase in water scarcity since 1901. However, considering monthly average water scarcity estimates spatially aggregated at the basin scale found 35% less population exposed than estimates based on a distributed grid over the landscape. Estimates temporally disaggregated to consider water scarcity for at least one month a year found 50% (tenfold) larger population exposed compared to average monthly (annual) estimates. The study illustrates that estimates of the impacts of water scarcity are an artifact of how water scarcity is defined and calculated. This suggests caution is needed when relying on a single method and emphasizes the importance of considering the diversity of factors that can influence estimates of impact when assessing water scarcity.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.