{"Affiliation":[{"label":"Affiliation","value":"Science, Faculty of","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/vivoweb.org\/ontology\/core#departmentOrSchool","classmap":"vivo:EducationalProcess","property":"vivo:departmentOrSchool"},"iri":"http:\/\/vivoweb.org\/ontology\/core#departmentOrSchool","explain":"VIVO-ISF Ontology V1.6 Property; The department or school name within institution; Not intended to be an institution name."},{"label":"Affiliation","value":"Resources, Environment and Sustainability (IRES), Institute for","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/vivoweb.org\/ontology\/core#departmentOrSchool","classmap":"vivo:EducationalProcess","property":"vivo:departmentOrSchool"},"iri":"http:\/\/vivoweb.org\/ontology\/core#departmentOrSchool","explain":"VIVO-ISF Ontology V1.6 Property; The department or school name within institution; Not intended to be an institution name."}],"AggregatedSourceRepository":[{"label":"Aggregated Source Repository","value":"DSpace","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/dataProvider","classmap":"ore:Aggregation","property":"edm:dataProvider"},"iri":"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/dataProvider","explain":"A Europeana Data Model Property; The name or identifier of the organization who contributes data indirectly to an aggregation service (e.g. Europeana)"}],"Campus":[{"label":"Campus","value":"UBCV","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#degreeCampus","classmap":"oc:ThesisDescription","property":"oc:degreeCampus"},"iri":"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#degreeCampus","explain":"UBC Open Collections Metadata Components; Local Field; Identifies the name of the campus from which the graduate completed their degree."}],"Creator":[{"label":"Creator","value":"Chireh, Vincent Kuuteryiri","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/creator","classmap":"dpla:SourceResource","property":"dcterms:creator"},"iri":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/creator","explain":"A Dublin Core Terms Property; An entity primarily responsible for making the resource.; Examples of a Contributor include a person, an organization, or a service."}],"DateAvailable":[{"label":"Date Available","value":"2024-02-22T18:54:55Z","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/issued","classmap":"edm:WebResource","property":"dcterms:issued"},"iri":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/issued","explain":"A Dublin Core Terms Property; Date of formal issuance (e.g., publication) of the resource."}],"DateIssued":[{"label":"Date Issued","value":"2024","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/issued","classmap":"oc:SourceResource","property":"dcterms:issued"},"iri":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/issued","explain":"A Dublin Core Terms Property; Date of formal issuance (e.g., publication) of the resource."}],"Degree":[{"label":"Degree (Theses)","value":"Doctor of Philosophy - PhD","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/vivoweb.org\/ontology\/core#relatedDegree","classmap":"vivo:ThesisDegree","property":"vivo:relatedDegree"},"iri":"http:\/\/vivoweb.org\/ontology\/core#relatedDegree","explain":"VIVO-ISF Ontology V1.6 Property; The thesis degree; Extended Property specified by UBC, as per https:\/\/wiki.duraspace.org\/display\/VIVO\/Ontology+Editor%27s+Guide"}],"DegreeGrantor":[{"label":"Degree Grantor","value":"University of British Columbia","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#degreeGrantor","classmap":"oc:ThesisDescription","property":"oc:degreeGrantor"},"iri":"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#degreeGrantor","explain":"UBC Open Collections Metadata Components; Local Field; Indicates the institution where thesis was granted."}],"Description":[{"label":"Description","value":"Sustainable management of and equitable access to water have become pressing and shared global concerns requiring innovative approaches. The stress on water resources and untenable supply-side management have compelled local governments and utilities to employ measures and practices to promote conservation and reduce usage\u2014including bundles of policies often referred to as Water Demand Management (WDM). Among other things, these policies can reduce wasteful water use\/losses, ensure fair distribution and billing, and promote efficient use. However, the ways that policymakers formulate and implement these policies have equity implications \u2013 often including increased costs, supply disconnections, and the exclusion of some groups from the implementation process. This dissertation employs a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative surveys and semi-structured interviews, to examine the equity implications of WDM. In doing so, the dissertation synthesizes how equity is conceptualized and impacted by WDM policies in the scholarly literature. From water policymakers\u2019 perspective, the thesis then examines the progress regarding how jurisdictions prioritize, plan, and implement various WDM policies in British Columbia. Analyzing semi-structured interviews with mayors, chief administrative officers, and public works officers in metered jurisdictions helps to understand how they conceptualize equity and seek to address inequities in their local contexts. The dissertation finds that equity is mainly perceived as equality, where the cost and benefits of WDM are shared among water users in line with the cost-of-service principle. While the province is increasingly adopting these measures to conserve water and reduce usage, the analysis also suggests that efforts are needed to address potential associated access and affordability challenges. This dissertation contributes to the ongoing discourse on sustainable water management and equity, shedding light on the potential negative impacts of WDM policies, and considerations going forward.","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/description","classmap":"dpla:SourceResource","property":"dcterms:description"},"iri":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/description","explain":"A Dublin Core Terms Property; An account of the resource.; Description may include but is not limited to: an abstract, a table of contents, a graphical representation, or a free-text account of the resource."}],"DigitalResourceOriginalRecord":[{"label":"Digital Resource Original Record","value":"https:\/\/circle.library.ubc.ca\/rest\/handle\/2429\/87472?expand=metadata","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/aggregatedCHO","classmap":"ore:Aggregation","property":"edm:aggregatedCHO"},"iri":"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/aggregatedCHO","explain":"A Europeana Data Model Property; The identifier of the source object, e.g. the Mona Lisa itself. This could be a full linked open date URI or an internal identifier"}],"FullText":[{"label":"Full Text","value":"        ADVANCING EQUITY IN WATER DEMAND MANAGEMENT AMONG LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA  by    Vincent Kuuteryiri Chireh  B.A., University of Ghana, Legon, 2009 M.A., Memorial University of Newfoundland, 2018  A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF  DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES  (Resources, Environment, and Sustainability)   THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver)  February 2024  \u00a9Vincent Kuuteryiri Chireh, 2024     ii The following individuals certify that they have read, and recommend to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies for acceptance, the dissertation entitled:  Advancing Equity in Water Demand Management among Local Governments in British Columbia, Canada  submitted by Vincent Kuuteryiri Chireh in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Resources, Environment, and Sustainability   Examining Committee: Dr. Leila M. Harris, Professor, Institute for Resources, Environment, and Sustainability, and the Institute for Gender, Race, Sexuality and Social Justice, The University of British Columbia (UBC). Co-supervisor Dr. Jordi Honey-Ros\u00e9s, Senior Researcher, Institut de Ci\u00e8ncia i Tecnologia Ambientals (ICTA-UAB), Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona, and Institute for Resources, Environment, and Sustainability, UBC. Co-supervisor  Dr. Steve Conrad, Professor, Department of Systems Engineering, Colorado State University. Supervisory Committee Member Dr. James Connolly, Professor, School of Community & Regional Planning, UBC.   University Examiner Dr. Lorien Nesbitt, Professor, Department of Forest Resources Management, UBC.  University Examiner            iii Abstract  Sustainable management of and equitable access to water have become pressing and shared global concerns requiring innovative approaches. The stress on water resources and untenable supply-side management have compelled local governments and utilities to employ measures and practices to promote conservation and reduce usage\u2014including bundles of policies often referred to as Water Demand Management (WDM). Among other things, these policies can reduce wasteful water use\/losses, ensure fair distribution and billing, and promote efficient use. However, the ways that policymakers formulate and implement these policies have equity implications \u2013 often including increased costs, supply disconnections, and the exclusion of some groups from the implementation process. This dissertation employs a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative surveys and semi-structured interviews, to examine the equity implications of WDM. In doing so, the dissertation synthesizes how equity is conceptualized and impacted by WDM policies in the scholarly literature. From water policymakers\u2019 perspective, the thesis then examines the progress regarding how jurisdictions prioritize, plan, and implement various WDM policies in British Columbia. Analyzing semi-structured interviews with mayors, chief administrative officers, and public works officers in metered jurisdictions helps to understand how they conceptualize equity and seek to address inequities in their local contexts. The dissertation finds that equity is mainly perceived as equality, where the cost and benefits of WDM are shared among water users in line with the cost-of-service principle. While the province is increasingly adopting these measures to conserve water and reduce usage, the analysis also suggests that efforts are needed to address potential associated access and affordability challenges. This dissertation contributes to the ongoing discourse on sustainable water management and equity, shedding light on the potential negative impacts of WDM policies, and considerations going forward.       iv Lay summary This dissertation investigates the linkage between sustainable water management and equity. Given climate impacts on water resources and unsustainable supply, local governments use measures to encourage people to use water wisely, while also seeking to reduce harm to people and the environment. Among them, water demand management policies are viewed as important to reduce wasteful water use, and to distribute and bill water equally. However, how these policies are implemented can increase water costs or limit access for poor households. This study analyzes surveys and interviews with policymakers in British Columbia, Canada, to understand how they perceive equity and address water access and costs issues while implementing these policies. As well, the thesis contributes to ongoing discussions on ensuring that vulnerable groups can access essential water even as local governments take actions to reduce water demand and promote conservation.        v Preface This dissertation is my independent and original work. I identified the research problem, designed the research program, collected, and analyzed the data (with assistance from Research Assistants), and wrote all the chapters. My supervisory committee (Drs. Leila M. Harris, Jordi Honey-Ros\u00e9s, and Steven Conrad) provided critical and useful feedback on the design, data collection and analyses, as well as input into the writing and editing of the chapters. Melissa Plisic in the EDGES lab helped in reading through and editing three (3) chapters for finalization.  Chapter 2 was written as an unpublished independent manuscript for publication in a peer-reviewed journal with the supervisory committee members as co-authors. I identified the research gap and designed the literature review approach with inputs from the supervisory committee. Helen Brown, a reference librarian at the Woodward Library of the University, provided critical feedback on the literature search protocol and process. My supervisory committee members provided input and edited the final chapter. The External Examiner, Professor Manuel Teodoro helped with valuable comments to amend the chapter for finalization.  Chapter 3 is an original and unpublished independent manuscript to be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. I identified the research question, designed the study methodology, administered the survey, and analyzed the data with feedback from the supervisory committee. I wrote the entire chapter with substantive and valuable inputs on the process and editing from all the supervisory committee members. I revised the final chapter based on relevant suggestions from the External and University Examiners, Professors Manuel Teodoro, Jannette Bulkan, James Connelly, and Lorient Nesbitt. For the publication in-process from this chapter, I am the lead author with Dr. Jordi Honey-Ros\u00e9s and Dr. Steven Conrad as co-authors.  Chapter 4 was written as an original and independent manuscript to be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. I oversaw all aspects of the study. I developed the research idea, designed the methodology, and coordinated Research Assistants for the data collection. The supervisory committee supported in refining the research idea and methodology. Three graduate students in the EGDES Research Collaborative\u2014Taya Triffo, Rona MacNicol, and Emily Edwards--assisted with conducting 5 of the 21 interviews with water managers and policymakers in British Columbia.      vi I independently processed and analyzed the data and wrote the first draft of this chapter. Supervisory committee members provided substantive and constructive inputs in the process and with the editing of the chapter. The External and University Examiners, Professors Manuel Teodoro, Jannette Bulkan, James Connelly, and Lorient Nesbitt provided substantial suggestions on reframing the chapter to include intergenerational equity and discussions on the tensions among various equity dimensions in the final chapter. I am the lead author for the in-process peer-reviewed publication, with Dr. Leila M. Harris as co-author.  This entire research project was approved by the Behavioural Research Ethics Board (BREB) of The University of British Columbia (Ethics Certificate No: H20-00715). The certificate remains valid throughout the research program duration.      vii Table of Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... iii Lay summary ................................................................................................................................ iv Preface ............................................................................................................................................ v Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................ vii List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. x List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... xi List of Abbreviations .................................................................................................................. xii Glossary ...................................................................................................................................... xiii Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................................... xv Dedication .................................................................................................................................. xvii CHAPTER 1: Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction and research statement ................................................................................. 1 1.2 Research questions ............................................................................................................ 5 1.3 Study context .................................................................................................................... 7 1.4 Conceptual frameworks .................................................................................................. 12 1.4.1 Historizing water demand management ................................................................... 13 1.4.2 Reframing the equity concept .................................................................................. 15 1.5 Research methodology .................................................................................................... 19 1.5.1 Philosophical assumption of the study ..................................................................... 19 1.5.2 Methods overview .................................................................................................... 21 1.6 Research contribution ..................................................................................................... 23 1.7 Positionality and reflexivity ............................................................................................ 25 CHAPTER 2: The equity implications of water demand management policies and conservation practices: A synthesis review ............................................................................... 29 2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 29 2.2 Water demand management ............................................................................................ 31 2.3 Conceptualizing equity ................................................................................................... 38 2.4 Methodology and literature selection .............................................................................. 40 2.5 Results ............................................................................................................................. 45      viii 2.6 Discussion ....................................................................................................................... 53 2.7 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 60 CHAPTER 3: Progress in water demand management in British Columbia, Canada ....... 64 3.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 64 3.2 Water demand management in British Columbia ........................................................... 67 3.3 Methods........................................................................................................................... 70 3.4 Results ............................................................................................................................. 76 3.4.1 Patterns and characteristics of the data .................................................................... 76 3.4.2 Prioritizing and planning for water demand management ....................................... 78 3.4.3: Investing and Implementing demand management measures ................................ 79 3.4.4: Adopting Residential Water Metering. ................................................................... 82 3.4.5: Water Rate Structures and Bill Payments ............................................................... 84 3.5 Discussion ....................................................................................................................... 85 3.5.1 Planning and adopting water demand management policies. .................................. 85 3.5.2 Study limitations ...................................................................................................... 87 3.6 Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 88 CHAPTER 4: The equity implications of residential water metering from policymakers\u2019 perspective in the context of British Columbia, Canada ......................................................... 90 4.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 90 4.2 Framing equity as central to water metering ................................................................... 94 4.3 Residential water metering in British Columbia ............................................................. 96 4.4 The case study area ......................................................................................................... 99 4.5 Methods......................................................................................................................... 101 4.5.1 Survey data collection ............................................................................................ 101 4.5.2 Semi-structured expert interviews ......................................................................... 102 4.5.3 Data analysis and reporting .................................................................................... 104 4.6 Study results .................................................................................................................. 109 4.6.1 The motivation and rationale for residential water metering ................................. 109 4.6.2 Stakeholder participation in metering programs .................................................... 111 4.6.3 The impact of metering on water rates and bill payments ..................................... 112 4.6.4 Policymakers\u2019 understanding of equity and how they address equity impacts ..... 116      ix 4.7 Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 119 4.7.1 Policymakers understand and perceive equity as equality ..................................... 120 4.7.2 Residential metering has potential negative equity implications ........................... 121 4.7.3 Addressing water inequities under residential water metering .............................. 123 4.8 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 126 CHAPTER 5: Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 128 5.1 Key Research Findings and Conclusions ...................................................................... 129 5.2 Study Limitations .......................................................................................................... 131 5.3 Future Research Directions ........................................................................................... 133 5.4 Final thoughts ............................................................................................................... 136 BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................................................................................................... 138 APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................... 170 APPENDIX A: Supporting Documents for Chapter 2 ....................................................... 170 Appendix A1: Synthesis review search protocol ............................................................ 170 Appendix A2: Search string criteria used in each database. ........................................... 171 Appendix A3: Summary of 50 studies that examined the equity implications of WDM tools and measures ................................................................................................................... 177 APPENDIX B: Supporting Documents for Chapter 3 ........................................................ 182 Appendix B1:Detailed Research Information for Data Collection ................................. 182 Appendix B2: Survey Instrument ................................................................................... 184 Appendix B3: Relationship between prioritizing WDM and conservation plan by jurisdiction type .............................................................................................................. 194 Appendix B4: Metered connections by housing unit and jurisdiction type .................... 195 APPENDIX C: Supporting Documents for Chapter 4 ........................................................ 196 Appendix C1: Sample Survey Questions used in Chapter 4 analysis. ............................ 196 Appendix C2: Sample Interview Consent Form ............................................................. 197 Appendix C3: Semi-structured interview guides (2x) .................................................... 200 Appendix C4: Anonymized Participants Identifiers ....................................................... 204       x List of Tables Table 1.1: Summary of the conceptual and methodological processes and conclusions of the dissertation. ..................................................................................................................................... 7 Table 1.2: Summary of the research questions, sub-questions, data sources, and analysis of various chapters. ........................................................................................................................................ 23 Table 2.1: Categorization of WDM measures and practices \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026..34 Table 2.2: Inclusion and exclusion criteria ................................................................................... 43 Table 2.3: Databases and search terms combined with Boolean Operators (\u201cAND,\u201d and \u201cOR\u201d)........................................................................................................................................................ 44 Table 2.4: How the articles (50) conceptualize equity with excerpt examples ............................ 49 Table 2.5: Reported equity issues with examples and suggested redresses .................................. 51 Table 4.1: Socio-demographic information of jurisdictions included in the interviews \u2026\u2026\u2026...100 Table 4.2 Codebook for first cycle structural and descriptive coding ........................................ 107 Table 4.3: Codebook\/scheme for the magnitude coding. ........................................................... 108          xi List of Figures  Figure 1.1: Map of British Columbia showing regional districts and watersheds. ......................... 9 Figure 1.2: Changes in water consumption (lcpd) in British Columbia. ...................................... 12 Figure 2.1: Flowchart showing eligibility and records selection process. PRISMA diagram adapted from (Page et al., 2021)\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026...45 Figure 2.2: Number of WDM and equity studies over the last 40 years. ..................................... 47 Figure 2.3: Number of studies that discuss various WDM measures. .......................................... 48 Figure 3.1: Number of participants within each range of years of experience \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026...77 Figure 3.2: Proportions of jurisdictions implementing water efficiency\/conservation plans. ...... 79 Figure 3.3: Proportions of jurisdictions adopting or not adopting WDM policy measures. ......... 80 Figure 3.4: Resource investment (finances and personnel) in WDM by surveyed jurisdictions .. 81 Figure 3.5: The average number of WDM measures adopted by each jurisdiction type. ............. 82 Figure 3.6: Percentage of metered connections in surveyed localities by household type ........... 83 Figure 3.7: Water rate structures across jurisdictions. This figure was computed based on the number of respondents indicated on the y-axis and not the total sampled jurisdiction ................ 84 Figure 4.1: List of reasons and motivations jurisdictions would adopt residential metering in 2020 (n=94)\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026...110 Figure 4.2: Estimated number of residents delayed in bill payments in 2020. ........................... 115 Figure 4.3: Magnitude coding results showing statements under each thematic area that (i) potentially undermines or (ii) potentially promotes equity in the interview transcripts. ............ 119          xii List of Abbreviations BC   British Columbia  BREB   Behavioral Research Ethics Board  CAO   Chief Administrative Officers  ICI   Institutional, Commercial, and Industrial  LCPD  Litres per capita per day  UBC   University of British Columbia  WDM   Water Demand Management          xiii Glossary Adopt or implement \u2013 Applying or practicing WDM measures to conserve water.  Alternative Approval Process \u2013 A provision in the Community Charter allowing local governing Boards to implement policy actions unless 10% of electors vote to indicate their disapproval within a defined timeframe.  By-law \u2013 Laws enacted by locally elected officials to govern and control municipal and regional district actions and services. Chief Administrative Officer \u2013 the person in charge of delivering policies and services in the municipality\/region and reports directly to the board or council (Union of BC Municipalities, 2013).  Equity \u2013 Fairness, justice, participation in administering public policies and resources, and addressing historical barriers.  Incorporation \u2013 When a community is given the status of a city, town, district, village, or regional district with its boundaries established and the power to govern itself (Union of BC Municipalities, 2006). Jurisdictions \u2013 All local government structures, including Regional Districts, Municipalities, Cities, Towns, Communities and Villages in British Columbia. Mayor \u2013 The head and chief executive officer of the municipality and presiding officer at council meetings when in attendance (Union of BC Municipalities, 2018). Municipality \u2013 A city, town, or village having the power to govern itself.  Policies, Tools, Measures, and Practices \u2013 These words are considered similar and used interchangeably in this dissertation. They refer to actions aimed at regulating water use or conserving available supplies.  Public Works Officer \u2013 The person in charge of \u201cpublic works,\u201d\u2013including planning for, construction of, operation and maintenance of roads, garbage disposal and water and sewer systems.  Publications and Records \u2013 These words are sometimes used interchangeably in the dissertation. The literature review search was conducted in articles, book chapters, and conference proceedings. It was a term used to represent all the academic resources included in the review.       xiv Ratepayer \u2013A person who pays local taxes (especially a householder). Regional District \u2013 A local government structure that serves as a partnership among municipalities and electoral areas to provide basic services (e.g., fire, water supply, waste disposal). It also represents their interest in regional issues.  Resolution \u2013 A decision, opinion, policy, or instruction of a municipality or regional district, expressed in a formal written document and voted on. User Fees \u2013 Fees charged to users of goods or services the local government provides. Water Demand Management \u2013 A mix of education, laws, economic (dis)incentives, and technologies used to regulate water use or conserve water by changing water-use behaviour or reducing waste\/losses.  Water managers \u2013 A public service employee designated by the minister under Act 114(3) of BC\u2019s Water Sustainability Act to exercise such powers and duties of a water manager1. But in this thesis, it broadly refers to the people in charge of the decision-making, water policy formulation and implementation within a water service area. They may include Mayors, Chief Administrative Assistants, and Engineers.    1A legal document that guides water governance and management in the province of British Columbia, Water Sustainability Act, SBC 2014, c 15.      xv Acknowledgments I must be thankful and appreciate the support and assistance of many people and institutions throughout my Ph.D. program. First, I sincerely appreciate the mentorship and guidance of my supervisory committee: Drs. Jordi Honey-Ros\u00e9s, Leila M. Harris, and Steven Conrad. Your support, advice, and ideas have inspired and motivated me throughout the program. Thank you for constantly reminding me that I could do this. I also received scholarly support engaging with colleagues and friends in the EDGES Research Collaborative, the Institute for Resources, Environment & Sustainability (IRES), and the broader UBC community. I am incredibly thankful to Sameer, Kiely, Dacotah-Victoria, and Evelyn for the intellectual conversations that informed my efforts. I also received incredible support from my lab colleagues: Taya, Rona, and Emily, during my fieldwork, and Melissa during my write up. I am grateful to you. I must mention and appreciate the administrative support and guidance of Bonnie Leung and all the IRES Staff, who significantly contributed to completing this dissertation.  My dissertation received financial support from multiple sources. Initial funding was provided through the Four-Year Doctoral Fellowship (#6456), Four-Year Doctoral Fellowship Tuition Award (#6569), and International Tuition Award (#4884) by the Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies. In my latter years, I received the Faculty of Science Graduate Award (#6444), the President's Academic Excellence Initiative Ph.D. Award (#6817), the International Graduate Student Emergency Bursary Fund (#8476) and the Special University Bursary - Housing (#1466). Other support was also provided to me by the Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, as well as from my co-supervisors, Dr. Jordi Honey-Ros\u00e9s, and Dr. Leila M. Harris. I also benefitted from research support from the late Dr. Karen J. Bakker, Co-Director of UBC\u2019s Program on Water Governance. My dear wife, Ophilia Zinale, deserves special appreciation for her sacrifices and devotion to my Ph.D. program as a shared responsibility. I could not have achieved this without her unwavering support. I am grateful for the support of my family in Ghana, especially Uncle Joseph Yieleh Chireh, for his moral and financial support that got me this far. I extend my appreciation to my UBC family and friends, for their comradeship.       xvi I am grateful to all participants across the local jurisdictions in British Columbia for contributing to my research project. I have indeed learned and unlearned from the experiences and interactions with local government officials in the province. This experience was humbling and made me a more informed scholar. Glory be to God, Almighty!       xvii Dedication To My wonderful dad Mr. Mahama Kuuteryiri Chireh May Your Spirit Guide and Protect Me, Every Day!         1 CHAPTER 1: Introduction  1.1 Introduction and research statement Water is life. As such, access to an adequate supply of good-quality water everywhere has become a shared global goal (UN, 2014). However, the pressures from climate change and other anthropogenic factors on water resources are affecting efforts to achieve this objective. In response, water managers and policymakers employ measures and strategies to promote water conservation and reduce wastage (Berhanu et al., 2017; Stavenhagen et al., 2018). Water demand management (WDM) refers to a suite of approaches intended to ensure efficient\/productive use, to reduce wasteful use\/losses, to ensure fair distribution and billing, and to recover water costs (Brandes & Ferguson, 2004). It involves a mix of tools and strategies, including efficient water dispensers, price reforms, regulations, and public education aimed to promote conservation and reduce usage (Abansi et al., 2018; Brandes & Ferguson, 2004). For instance, WDM measures at times aim to reduce the quantity of water required to perform a particular task, adjust tasks to make do with less (or lower quality) water, and stop or minimize water losses during distribution (Baroudy et al., 2015; Brooks, 2006). Some examples include water metering and volumetric pricing, efficient water dispensers, system retrofitting, water-use restrictions, and water-saving campaigns (Brooks, 2006). Despite the potential benefits, WDM adoption has implications regarding water access, affordability, and related equity concerns (Araral & Wang, 2013; Zapana-Churata et al., 2022). The processes involved in choosing WDM policies, the policy instruments and the changes that come with the adoption can thus negatively affect how certain water users participate in, and benefit from such policies and programs.  Moreover, differing social groups and communities may not experience these impacts equally. Studies have examined the negative impacts of WDM policies on water access and affordability for low-income households, communities of colour, and people on fixed incomes. For example, in the Metropolitan region of Sao Paulo, Ruiju et al (2007) discovered that poor people spent 4.2%\u20134.7% of their income on water while the rich spent only 0.4%\u20130.5%. The authors found that these disparities were due to the introduction of a volumetric pricing structure that overlooked issues of household income levels in rate determination. In a similar example, for many years the City of      2 Detroit disconnected water supply to households who owed money on their water bills following the introduction of a volumetric rate structure (Taylor, 2020). The author further indicated that the city restored water to over 3,000 households over public health concerns during the COVID-19 outbreak. Tanto (2021) also found that 63% of residents in Bambili suburbs in northern Cameroun resisted the installation of meters because the residents were not consulted prior. According to the author, residents\u2019 opposition to meters was because they perceived metering as a money-making ploy by the Water Authority of a public water system, which, to them, was inappropriate and criminal (Tantoh, 2021).  While it is at some level intuitive that most of the studies reporting on the equity impacts of WDM policies are sited in drought-prone and water-scarce areas and regions, such as Cape Town, South Africa and California, USA (Berk et al., 1993; Mahlanza et al., 2016; Tanverakul & Lee, 2015; Wilson & Pereira, 2012), there is nonetheless a need for work focused on other regions and contexts. A synthesis review of the literature shows that very few studies were conducted in contexts considered to have relatively abundant freshwater such as British Columbia (see Chapter 2). More studies are needed in these areas to address potential water challenges because (i) climate change is increasingly causing pollution, physical shortages, and increasing water demand and (ii) evidence shows that access to potable water remains a significant challenge, especially for certain groups (Meehan et al., 2020). Meanwhile, some documentation has shown that local governments across the province are adopting various WDM measures to promote conservation and reduce usage (Gower & Barrorso, 2019; Warren & Lulham, 2021). This adoption is likely linked with provincial directives and recommendations, including those on institutional, commercial, and industrial (ICI) metering, conservation campaigns, and mandatory restrictions (Government of British Columbia, 2023). Prior to this thesis, there is no known research focused on the province of British Columbia that examines the level of adoption and the equity implications of such policies and programs at present. In this way, this thesis contributes to broader debates on WDM and equity globally, but also helps to fill a need in terms of more research from high-income and perceived water-rich contexts where research shows incidences of water insecurities (Meehan et al., 2020). Added to this knowledge gap is the inconsistency and diverse ways WDM scholars and practitioners define and determine (in)equity. Several definitions and notions of equity, such as equality, vertical equity, and social equity, exist in the literature (K. Osman & Faust, 2021; K. K.      3 Osman et al., 2023; Wooldridge & Bilharz, 2017). Sometimes, equity is construed as a situation where everyone is treated equally, irrespective of different identities, needs, and capabilities, while vertical equity considers these diversities when appropriating goods and services (K. Osman & Faust, 2021). In applying the former notion of equity, water users pay for water according to the quantity consumed without considering the water needs or abilities of users to pay (Barber\u00e1n & Arbu\u00e9s, 2009; M. \u00c1. Garc\u00eda-Vali\u00f1as & Su\u00e1rez-Fern\u00e1ndez, 2022). Others interpret and apply equity along social justice principles. According to this understanding, equity means justice that goes \u201cbeyond the written laws\u201d (Rutledge, 2002). The underlying principles of this notion of equity are fairness, justice, and redress of systemic barriers in administering public institutions, policies, and resources for the betterment of all (Norma & Svara, 2015; Walker, 2012b).  The diverse ways of defining and determining equity has led to the use of different variables and indicators to measure and address inequities (K. Osman & Faust, 2021; Stevenson, 2019). For instance, some authors have focused on water affordability, access, and participation (Berhanu et al., 2017; Stavenhagen et al., 2018; Teodoro, 2018). Those looking at affordability as an equity issue have offered diverse metrics in determining equity, including normative metrics (e.g., affordability ratio, residual income) based on the benefit or ability-to-pay principle as the appropriate instruments to measure equity (Goddard et al., 2022), using a percentage of household after-tax income in paying water bills (Sebri, 2015), and considering the cost of alternate coping strategies (Amit & Sasidharan, 2019). The data and information (including water rates, bills, consumption, and income levels) supporting these metrics can sometimes be considered abstract and disconnected from human subjects. Meanwhile, others consider that issues about inequities and inequalities are value-laden and can be best understood from the perspective of those directly involved, such as policymakers or the most at-risk groups. Otherwise, we may proffer \u201cfalse solutions\u201d that can further worsen the disproportionate distribution of impacts (C\u00f4rodova et al., 2023).  In the following literature review synthesis, I use a policy analysis approach to understand equity through the insights and perspectives of water managers and policymakers. The research participants include municipal mayors, chief administrative officers, and public works officers (e.g., planers and engineers). Within the local government structure in British Columbia, these are the officers with institutional influence and responsibility including water (demand) management.      4 Mayors and council members are political figureheads who formulate and approve by-laws, policies and programs that guide the administration of the local government area (Union of BC Municipalities, 2006). The chief administrative officers supervise the day-to-day administration of their jurisdictions, and public works officers (e.g., engineers, planners, water system operators) directly plan, construct, operate and maintain the water systems (ibid). The differences in roles, authority and responsibilities regarding water management among the three (3) groups of participants could have potential qualitative differences between the responses by mayors, CAOs, and public work officers. This thesis focuses on policymakers, allowing us to understand how WDM policies affect water access and affordability in residential water use. However, focusing on the perspective of water policymakers might also make some questions less answerable, hence, the analysis and findings should be used with this caveat in mind. I acknowledge that other studies could instead, examine equity using policy documents or from the perspectives and insights of residents and communities directly affected by these policies. In summary, this thesis addresses three major gaps: (i) the absence of a synthesis review of how equity is conceptualized and impacted by WDM and associated conservation efforts in the water governance field, (ii) the lack of research on the adoption of WDM, specifically to the context of British Columbia, Canada and also more generally for regions perceived to be water-abundant, and (iii) the inconsistent definition and limited research on the equity implications of WDM and conservation, most notably in perceived water-rich contexts. Addressing these gaps can expand and enhance scholarly understanding and integration of equity goals in WDM. The study was conducted at multiple scales and engaged mixed methods \u2013 a global literature review, a regional focus on trends and shifts across the province of BC, and interviews and follow-ups in selected jurisdictions working specifically with residential metering. I first conducted a synthesis review to show how equity is conceptualized and applied in WDM literature. The synthesis review shows the global adoption pattern and the equity impacts of WDM policies. It also shows how these measures, especially economic\/financial tools, often increase water costs for low-income households, sometimes leading to supply disconnections (Chapter 2). Second, I analyzed a province-wide survey to examine and understand the progress of WDM policies across the province of British Columbia (Chapter 3). The survey results show growing adoption of WDM policies, especially non-financial tools and policies initiated by upper-level governments. Finally,      5 based on expert interviews with key policymakers, I found that metering residential water connections is rising, but affordability is an issue for certain groups. As well, local governments perceive equity more like equality when implementing residential metering programs, which can affect how they work towards achieving equitable water access (Chapter 4).  The rest of this chapter is structured as follows: Section 1.2 details the research questions, indicating the sub-questions and how the research questions are examined for each subsequent chapter. Section 1.3 specifies the study location, highlighting the geographic, social-demographic, and water governance structure of the province. I have also emphasized the increasing impact of climate change on water resources and the rising water demand due to rapid and extreme weather events as major reasons for selecting British Columbia for this research. Section 1.4 provides the conceptual underpinning of this study, explaining the variability of water conceptualizations, which complicates efforts to manage it. Section 1.5 highlights the conceptual keystones of WDM and equity as key concepts in this study. Tracing key debates, we understand that the \u201cmodern water\u201d paradigm and the neoliberal shifts post-1980 have been dominant influences on WDM policies. Equity issues were more prominent in public administration to increasingly engage critical issues over the process, outcome, and redress for historical marginality are highlighted. Section 1.6 provides a summary of the methodological approach to the research. This includes the philosophical assumptions foregrounding the study and summaries of the various methods for each research question. A more concise description of the data collection, analysis, and reporting procedures for the research questions is provided in each chapter. Section 1.7 summarizes the overall contributions of this research to water management knowledge and policy practice. Finally, I declare the positionality I assume in conducting this research as a visible minority in a predominantly white settler colonial context, which could affect the outcomes and interpretation of this study in section 1.8. 1.2 Research questions Three major questions were explored to address the lack of a synthesis review on how WDM conceptualizes equity, and the limited research on the progress and equity implications of these policies and their associated implementation in BC.       6 1) What are the equity implications of implementing water demand management (WDM) policies? In Chapter 2, I used a structured protocol to search, screen, review and synthesize (i) how the scholarly literature conceptualizes equity, (ii) what WDM policies are being adopted and reported, and (iii) how WDM affects water equity for drinking water users.  2) What is the adoption progress of WDM policies in British Columbia? I address this question in Chapter 3 by exploring four (4) themes: (i) how jurisdictions prioritize, (ii) plan, (iii) invest in, and (iv) implement various WDM policies. I administered surveys with water managers in 94 local jurisdictions and performed descriptive analysis to show the proportions of jurisdictions prioritizing, planning, investing in, and implementing WDM policies.  3) How do local governments conceptualize and consider equity implications of residential water metering programs in British Columbia, Canada? I combine province-wide surveys and semi-structured interviews in 21 metered jurisdictions (i) to examine how water managers and policymakers conceptualize equity, (ii) to identify how metering potentially affects water access and affordability, and (ii) to identify ways of addressing inequities. The next three (3) empirical chapters include details on the relevant research question(s), the data used to address them, and the methods used to collect and analyze the data. See Table 1.2 for a summary of the methodological approach (including the sub-questions, the analysis scale, and the methods) in answering each research question. Table 1.1 below is a schematic summary of the dissertation.             7 Table 1.1: Summary of the conceptual and methodological processes and conclusions of the dissertation. Research Question What are equity implications of WDM?  Purpose of the Study To understand: a) How equity is conceptualized and impacted by WDM and conservation. b) The adoption and progress of WDM in British Columbia (BC) c) The equity implications of residential metering programs from policymakers\u2019 perspective Methods Chapter 2 Synthesis review of the literature  Chapter 3 Descriptive and inferential analyses  Chapter 4 Descriptive and Thematic Analyses  Research findings\/conclusions a) Equity is often misconstrued as equality by water managers in the province, which affects how they pursue it in WDM  b) WDM adoption is rising in British Columbia, and affordability remains a key concern. c) A reframed equity and participatory planning process can be important in mitigating water equity challenges.   1.3 Study context This dissertation utilized a multi-scalar, mixed-method approach in addressing the research questions. It began with a synthesis review of how WDM literature conceptualizes equity, and the equity implications of WDM policies. The empirical research is focused on British Columbia, Canada. A brief description of the physical features, governance institutions, and management systems of the study location can help in understanding the context and justification for the study focus.   British Columbia (BC) is the country's westernmost province with a unique local governance system, including Indigenous relations and water management. There are currently 161 municipalities, ranging in population from 100 to over 630,000 people and from 63 to over 8,500,000 hectares in land size (British Columbia Ministry of Municipal Affairs., 2023). It also      8 has 27 regional districts with populations between under 4,000 and over two million people and total land sizes between 2,000 and 119,337 km2 (ibid). Most regional districts serve federations nesting several municipalities, electoral areas, and, in some cases, Treaty First Nations. Often, regional districts serve as political and administrative frameworks in managing and providing services such as fire protection, recreation, waterworks, and emergency telephone services. In unincorporated communities, regional districts act as the local government. They are administered by a Board composed of elected directors from each electoral area and council members from municipalities. Below the regional district level are independent municipalities, cities, and towns that elected mayors and council members manage. In some instances, towns and villages are administered by volunteers as leaders. But in almost all these structures, administrative staff, including the chief administrative officer, planners, and engineers, are hired to perform the day-to-day activities of the jurisdiction. Figure 1.1 shows the map of British Columbia with the locations and boundaries of the regional districts.       9  Figure 1.1: Map of British Columbia showing regional districts and watersheds.  Source: Author with support from UBC cartographer   Water management in the province is diverse. The provincial government regulates freshwater use and licencing, but water rights and reservations for Indigenous communities are federal responsibilities (Bakker et al., 2018). The oppression and dispossession of Indigenous peoples and      10 their self-determination by the colonial settler state has serious challenges for First Nations, including land ownership and water rights (Von der Porten & De Lo\u00eb, 2013). About 95% of the province of British Columbia is unceded traditional First Nations territory, except for a few treaties, including the Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement in 2009 (B. C. Treaty Commission, n.d.).  This forceful occupation and imposition of colonial governance systems also denied Indigenous peoples the right to govern and have access over water resources leading to serious safety and quality issues in most reserves (Bakker, 2015; Bakker et al., 2018). Access to water rights and reservations in the province operates under the First in Time, First in Right (FITFIR) System, allocating \u201cwater at the rank order of license holders\u201d (Bakker, 2015). Even though Indigenous people were \u201cFirst in Time,\u201d many First Nations are not included under the FITFIR (with a few exceptions, ibid). Bakker (2015) further reiterates that this can be a problem, especially when legal recognition is required as proof of rights of access in times of water scarcity. This historical overview on the challenges that Indigenous people face regarding water rights, governance and safety are important considerations. No First Nations were included in the study, given the different responsibilities and pathways.  Across the province, regional (water) districts produce and transport drinking water at wholesale prices to municipalities, cities, and communities for redistribution to end-users within their jurisdiction (Metro Vancouver, 2019). In most cases, they also manage institutional, commercial, and industrial (ICI) water use and provide general guidelines on water conservation (Sunshine Coast Regional District, 2020). For example, the Greater Vancouver Water District, among other things, provides treated water to 18 municipalities, one Electoral Area and sc\u0259\u1e83a\u03b8\u0259n m\u0259stey\u0259x\u02b7 (Tsawwassen First Nation) within the Lower Mainland (Metro Vancouver, 2023). Municipalities, towns, and communities then manage domestic water supply, including the redistribution and implementation of WDM policies. The federal government offers guidelines on drinking water quality, and the province is mandated to provide drinking water, but in practice, local jurisdictions perform water management and service delivery (Dunn et al., 2014).  Why did I focus on drinking water in \u201cwater-rich\u201d British Columbia?  British Columbia was selected for multiple reasons: even though the province is perceived as a water-rich region in Canada, with about 20% of the country\u2019s freshwater, recent events and research have shown incidences of droughts and water scarcity. The province has been      11 experiencing erratic and rapidly changing climatic conditions over the past few years. For instance, within a short period, a record-breaking 46.60C was recorded, with wildfires ravaging the Village of Lytton, heat domes killing over 600 people, and floods sinking houses and properties in the Abbotsford area.2 These extreme events have compounding impacts on water supply, including reducing and polluting freshwater sources, increasing water production costs, and growing demand for cooling and cleaning purposes. A 2019 report shows that about 63% of British Columbians live in water-stressed regions, and the population in these areas is fast growing at higher-than-average growth rates (Gower & Barrorso, 2019). The province has had a yearly average population growth rate of 1.5% since 2011\/2012 and 3.1% between April 2022 and April 2023, primarily due to international migration (BCStats, 2023). The report further indicates that more than half are non-permanent residents who are active working-class people with the potential to demand more water. According to the same report, most of the growth happened in big and populated areas such as Greater Vancouver (2.8%), Central Okanagan (2.8%), and Capital (2.2%). These regional districts already have mandatory restrictions in place due to droughts or high demand in the summer. British Columbia also has one of the highest total daily water consumptions (for all life activities) per person in Canada. For example, in 2021, each person within the residential sector used an average of 286 litres of water, which is above the national average of 223 litres per capita per day (Statistics Canada, n.d.). It was even higher in 2017 (~291 lpcd), and planners suggest the reduction between 2015 and 2019 is due to the adoption of WDM policies despite a 10% increase in population over the same period. Figure 1.2 shows the trend of both average total and average residential water consumption in the province over the years.   2 Between 2021 and 2020, the province witnessed severe and diverse extreme weather events: Forest fires, high temperatures, floods, and even snow at some point.       12  Figure 1.2: Changes in water consumption (lcpd) in British Columbia.  Source: Statistics Canada These pressures have increased the attention, advocacy, and interest in adapting to climate change in the water sector through WDM policies in the province (Government of British Columbia, 2023; Metro Vancouver, 2019). Thus, jurisdictions are taking adaptive and mitigation measures, including implementing water conservation and drought management plans (City of Langley, 2017; District of Sunshine Coast, 2019; Metro Vancouver, 2021). While individual jurisdictions may adopt, assess, and record the progress and impact of these policies, no province-wide evaluation exists (as far as I am aware). Additionally, how these policies affect water access and affordability in the province is still largely unknown. The need to address these knowledge and practical gaps premise the conduct of this research. While my approach and methods allow me to answer these questions only partially, I hope that this is a step in the direction to better understand this situation and its associated equity implications. 1.4 Conceptual frameworks  This section explains how and why water managers are interested in managing water demand. The second part provides a literature synthesis of how equity has been interpreted and applied in water governance and management over the years. Doing so helps engage with the two major concepts of the dissertation: water demand management and (social) equity. 543 520 508 503 472 465312 299 301 291 274 286 - 100 200 300 400 500 6002011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021Average LCPD Average Residential LCPD     13 1.4.1 Historizing water demand management Water scholars have presented different ideas and interpretations of water, and this has influenced how water is valued and managed (Linton, 2010a, 2010b). Two critical recent frameworks and ways of describing water exist in the literature that are important to assess current formal water governance in the province of BC. The \u201cmodern water\u201d paradigm presents water as a physical, quantifiable substance with value only in use and exchange (Linton, 2010a). It gives an abstract idea of water, detaching it from all forms of human influence or relations. As a result, following this framework, particular solutions to water insecurity, such as improvement in water infrastructure systems and financial stability, are often preferred over governance-related ones (Erensu, 2015; Gleick et al., 2002). Over decades, this abstract idea of water invited substantial investment in supply-side \u2013 including the construction of large dams and high-water consumption plants and industries, depleting more water resources, and possibly undermining the water rights of the commons (Postel et al., 1996; Varghese, 2015; Worster, 1985). Within this framework, water is commonly perceived as a tradable good that has value only in use or exchange (Hukka et al., 2010; Zetland & Gasson, 2013). Therefore, it permits the use of market mechanisms in allocating and distributing water resources and service delivery. Later in this section, I highlight how water demand management can be associated with this conceptualization of water.  More recently, political ecologists have invited greater attention to the human element to the ways that we can understand and manage water. They posit that water and society are interdependent, engaged in a social-natural process influencing each other over space and time (Budds et al., 2014). The hydrosocial cycle framework acknowledges the influence of humans in the natural flow of the hydrologic cycle, suggesting people and politics are central in identifying and resolving water problems (Boelens et al., 2020; Hommes et al., 2018). Proponents of this idea critiqued the abstract way of understanding water since it can divert attention away from important causes of water insecurity \u2013 the politics and governance of water (Budds et al., 2014; Linton & Budds, 2014). Boelen and colleagues emphasize the social, economic, and political systems that superintend the development, distribution and allocation of water and water resources (i.e., who has power over water, what quantity, how and who pays), which can cause inequities in water use and access (Boelens, 2014). It also accords water some social or public good characteristics, including attributes of non-excludable and non-rivalrous (Elder et al., 2019; Ostrom & Ostrom, 1977). These      14 characteristics of the hydrosocial cycle framework can draw the attention of water managers to potential inequalities and inequities around decision-making, power, and influence. These interpretations of water\u2019s composition and what it means to different people significantly influence the type of governance frameworks and management approaches. Rather than seeking to deeply explore available ontologies of water, I focus on drawing the link between the western way of thinking about water and the associated criticisms, including the influence on water demand management approaches.  Returning to modern water, we can connect the attributes of this abstract idea of water to market environmentalism, which further supports ideas and approaches of water demand management. Generally, the 1980s was a prominent period when the state withdrew or reduced its active role to supervising and regulating the market, while the market took center stage in developing, allocating, distributing, and providing goods and services to the citizens (Larner, 2000). Proponents believe that if water management components, including the institutions, organizations, and governance, were restructured in a similar way, managers could ensure efficiency, effective use, conservation, and equity while offering more choices to consumers (Bakker, 2014; Furlong, 2010). The proposed changes widely vary in form and scope \u2013 including privatization, marketization, corporatization, commercialization, deregulation, and decentralization (for details on neoliberal reforms, see Bakker, 2007; Furlong, 2010). They believe market tools would introduce competition, which will get the best utilities to take charge and provide quality services by reducing system redundancy and ensuring financial expediency. That way, profits can be reinvested to expand water supply to more neighbourhoods (Araral, 2009; Heynen et al., 2009). These assumptions and reasons support water managers\u2019 interest to adopt WDM tools to distribute and regulate water use based on those who can afford or to the highest productive users (Anderson & Leal, 2019; Bakker, 2014). In supporting this proposition, Tate (1989) posits that water managers should prioritize responding to \u201ceconomic demands\u201d for water and not universal requirements of supplying water to any form of demand. They further suggest conserving water using WDM tools means prioritizing the needs and well-being of future generations (Baumann et al., 1984). However, water scholars have serious issues with these viewpoints and ideals of market environmentalism.  Among other criticisms, some scholars have challenged the metrics used in determining what constitutes productive use, who determines it, and how to economically value water resources      15 (Bakker et al., 2018; Dunn et al., 2014). To some, conservation is a political gimmick by a few wealthy white people to impose neo-colonial powers to suppress poor communities while they exploit the environment to live lavish lifestyles (West, 2005; West et al., 2006). Be that as it may, it is obvious that social and environmental changes are depleting water resources, which requires conscious efforts to conserve and optimize usage (De Young & Robinson, 1984; Kayaga & Smout, 2007; Renwick & Green, 2000). A more detailed account of various WDM measures and how they affect water access and affordability is provided in Chapter 2. This section also underscores how market environmentalism influences the narrow way of interpreting water by the modern water framework which presupposes the use market tools to manage water, including water demand management.  My research elects to use WDM even though the term closely relates to water conservation with slight differences. Some scholars treat them as independent concepts, but many see them as interrelated and deeply intertwined in ideology, disciplinarity, scope, and purpose. While water conservation focuses on reducing water losses and wastage and protecting existing water resources, WDM emphasizes reductions in water usage through policies and actions by utilities and end-users (Kusena et al., 2016). Despite the slight differences, Kusena et al. (2016) have observed and treated WDM as an aspect of water conservation.  Meanwhile, the introduction of governance failures as part of water\u2019s problems draws water manager\u2019s attention to key inequities in water use and access. The next section discusses how water management and conservation scholarship conceives and engages equity. It also highlights the type and dimension of equity I use in the dissertation.  1.4.2 Reframing the equity concept This section provides an overview of equity, advancing various debates and schools of thought, and how it is conceptualized at multiple scales in the water sector.  Equity, as a concept, has evolved beyond and even within public service administration to concerns of fairness, justice, morality, ethics, and equality in distributing and managing resources (Wooldridge & Gooden, 2009). Wooldridge and colleagues have emphasized how equity issues were limitedly concerned with racial injustice and civil rights abuses over experiences of government institutions by Americans from different vulnerable backgrounds (Wooldridge &      16 Bilharz, 2017; Wooldridge & Gooden, 2009). Public administrators executing governments\u2019 social contracts with the people through policies and programs were primarily blamed for the discriminatory distribution of health facilities, schools, decent housing, and even jobs (Johnson & Svara, 2015; Norman-Major, 2011). But later, scholars like Norman-Major (2011) specifically offered ideas (e.g., refining the definition of equity, measurement, and inclusion in curriculums) on how to elevate social equity within public administration into the higher-order pillars of economy, efficiency, and effectiveness. This and several other suggestions led to the expansion in defining equity within public administration to include fairness, justice, and equality in distributing and redistributing resources according to need (Norma & Svara, 2015). This expansion has transcended several other areas of environmental governance and resource management.  The progress of equity issues in water governance is further complicated by the different ways of describing water. Water\u2019s unstable physical state (e.g., liquid vs. snowpacks, across state or even international boundaries), the benefits society derives from water (e.g., intrinsic vs. relational), and other geo-politico-economic factors play significant roles in knowing its true nature (Bakker, 2007; Robinson, 2013). Because of these uncertainties, scholars, and water managers, for example, sometimes face challenges in categorizing whether water is an economic good, or a private or a common-pool resource. This categorization has implications regarding the kind of equity claims water users can make from managers, which range from \"rights\" to \"needs\" to \u201cwants\u201d (Walker, 2012a). Considering this range of equity claims, the suggestion is that researchers are entreated to specify the contexts within which they are making water equity claims. Noting these disparities, Walker (2012) further suggests that equity should be more than just observing patterns of inequalities into the details of procedure and recognition in order to identify, recognize, and make claims of unfairness and injustice. Environmental justice literature highlights four major dimensions of equity: distributional, procedural, recognition, and intergenerational. Distributional equity concerns how resources, costs, benefits and burdens, and rights over water (use) are shared among a population (Leach et al., 2018). Procedural equity involves the examination of people\u2019s involvement in the processes (rulemaking and decisions) embedded in sharing developmental outcomes (Adams et al., 2018; Priscoli, 2004). Recognitional equity means the acknowledgement of and respect for human differences, consideration of knowledge systems, rights, and values of diverse stakeholders by institutions (Seigerman et al., 2023). Yet, another aspect of equity refers      17 to intergenerational equity, which emphasizes that resource development should meet the demands of the current population without compromising the ability to meet the demands of unborn generations (Davidson, 2012; Frederickson, 2015). This equity dimension posits that the present generation benefits from a planetary legacy handed down by past generations and hence owes a duty to do the same (or even better) for the future (Collins, 2007). This element of equity is important in the context of this research, especially if WDM policies embed the objective to conserve water to provide for the needs of future generations. Many scholars have differently conceptualized and applied these equity dimensions in studying water management systems (Allaire & Acquah, 2022; Phansalkar, 2007; Seigerman et al., 2023).  Water scholars have relied on these definitions and dimensions of equity to probe the implications for water supply. For instance, equity claims can be made by questioning how water managers make decisions in appropriating resources, benefits, and costs (the decision-making process). How these decisions affect water access and affordability for underprivileged groups are concerns often raised in water management (Canfield et al., 2023). So far, scholars have researched and indicated various ways of conceptualizing and addressing inequities in the broader water management literature (see (Ingram et al., 2013; Roa-Garc\u00eda, 2014). They have based their analysis and demand for equity on a number of conceptual and philosophical underpinnings.  The claims that can be made for inequities in water management have some conceptual explanation and tracing. These assumptions include egalitarian and proportionality, freedoms and capabilities, and rights-based doctrines. I have explained below, these interpretative frames and showed how they contribute to the challenges in addressing equity, particularly in WDM. For proponents of the proportionality and egalitarian viewpoint, equity means ensuring that people benefit from resources according to the effort made and the equal treatment for all people, respectively (Syme & Nancarrow, 2006; Wegerich, 2007). This assumption can be seen as problematic because human beings have differences in physical characteristics, socio-economic and historical factors, which then defeats the expectation that access to benefits should be based on the efforts people make. Other challenges of the assumption include potential biases of the metrics in determining the level of \u201cefforts\u201d people make.       18 The rights-based approach is another school of thought that supports the notions of equity. According to this viewpoint, equity manifests within the principle that \"rights-holders can claim their rights and duty-bearers must guarantee the rights to water and sanitation equally and without discrimination (United Nations, n.d.). An example can be observed in the declaration of water as a human right by the UN General Assembly and the UN Human Rights Council in 2010 (UN, 2010; UN-Water, 2014). Scholars have expressed concerns about the \u201crights talk\u201d as rooted in Western ontology, and individualist, among other features, therefore questioning its appropriateness to deal with critical water issues facing marginalized groups (Mirosa & Harris, 2012). Others have described it as a finely scripted framework on paper but swamped with practical challenges (Mehta, 2006; Morinville & Rodina, 2013). Despite these criticisms, Bakker (2010), in her book, Privatizing Water: Governance Failure and the World\u2019s Urban Water Crisis, indicates that the human right to water (HRW) framework is not an end in itself, but a legitimate means to make claims for equity and fairness in water supply (Bakker, 2010b). Bakker further explains that this framework offers some form of \u201cmoral legitimacy\u201d for underserved communities and disadvantaged populations to demand equity and fairness in service delivery from duty-bearers, including state and central governments. While the expansion and philosophical foundation of equity appear to complicate its meaning and application, such nuances empower researchers to choose a particular context appropriate to conceptualize and operationalize equity.  The approaches and decisions at various levels of water management can influence how equity is defined and applied. For instance, how equity is conceptualized and applied is different at the global, regional, state, watershed, and community levels. Water equity on the global stage is often discussed around fairness and justice in (transboundary) water governance, where states are tasked to legislate regulations that elevate access to water as a fundamental human right (Pietz & Zeisler-Vralsted, 2021). However, Goff and Crow (2019) take issue with the narrow focus of the global approach on \u201cthe potability of drinking water\u201d without considering the underlying impacts of water inequities on livelihoods and poverty (Goff & Crow, 2014). At a more localized level, water equity is usually about access to sustainable, quality, and affordable water by all residents within a water service area (Hung & Chie, 2013; Teodoro, 2019). Notably, most localized studies and practices are inspired by global frameworks and commitments, such as the declaration of water as a human right and the Sustainable Development Goal Number 6 (Perry et al., 2021; Prieto, 2021). This      19 overview of the debates, assumptions, and multiple ways of conceptualizing equity offers a better understanding in choosing the conceptual equity framework that best fits in examining the implications in WDM as an emerging management. The next section gives an overview of the research methodology. 1.5 Research methodology 1.5.1 Philosophical assumption of the study It is not uncommon for researchers to identify with a particular philosophical viewpoint foregrounding their way of producing knowledge and knowing reality (epistemology). This section describes the philosophical assumption on which I base my research design and methodology. With the rising uncertainty accompanying current global environmental change and from personal lived experiences from the Global South, I often aim to conduct research that directly proffers practical solutions to societal and environmental problems. This assumption, I believe, strongly aligns with pragmatism. This worldview broadly agrees with social constructivism and focuses more on the problem-solving ability of knowledge production (Proctor, 1998). It has been modified several times, including earlier theorizations on complex ideas about logic (good thinking) to recent revisions that address conflicts between economic development and environmental sustainability (Baird et al., 2016). Water management scholarship has immensely assumed research from this viewpoint, including the emphasis in the World Bank's 2004 Water Resources Strategy, which recommends water solutions to be context-driven and capable of addressing socio-economic disparities. In this study, I assume and identify with the interpretation of pragmatism by Anthony Weston and Bryan Norton as a way of seeing environmental problems as \"wicked problems\" that require creativity to develop integrated policy solutions (Proctor, 1998).  In so doing, this assumption permits me to use various methodological approaches that offer rigorous standards but also flexibility and subjectivity to find rational solutions to societal problems. To pragmatists, \u201ctruth\u201d in knowledge production is achieved if practical solutions are proffered to world problems. As a young researcher in water politics and governance from the Global South, my choice for research projects is influenced by past experiences of the many socioeconomic, cultural, and environmental challenges I encountered growing up. Following how      20 other water researchers foreground their research on pragmatism (e.g., see Baird et al., 2016), I believe pragmatism explicitly supports my research agenda to explore inequities in water demand management employing multiple ways of knowing. Additionally, this research requires an in-depth inquiry to uncover potential equity and justice issues in water demand management policies by engaging with key subjects. As pragmatism permits, a mixed-methodological design involving qualitative and quantitative approaches (e.g., document analysis, surveys, and expert interviews) was employed to explore the research questions. The multiple data sources, datasets, collection procedures, and analysis permitted by mixed-methods designs offer opportunities to analyze and interpret issues from multiple perspectives (Tashakkori & Creswell, 2007). Therefore, this approach allows me to critically explore and better understand water equity and justice issues as local jurisdictions regulate residential water use.  The complexity of water challenges suggests the use of critical approaches to find solutions. Scholars have used natural science ontologies, epistemologies, and frameworks to study inequities in WDM (see Fletch et al., 2022; Osman & Faust, 2021). But as Moon and Blackman (2014) state, natural scientists or engineers engaging in conservation research must first and foremost understand and familiarize themselves with the principles and assumptions else, they will misinterpret the results. As a result, I designed this study relying on social science philosophical assumptions, including critical social theories. Critical social theories oppose logical and political viewpoints and contest the dominance of capitalism while opposing all forms of oppression. It is reasonable to assume water quality issues as engineering problems, but issues around access to affordable water require a critical lens to untangle the inequities and suggest redress for them. For instance, even though the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act was passed in 2012 to address water quality issues in First Nation communities, the failure of institutions to fully engage Indigenous People has continuously stifled the policy (Black & McBean, 2017). The authors employed a critical approach in that study: (i) first to explore the relationship between community members and water, water management and water systems, (ii) involving scholars from diverse backgrounds and four communities across Ontario, Quebec, and Saskatchewan, (iii) using surveys, semi-structured interviews, engagement sessions, and guidance workshops. Similarly, as a policy issue, I first conducted a synthesis review of the literature to understand how equity is      21 conceptualized before zooming in to examine the equity implications of metering programs from the perspectives of water policymakers using various metrics and methods. 1.5.2 Methods overview  This dissertation employed a mixed-methods approach to explore the equity implications of WDM policies. The broader question was, how do we advance equity in water demand management and conservation? While WDM research abounds in the literature, little to no research has explicitly brought together the two concepts. I investigate this question at different levels using multiple methods. The primary research question was simplified into three researchable components: (i) What are the equity implications of water demand management policies? (ii) What is the adoption progress of WDM in British Columbia, and (iii) What are the equity implications of residential metering programs in British Columbia? Through an initial synthesis review, it is clear, the unique ways that WDM literature engages with equity both in theory and practice. Thus, in a few isolated examples, research has discussed the unaffordability of water for low-income households, leading to shutoffs or auction sales of their properties for delinquent water bills (Swain et al., 2020; Teodoro, 2019). These studies only discussed a small part of the equity concept, including water affordability, without first tracing the policy frame, social-historical contexts, and procedural issues resulting in the inequities. Other gaps in the literature include a disproportionate focus on WDM research in industrialized countries, especially in water-scarce contexts, and widespread use of economic tools. I built on these findings to conduct empirical research to understand the adoption progress of WDM and the equity impacts of residential metering programs in BC. I took a policy approach, analyzing WDM policy processes to understand the equity implications of such policies. The target participants were water managers and policymakers, including municipal mayors, chief administrative officers, and public works officers (e.g., planners and engineers) who have institutional influence and responsibility (Union of BC Municipalities, 2006). They superintend the adoption of by-laws and establish policies to guide the day-to-day running of the community, including water (demand) management. As a result, soliciting their views and understanding of equity can help understand how they perceive equity and how their work impacts various equity goals. In doing so, we can identify potentially important points of harmony or departure so we can curate appropriate solutions to address possible equity challenges.       22 The study sought the perspectives of policymakers because (i) they have institutional influence and responsibility and are well placed to provide the relevant information and (ii) they have up-to-date information about the subject matter than policy documents. In literature, scholars have used the perspectives and insights of water managers and policymakers to understand and evaluate water demand policies (K. K. Osman et al., 2023; Spearing et al., 2020). Nonetheless, another approach could mainly focus on analyzing policy documents to understand the progress and equity implications of WDM policies. Even though such an approach could potentially highlight a unique perspective, this research instead relied on the perspectives of water policymakers as human subjects for the reasons stated above. However, the study has occasionally used relevant information from some policy documents to provide context and details and illustrate case examples to advance important arguments. Some of the documents include the provincial Water Sustainability Act, waterworks by-laws, WDM and conservation by-laws and plans, utilities, fees, and rates by-laws, and annual progress reports. These documents contain valuable information (e.g., water rate structures, consumption data, and budgetary allocations) which was used in the discussions.  Consequently, I have categorized the dissertation into three major parts aside from the introduction and conclusion sections, each building on the other. The first part comprises a synthesis review of the literature in Chapter 2 followed by quantitative statistical analyses of the adoption progress of WDM in Chapter 3. In Chapter 4, I conducted an in-depth study in 21 select metered local jurisdictions to understand empirically, the water equity impact of implementing residential metering and program and how to address such challenges. Below are excerpts of the methodology employed to investigate each research question. The methodological details are contained in the methods sections of the individual chapters. Table 1.2 below is a schematic summary of the methodological approach employed in conducting the research for the dissertation.         23 Table 1.2: Summary of the research questions, sub-questions, data sources, and analysis of various chapters.  Chapter 2  Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Research Question What are the equity implications of WDM policies? What is the progress of WDM in BC? What are the equity implications of metering programs in BC??  Sample Sub-Questions How is equity characterized in the literature?  How does WDM impact water equity, and how are inequities addressed? How do jurisdictions prioritize issues around water, WDM and metering?  How to plan for WDM and conservation?  What is the level of adopting WDM in BC?  How does WDM affect water billing, payments, and costs?  How are metering decisions made?  How are stakeholders involved in the program? What motivates initial metering adoption?  Did metering affect water bills, payments, and access?  How do local water managers understand water equity?  Do they have assistive programs to support water bill payments?  Scale  Global Analysis Provincial  Provincial & 21 Jurisdictions Data source Peer-reviewed articles (N = 50) published between 1980-2021 Institutional-level surveys (N = 94) Surveys (94)  Semi-structured interviews (N = 21) Policy documents Methods  Synthesis review of the literature  Descriptive and inferential analysis  Inferential and Thematic Analysis (Structural and Magnitude coding)  1.6 Research contribution This dissertation contributes to critical approaches to the study of water management policies, especially as climate change presses for more innovative strategies to conserve and reduce water usage. Specifically, the study explores the various ways of conceptualizing and addressing water equity issues by providing (a) a synthesis review of the equity implications of WDM policies, (b) a descriptive and inferential analysis of WDM adoption in BC, and (c) an analysis of the equity implications of residential metering programs. It addresses critical gaps \u2013 including how equity is conceptualized and addressed in the literature and by local water managers and policymakers.       24 First, while several studies have discussed the prospects and benefits of WDM policies (Tortajada et al., 2019; Zapana-Churata et al., 2022), very few studies actually explored the impact on water access and affordability on marginalized and vulnerable populations in society (L\u00f3pez-Ruiz et al., 2020). This dissertation may be the first synthesis review of the literature on the equity impacts of WDM policies, highlighting (i) the unique way of conceptualizing water equity as economic or horizontal equity, (ii) the multiple ways various WDM policies impact, and (iii) the increasing adoption of non-financial tools as they support water equity. The review also highlights the need for a reconceptualization of equity in line with social and environmental justice principles to make WDM more socially just.  Second, past surveys have reported on the progress, benefits, and prospects of metering programs in the British Columbia context (Honey-Ros\u00e9s et al., 2016). In exploring the progress, I found that many more jurisdictions are adopting mandatory restrictions, water-saving campaigns, and residential metering programs when compared with the results of the BC Municipal Water Survey 2016. Even there has been high interest in WDM and conservation, considering that many jurisdictions highly prioritize conservation issues and are implementing their water efficiency\/conservation plans. This information can assist water managers and policymakers to appraise their efforts and investments in adopting WDM. Thus, planners, policymakers, utilities, and municipal water managers now understand the impact of these policies and whether further investments and scaling up are worthwhile. As Head (2010) posits, new data or knowledge can improve evidence-informed policymaking and consensus-building on (water) management priorities (Head, 2010). Third, using a mixed-method approach, this dissertation proposes an operational definition of water equity specific to WDM and conservation. Thus, reviewing the different notions of equity in the literature, I propose a more expansive equity definition that includes stakeholder participation and redress for systemic marginality as crucial aspects. Such a definition can enable the operationalization of equity goals in WDM if universal and equitable access to good-quality water remains a global goal. While residential metering holds promise in promoting water conservation and wise use, issues around access and affordability for lower-income households and people on fixed incomes are serious concerns worth addressing upfront. As the WDM discourse progresses, more attention is needed not only in making a business case for it but also in      25 addressing potential equity impacts. Conceptually, this dissertation highlights experiential lessons and practices on water equity issues in water-rich contexts, contrary to conventional literature that often portrays as if water inequities happen only in water-stressed regions. Other scholars have equally shed light on the myth of secured water supply in high-income countries following the literature evidence on water access, quality, affordability, and equitable governance of the resource (Meehan et al., 2020). This dissertation highlights the importance and urgency to plan and incorporate equity issues into WDM and conservation. 1.7 Positionality and reflexivity  My identity: male-identifying, Black African, temporary immigrant, visible minority, and farm-boy, has shaped me as vulnerable but adventurous person, which could affect how I frame and conduct the research. I grew up in a rural, remote farming community in Northwest Ghana, where everyone knew everyone. The little river located a few meters away from our house was our drinking water source and also provided water for our animals. My community did not have the social and infrastructural services I know now as a British Columbia resident. This identity and background had both positive and negative impacts on the WDM research I conducted in British Columbia.  First, I consider my newcomer status as a potential strength in this research. As a visible minority and temporary immigrant in a world-class city like Vancouver, I knew I had much to learn and had to learn quickly. I had to quickly learn issues within the Canadian and BC contexts about local government structures, water governance, and management. Fortunately, my advisors had conducted water-related studies over the years within the region, providing a lot of resources to leverage for my use. For instance, I have extensively reviewed the 2016 BC Municipal Water Survey report, adopted a contact list of local government officials, and adapted part of the survey questionnaire. To familiarize myself with province-specific WDM information, I searched and scanned academic publications, reports, meeting minutes, and websites of local governments. Despite not having fully understood the BC water governance system and being a visible minority researching WDM and conservation, I leveraged these as strengths, especially in my interviews. For instance, I comfortably probed participants\u2019 responses that were unclear to me as an \u201coutsider\u201d      26 to clarify common assumptions and clearly understand the context which local-based researchers could have overlooked. Second, I leveraged past experiences of conducting research in Canada and as a local government officer to navigate some practical challenges. I had prior research experience in the Canadian context from my master\u2019s project focusing on regional-scale water management in Newfoundland3. That experience offered upfront lessons in terms of the language and the appropriate medium of communication. For instance, I got to know that email communication rarely works for rural, remote communities, instead, phone calls and text messaging were preferred. Again, while academic institutions extensively rely on and use Zoom as the preferred online meeting platform, local governments primarily use Microsoft Teams and Blue Jeans. I understand this is not common knowledge for students without community-based research experience. Another attribute was my experience as an officer within the local government service back home in Ghana. Even though this experience was in a developing country context, there are huge similarities in how local governments operate. I exploited this prior knowledge and understanding of how local governments operate, including the power relations among various officers, for my data collection. For instance, in recruiting participants for the institutional survey questionnaire, I sent the requests to supervisors, but lower-ranked officers ended up participating. This is because, some of the participants required approval from their supervisors before giving out institutional information. Obviously, the absence of this experience could make some processes difficult for new and inexperienced students entering the local government system to talk to policymakers and managers.  Third, knowing that my African-accented English language could pose a challenge, I employed multiple strategies to mitigate it. This problem was anticipated in the interviews. Even though the interviews were in the English language, participants from remote jurisdictions who had little-to-no contact with people of my descent frequently asked me to repeat the interview questions. Leveraging on my research experience in rural Newfoundland to mediate this challenge  3 This experience was because I earlier studied for my two-year master\u2019s degree at Grenfell Campus of Memorial University of Newfoundland in Corner Brook. I explored how local jurisdictions in the Belle Isle region, Northern Peninsular, could share and regionally administer water services to mediate financial and human capacity challenges impeding access to good quality and sustainable water supply.      27 beforehand, I prepared and sent copies of the interview questions we will discuss a day or two before the interview day. Sharing interview questions with interviewees in advance is a common research practice often used, particularly for online interviews of this type (Burke & Miller, 2001). Aside from practicing the interview guide with colleagues to enhance flow and to avoid the use of water-related jargon during the interview, I also read out substantive questions directly from the interview guide. This approach was able to minimize the possibility of misunderstanding my accent. Moreover, even the online paid-wall transcription software, Temi, could not transcribe a few portions of my speech. It is important to add that the Research assistants who conducted five (5) interviews for me, four (4) are native speakers of the English Language and one has European accent.  While I lamented over the barriers mentioned, I also confronted and turned them into opportunities in carrying out this research. For instance, the data collection process would be more difficult without the challenges and privileges I had due to past experiences. I also suspect to benefit from sympathetic privilege against the backdrop of being a Black African interested in and researching WDM in an industrialized country. Added to these attributes was the support of my supervisors, research assistants, and local government officials. I also understand the barriers recounted could have affected the knowledge and information I have produced in this dissertation. The dissertation envisioned to generate and share knowledge on how equity goals can be integrated into planning and implementing WDM and conservation. I am confident that I was able to achieve these by (a) showing the multiple ways that academics and partitioners conceptualize and interpret equity, (b) providing the adoption progress of WDM in BC, and (c) showing how residential metering programs can affect water access and affordability for vulnerable populations.  There are validity threats in every research that has humans as subjects. It then becomes the researcher\u2019s duty to put in measures that address or minimize these threats so that the findings are \u201cworth paying attention to\u201d (Baxter & Eyles, 1997, p. 506). In this study, I acknowledge the political nature of WDM and conservation in the province and the potential tensions in discussing the topic. This is partly because of the perceived abundance of freshwater resources and the doubt about the net (financial) benefits of investing in WDM policies\/programs.       28 Addressing Ethical Threats and Challenges In conducting this research, I was careful that the study participants would not be affected adversely in the long run for participating in the research (Miles, Huberman, & Saldana, 2014; Butz, 2008). Being familiar with and knowing that WDM and conservation, especially residential water metering, had become a political and controversial issue in BC, I conducted my fieldwork with caution. Thus, I used an existing mailing list and web-based professional contacts to send recruitment emails requesting participation in the research. I was open-minded, used respectful language, and sent personalized emails matching their various professional designations. For instance, the recruitment email to a municipal mayor was different from that of chief administrative officers and engineers. To ensure my research follows appropriate ethical standards, I first completed the online research ethics course, and was granted a certificate by the Canadian Panel on Research Ethics (TCPS 2: Tri-Council policy statement on ethical conduct for research involving humans). Second, this entire research project was examined and approved by the University of British Columbia Behavioral Research Ethics Board (Ethics ID #H20-00715). Third, participants returned a signed consent form (see Appendix C2) before participating in the interviews. Oral consent was always sought and provided a moment before the start of the study. A Detailed Project Information Sheet and a Semi-Structured Interview Guide were also emailed to participants ahead of the interview sessions. The research information sheet gives the background information and potential benefits and risks of participating.  In the interviews, I notified participants before, during, and after the interview of their rights to refuse to answer a question or withdraw entirely from the study should they feel uncomfortable or unwilling at any period. In reporting the interview results and the entire research findings, I have anonymized participants\u2019 identities by coding and using pseudonyms. These steps were taken to protect or minimize participant risk. In the next section, I have outlined the background, research questions, and methodology for the synthesis review.      29 CHAPTER 2: The equity implications of water demand management policies and conservation practices: A synthesis review  2.1 Introduction  Universal and equitable access to safe, clean, and affordable water is essential to support human health, well-being, and rights. Approximately 2.2 billion people are without access to safely managed water services across the globe, according to the 2023 WHO\/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme report (WHO\/UNICEF, 2023). This lack of water access results from diverse factors, including climate impact and failures in water governance and management (Bakker, 2010a; Haddeland et al., 2014). The literature has highlighted multiple problems, including physical water shortages, pollution, degraded infrastructure, high treatment costs, and increased demand as factors accounting for the disparities in access to sufficient quantities and quality of water (Alcamo et al., 2007; Rogers & Leal, 2010). While some regions seemingly have sufficient freshwater supplies, the increasing demand from population growth, rapid urbanization, competition from multiple uses of water, and consumption patterns linked with affluent lifestyles have together placed substantial demands on available water resources (Elder et al., 2019; Haddeland et al., 2014).  Given all these challenges, water managers and policymakers are increasingly adopting demand-based measures to optimize water usage and promote conservation (Marson, 2021; Otaki et al., 2020; Zapana-Churata et al., 2022). Demand-based measures include tools such as metering and volumetric pricing, conservation education\/campaigns, water-efficient technologies, and legal regulations of water usage (Brooks, 2006; Brooks & Wolfe, 2007). These measures and strategies are collectively referred to as water demand management (WDM). WDM interventions have the potential to benefit utilities in many ways, including revenue generation to recover costs and improve water infrastructure, consumption reduction, conservation, and fair billing and distribution (Ben Zaied et al., 2022; Zapana-Churata et al., 2022). WDM can also lead to reductions in water abstraction from rivers and lakes, which can minimize the damage to ecosystems and biodiversity (Cairns, 2018). Despite these crucial ambitions and benefits, it is often recognized that WDM policies are not neutral and can have economic and social equity consequences for diverse populations (Kiesau,    30 2020; Solis & Bashar, 2022). A substantial body of academic literature has explored the equity impacts of WDM measures. Some studies have investigated how WDM affects water access (Abansi et al., 2018; Ducrot & Bourblanc, 2017) and affordability (Food & Water Watch, 2018; L\u00f3pez-Ruiz et al., 2020), especially for marginalized populations. However, many WDM commentators do not frame or approach these issues through an equity lens. For instance, most WDM studies do not directly focus on equity impacts; instead, they focus on more general impacts of WDM tools, including water consumption, conservation, and some narrow aspects of equity (Ornaghi & Tonin, 2019; Zetland, 2021). Other studies might focus on the equity implications of a single WDM tool (Cantin et al., 2005; Solis & Bashar, 2022). For example, Solis & Bashar (2022) found equity issues such as cost burdens, job losses, and mistrust in assessing the implementation of Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) in Austin, Texas (Solis & Bashar, 2022). Similarly, some literature reviews on WDM and equity only highlighted how to measure and address household water affordability issues (Goddard et al., 2022; Pierce et al., 2021). Even though these examples are helpful, finding and understanding the potential equity implications of WDM policies in a more comprehensive sense remains challenging. Therefore, this research provides a more comprehensive synthesis, learning from diverse sites and approaches. While it is certain that the precise outcomes will vary by context, it is nonetheless useful to gain an appreciation of the range of outcomes and concerns related to WDM from an equity perspective, as doing so can enable a more robust evaluation and assessment of these policies and practices. We can understand how various policies affect water-related equity by bringing together evidence from diverse sites and on various equity dimensions related to water access, affordability, participation, and redress for systemic marginality. The review also synthesizes how the literature attends to inequities in implementing WDM policies. Considering the divergence in conceptualizing equity in WDM literature, I have also proposed a more inclusive conceptualization to guide future work on this important issue. This reconceptualization offered in the latter sections of the chapter, based on an environmental justice perspective, can help researchers and local governments to develop assessment metrics for water equity regarding quality, access, affordability, participation, and redress of systemic barriers (K. Osman & Faust, 2021).  This review chapter aims to understand: (i) how WDM literature conceptualizes equity, (ii) the equity implications of WDM policies, and (iii) the suggestion to reframe equity for water demand    31 management. The overarching research question is: What are the equity implications of water demand management policies? This major question was simplified into two researchable sub-questions: (i) how does WDM literature conceptualize equity? and (ii) what are the equity implications of WDM policies pertaining to the literature?  The chapter proceeds in two parts; the first section provides a generalized overview of WDM literature and lays out key equity debates. The second section then turns to address the research questions by synthesizing the equity implications of WDM. As a result, the chapter is organized as follows: The next section (2.2) presents an overview of WDM, including the various approaches, tools\/measures, and the equity implications of their implementation. In section 2.3, I trace the history and lay out key equity debates. Section 2.4 describes the sourcing process of the records, including the search, screening, exclusion and inclusion, data extraction, organization, and analysis. Section 2.5 reports the results organized and summarized in line with the review questions. Here, I present information on the dominant tools and how they affect water equity. The discussion section highlights key insights from the review, including how most studies frame equity simply as equality, examples of the equity implications of WDM, and how to ensure equitable outcomes. The conclusion summarizes key lessons from the review and recommendations for further research. 2.2 Water demand management  The water community has agreed that the time is right to optimize water usage and conserve available supply. Extreme weather events are depleting and polluting freshwater sources (Nauges & Whittington, 2017; Qdais, 2003), and ongoing industrial development, agriculture, and rapid urbanization are increasing water demand, among other factors (Alcamo et al., 2007; Rogers & Leal, 2010). On the other hand, water and water service rates are typically insufficient to cover the cost or support additional investment to expand supply (Renzetti & Dupont, 2015). These challenges are among other reasons why municipalities and utilities are moving from strict supply-side interventions to demand-based measures to reduce water use (Tortajada et al., 2019; Tracy Mehan et al., 2012). This section reports on the various understandings and examples of water demand management (WDM), including the measures and implementing instruments. This    32 overview can set the foundation to explore the equity implications of various tools as the main focus of the remaining sections of the chapter. Water scholars and practitioners generally approach water demand management (WDM) from various standpoints \u2013including by influencing water users\u2019 behaviour towards what is considered to be more productive\/efficient use, enhancing water infrastructure to prevent losses, or modifying tasks to do more with less or lower-quality water (Baroudy et al., 2015; Brandes & Ferguson, 2004). The diverse ways of conceptualizing WDM can complicate the extent of its scope, as well as linked efforts to facilitate its adoption. For instance, it is challenging to identify what motivates WDM adoption or measure all its impacts, including but also beyond water equity (Smith et al., 2015). Following these challenges, some scholars have suggested that WDM should be redefined within specific contexts so planners can adopt the appropriate tools when assessing the impacts (Brooks, 2006; Xiao et al., 2018). As such, the objectives of WDM in developed and developing countries, or tackling regional or national, rural or urban, and industrial versus residential water use will all be different. These debates have further contributed to the increased nuance required to understand and evaluate the overall impacts of WDM measures. Many definitions of WDM are found in the literature. However, the ones by Brandes et al. (2003) and Baroudy et al. (2015) address both the theoretical and practical components of the concept comprehensively and contemporarily. According to Baroudy et al. (2015), WDM comprises a set of measures that aim to relieve pressure on water resources by inducing wise water-use behaviour, doing more with less (quality) water, and reducing wastewater discharge. This definition aligns with earlier views on the need to employ measures to promote conservation and reduce water usage (Renwick & Green, 2000). Brandes et al. (2003) also defined WDM as a mix of education, technology, price reforms, and regulations to minimize water consumption or defer water use to off-peak periods. Both definitions suggest that policymakers and utilities can use various measures and tools to manage water demand.  Consequently, there are several debates about how to categorize WDM measures. Many scholars have suggested different areas of focus, including the areas to effect the change (consumer behaviour vs. infrastructure), water pricing (pricing vs. non-pricing), implementation instruments (voluntary vs. mandatory), and \u201chard\u201d versus \u201csoft\u201d measures (Abu-Bakar et al., 2021;    33 Stavenhagen et al., 2018). Other scholars have discussed how the type of infrastructure system, water-use type (domestic, agriculture, or industrial), ownership type, socio-economic and geographic, and climatic factors influence how the water community should categorize these policy measures (K. S. Fielding et al., 2012).  I have classified WDM measures under financial, technological, institutional\/education, and regulatory\/legislation (see Table 2.1). This classification is also based on what was used in past studies (see, e.g., (Chappells & Medd, 2008; Kallis et al., 2010). These categories are not mutually exclusive since some measures belong to more than one group depending on factors such as the objective for implementation or the instrument used. For instance, adopting efficient water appliances and devices can be considered a technological tool, yet a financial tool if incentives (rebates) are used to motivate consumers to adopt. I have described these measures below, illustrating how they operate.     34 Table 2.1: Categorization of WDM measures and practices WDM Tool  Financial (Economic) Regulatory\/institutional (enforcement) Technological(engineering)  Education\/behavioural Definition  The use of prices as incentives or disincentives to motivate consumers to reduce water use (cost causative principle). Rules\/policies\/regulations imposed by utilities to influence behaviour or enforce wise water use. The use of efficient devices or improvement to water fixtures to ensure efficiency. Programs (formal and informal) to nudge or influence consumer behaviour toward water conservation Objectives 1. Full-cost recovery 2. Water system efficiency  3. Conservation  4. Water-saving behaviour  1. Conservation 2. Equity  3. Water system efficiency  4. Water-saving behaviour 1. Conservation  2. Water system efficiency 3. Water-saving behaviour  1. Water-saving behaviour  2. Conservation 3. Sustainability  Examples  Volumetric pricing (seasonal rates, IBTs) Rebates for efficient technologies (e.g., toilets, showers, faucets, appliances) Tax credits  Fines and penalties  Sewer and wastewater charges Water use permits Water use restrictions (rationing) Landscaping ordinances  Plumbing codes for new structures  Appliance standards  Regulations and by-laws Metering  System retrofitting  Water-efficient dispensers (dual flush toilets, low-flow faucets)  Water-efficient appliances (dishwashers\/washing machines).  Recycling and Reuse Xeriscape Leak detection and repair Pressure reduction devices Watering timers Soil moisture sensors  Water Conservation in schools\u2019 curricular  Water-saving campaigns, Symposiums, Conferences Media campaigns Community outreach    Source: Adapted from (Brooks, 2006; Chappells & Medd, 2008; Kallis et al., 2010; Qdais, 2003; Savenije & van der Zaag, 2002).    35 It is important to conceive WDM more as a governance concept and less as a techno-engineering framework. Brooks and Wolfe (2007) advise that effective WDM goes beyond modifying water infrastructure or improving technology to influencing consumers\u2019 behaviours (Brooks & Wolfe, 2007). Thus, the effectiveness of WDM requires the support and compliance of water stakeholders, including water users. So, utilities often consider several factors in choosing WDM tools, including the marginal cost of water, price elasticity of demand, household type, household income, type of use (indoor vs. outdoor), and other social-political-economic factors (K. Fielding et al., 2012). As we will see in the sections that follow, these factors and choices have equity implications in accessing municipal water for some users. These challenges and debates about selecting, setting objectives, and implementing WDM measures and the potential impact on water equity motivate this research. I now discuss the various measures\/tools and their contribution to reducing water consumption, enhancing system efficiency, equity, and environmental sustainability. Financial\/economic measures  The use of economic tools to manage water demand is based on the cost-causative or benefit principle \u2013 including the price for a good or service must reflect the cost of delivering it to each user (Beecher, 2020; Zapana-Churata et al., 2022). Thus, economic policies serve two purposes: incentivize efficient\/productive water use or disincentivize water wastage. On the one hand, subsidies, rebates, and tax credits can incentivize water users to reduce discretionary water use or procure efficient dispensing devices and appliances (Garcia-Vali\u00f1as et al., 2014). Studies have found reductions in overall water consumption, including among North Carolina residents who benefited from rebates and high-efficient toilet programs (Bennear et al., 2012). In terms of marginal cost differentials, the study found that implementing these programs would be cheaper than investing in new water sources to expand supply. On the other hand, volumetric pricing (e.g., increasing block tariffs), fines and penalties are used to indicate that water is a scarce or economic resource; thereby, its use has cost elements (Liu et al., 2003; Rogers et al., 2002). The intention is to use the financial obligations to promote wise or optimize water usage. Economic policies have proved to reduce water consumption, at least in the short term, generate revenues for utility operations, and instill water-saving behaviour in some (e.g., outdoor, discretionary) water uses (Ornaghi & Tonin, 2019; Renzetti et al., 2015). For example, in modelling water demand in Cape Town, South Africa, Jansen and Schulz (2006) found   36 that about a 10% increase in water price for all users led to almost the same percentage decrease in water consumption overall and a 3% decrease among low-income consumers. However, if applied indiscriminately, financial policies may have access and affordability implications since they can limit non-discretionary water use, especially for low-income households (Pierce et al., 2021). We address these concerns more in the sections below. Financial or economic policies are dominant in the broader literature with different targets. For instance, volumetric rates are primarily aimed at recovering the cost of delivering water services, ensuring system solvency, fair billing, and promoting conservation (Varouchakis et al., 2018; Zetland, 2021). Despite their widespread use, there are debates about how to quantify the financial incentive of conserving water (Garrick et al., 2020; Grafton et al., 2020). Two main rate structures are common: flat rates and volumetric rates. Under the flat rate structures, water users are charged the same price irrespective of consumption, income level, plot size, or household size (Honey-Ros\u00e9s & Pareja, 2019). Volumetric rate structures usually combine a fixed charge and a variable charge. While the former can easily be set, the latter is based on actual consumption and the unit price of water that can be constant, decreasing or increasing (Li et al., 2017; Sibly & Tooth, 2014). It also means that actual household consumption must be calculated (using meters), and the marginal cost to determine the total price under volumetric rates. One major shortcoming associated with indiscriminately applied financial tools includes increases in water cost burdens for low-income households (Pierce, Chow, & DeShazo, 2020). Table 2.1 shows the full list of WDM tools, including financial policies. Honey-Ros\u00e9s & Pareja (2019) have also provided a comprehensive illustration and comparison of water rate structures among British Columbia municipalities.  Technological\/engineering measures  Generally, water managers and utilities can modify water infrastructure or introduce technologies to help measure, monitor and regulate consumption and reduce system losses. These techno-engineering modifications take the form of whole-system upgrades, retrofitting distribution lines, or using efficient water dispensing devices and appliances. Examples of technologies used to promote water efficiency and conservation include water meters, low-flow faucets, dual toilets, and efficient washers (Garcia-Vali\u00f1as et al., 2014; Ornaghi & Tonin, 2019). These technologies can be implemented through subsidies\/rebates or by enacting laws as regulatory requirements   37 compelling all water users to acquire these devices\/appliances. The literature shows that non-financial measures, such as efficient technologies and conservation campaigns, are more effective in promoting water conservation than financial measures (Tortajada et al., 2019).  Education\/behavioural measures Public and educational campaigns often aim to impart knowledge and skills and motivate behavioural change in society (Meganck, 2010; Xiong et al., 2016). Moreso, water managers and utilities use nudging through education and sensitization campaigns to influence water-use behaviours, particularly among residential users (Katz et al., 2016; Sharpe et al., 2015). The literature shows an increase in education and (social-marketing) campaigns in the water conservation sector (Maduku, 2020). Many scholars attribute the rising adoption to the fact that educational tools are less expensive to implement, are less invasive and resistive by the public, and can create lasting impact as they impart behaviour change (Dietz et al., 2009; March et al., 2013). Either through formal education (e.g., school curricula) or informal campaign activities in the media, festivals, and symposiums, the message is often to educate and sensitize water users on the impacts of water overuse (or wastage) on water systems, residents\u2019 finances, and the ecological footprint (Wang et al., 2019; Xiong et al., 2016). In effect, these mechanisms appeal to peoples\u2019 conscience to conserve water for themselves and for nature. For instance, Xiong et al. (2016) found that young people exhibit good water-saving behaviours the higher they get in formal education in Guangzhou, China. The authors found that 75.9% of young people exhibit poor water-conservation behaviour at the primary school level, and this decreases to 34.4% at the university level. On the other hand, the proportion of young people within the same groups that showed good water-saving behaviour at the primary school level and university increased from 13.4% to 55.9%. This study suggests that formal education can play a role in imparting good water-saving behaviour in people.  Regulatory\/institutional measures In situations of water stress or scarcity, utilities and governments often pass by-laws or regulations to limit the amount and time households can use water. In recent years, the use of these tools has been on the rise, especially in drought-prone regions (Finley & Basu, 2020; P\u00e9rez-Urdiales & Baerenklau, 2020). Examples of regulatory tools include water-use restrictions\/rationing, permits, plumbing codes and standards, and landscape ordinances. These can be temporary measures in response to threats of water shortage or permanent by-laws legislated and applied all-year around   38 or during specific periods (Finley & Basu, 2020). Finley and Basu (2020) indicate water restrictions are common in areas experiencing dryer and hotter summer periods in the industrialized world. According to these authors, the implementation is more effective if jurisdictions have well-designed and functioning building codes, home addressing, and connected water systems. A typical example in Canada is the Greater Vancouver Water District\u2019s summertime water-use restrictions program limiting the days and times households can water their lawns, and violators are charged as much as $250. Water managers can estimate how regulatory policies affect water consumption. For instance, Finley and Basu (2020) observed reductions in summertime water demand in Canadian cities that implemented strict water restrictions between 2000 and 2017. However, there are often challenges in monitoring to ensure compliance and assessing the overall impact of regulatory measures, especially on water cost and accessibility.  Despite the potential benefits of WDM, the implementation of some measures may adversely affect water access by certain groups and communities. As we shall see later in the chapter, the studies have reported multiple effects of various tools on water equity. But before turning to a discussion of those concerns, I provide a conceptual understanding of the dimensions of equity and its framing and composition as expected in WDM and conservation practices in section 2.3. 2.3 Conceptualizing equity  The concept, equity, has evolved over the years, including its application in the water realm. Closely related to environmental justice, early attention to these issues in the North American context highlighted racial injustice in public policy administration in the U.S., addressing issues of fairness, justice, and equality in accessing resources, potentials, and distributing burdens\/benefits in resource management (Norman-Major, 2011; Wooldridge & Bilharz, 2017). This section provides an overview of debates and diverse schools of thought on conceptualizing equity. Scholars have explored equity from several standpoints \u2013including the politico-paralegal, social constructivist, sociological, and environmental dimensions (Tisdell, 2003; Zwarteveen & Boelens, 2014). These epistemological standpoints have attracted different definitions and framings such that no single definition is sufficient to address the varied situations and contexts where claims could be made meaningfully and reasonably (Phillips & Sexton, 1999). Notwithstanding the   39 variations, most definitions engage with values including fairness, justice, and equality. Wooldridge & Bilharz (2017) have argued that equity can be conceptualized as justice \u201cbeyond the written law\u201d to encompass aspects of social life such as relationships, sentiments, and ethics. Sometimes, equity issues are considered as matters of morality, conscience, and law (Svarstad & Benjaminsen, 2020; Syme & Nancarrow, 2001). As social scientists, we can question and examine the impacts of environmental policies by adopting some of these attributes in order to explore equity issues beyond legal frameworks. As such, scholars have suggested the expansion and consideration of equity issues to include critical observations of the process, outcome, and historical barriers, and providing for unborn generations in water resource management (Johnson & Svara, 2015; Seigerman et al., 2023). These equity dimensions can be categorized formally as distributional, procedural, recognitional, and intergenerational. Distributional equity concerns itself with how resources, costs, benefits and burdens, and property rights for water are shared among a population, and procedural equity involves the examination of people\u2019s involvement in the processes (rulemaking and decisions) embedded in sharing developmental outcomes (McDermott et al., 2013; Perreault, 2014). Recognition equity means the acknowledgement of and respect for human differences, consideration of knowledge systems, rights, and values of diverse stakeholders by institutions (Seigerman et al., 2023). Intergenerational equity is when (resource) development meets the demands of current population without compromising the ability to meet the demands of unborn generations (ibid).  Meantime, the conceptual background of WDM \u2013 the belief that markets and market-like tools can bring about effective distribution and efficient and sustainable use of water resources \u2013 conflicts with some attributes of equity. This kind of conceptualization can already defeat matters of morality, ethics, and conscience in managing water demand. In most cases, market mechanisms often prioritize allocations to those who can pay or the productive users and may care less about subsidizing water for people who are unable to pay for it (Bakker, 2014). In water demand management, especially using water rate structures, equity can be viewed from two main perspectives: benefit of service and cost of service. The benefit-of-service idea emphasizes policies and programs that, among other things, aim for economic efficiency in providing water services (Barber\u00e1n & Arbu\u00e9s, 2009). This assumption aligns more with the social equity principle and the belief that water is a social and public good that must be managed for the public's good without discrimination (Bithas, 2008; OECD, 2003). The cost of service aims for fairness in distributing   40 the burdens of paying for collective services and infrastructure (Davis & Teodoro, 2014; Woodcock, 2014). It reflects the principle that the costs of providing water service should be shared across customers in proportion to the costs that each customer places on the collective system (Woodcock, 2014). This is the common equity approach in water pricing for water utility managers in North America since the American Water Works Association (AWWA) published its first treaties on water rates (Committee Report, 1954). According to such a perspective, even though water can be described as a social good, the infrastructure and organizations required to provide potable water services are collective enterprises that must be financed collectively. These dominant ideas foregrounding the use of prices to distribute water have potential issues, especially in terms of limiting water access or increasing costs for certain population groups (Solis & Bashar, 2022; Zetland & Gasson, 2013). The multiple objectives for distributing water and managing demand may conflict at some point, making it difficult to achieve equity. I have discussed these tensions in detail following the literature review in Section 2.6.  Broadening the argument to all WDM policies, studies have reported on potential equity issues regarding water access, affordability, and participation (Solis & Bashar, 2022; Zetland & Gasson, 2013). While these studies contribute to exposing the impacts of WDM on certain groups, it would be helpful to synthesize various evidence from diverse sites and on different equity dimensions relating to WDM implementation. It is also important to understand the nuances around the conceptualization of equity and how it manifests in public policy. As a result, this synthesis review chapter examines WDM policies referencing the various dimensions of equity discussed in this section. 2.4 Methodology and literature selection This chapter follows the guidelines necessary for standard literature reviews in the social sciences (Bramer et al., 2018). I conducted a synthesis review that analyzed how notions of equity are discussed and accounted for in the Water Demand Management literature. I followed a structured search process similar to systematic literature reviews. I used predetermined search criteria, including the research questions, keywords and syntaxes, subject\/topics, year of article publication and Boolean Operators to find the review records. The objective was to address the inconsistencies in keywords, abstracts, and methodologies characteristic of social science research publications (Fuente, 2019; Petticrew & Roberts, 2008). The criterion also helped to conduct a near-exhaustive   41 search for review records in the literature. So, I adopted some aspects of (e.g., search methodology) from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) and the equity extension (PRISMA-E 2012) to make the work transparent, reproducible, and reliable (Moher et al., 2009; Welch et al., 2016). Even though this design is predominantly used in health and medical research, of late, it has been adopted by social scientists (Friedman et al., 2018; Pullin & Stewart, 2006) and water governance questions (Moore et al., 2014; \u00d6zerol et al., 2018).  The review examines whether and how demand management measures and conservation practices affect water equity. To achieve this goal, I created a research question (RQ: What are the equity implications of water demand management policies?) to guide the review methodology. I simplified it into conceptual and practical aspects to establish a logical process and fully attend to the question. The two sub-questions include: (i) how does WDM literature conceptualize equity? and (ii) how does WDM affect water equity, including access, affordability, and participation? I developed a search protocol denoting these questions by three (iii) key concepts (including public drinking water, demand management and equity) to guide the search. I then composed a list of syntaxes for each concept based on my familiarity with the literature, consultation with the school\u2019s librarians, and the bibliographic thesaurus of some included databases (see Table 2.3). To be eligible, the records must be peer-reviewed, published between January 1, 1980, and December 31, 2021, in the English language, and focus on public drinking water, demand management measures or conservation practices, and equity. I have focused on public drinking water supply because current climate change and anthropogenic factors are making it more challenging for local governments to provide adequate water for current and future demand (Haddeland et al., 2014).  I conducted the search between March 2022 and June 2022 for peer-reviewed articles, book chapters and conference proceedings in six (6) leading databases across several disciplines: Web of Science Core Collection; Engineering Village (hosting Compendex, GEOBASE, and GeoRef); Scopus; Agriculture and Environmental Science Database (AESD); PubMed; and Public Affairs Information Service (PAIS).4 I limited the search to this period for the following reasons: (i) WDM  4 Web of Science Core Collection: An index for scholarly research including journals, books and proceedings in the science, social sciences, and Arts & Humanities. AESD hosts in-depth research and comprehensive literature    42 became a germane topic in (urban) water management in the 1980s, both in practice and research, due to the failure and unsustainability of techno-engineered supply-side approaches (Brandes & Ferguson, 2004; Turton, 1999), (ii) the sweeping neoliberalism wave (e.g., in water management), including under Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and President Ronald Reagan of the UK and USA respectively in the 1980s, galvanized focus and attention to WDM approaches, and (iii) the surge in scientific research predicting the rapidly deteriorating global freshwater supplies (Bakker, 2005, 2007; Bernstein, 2001; Furlong, 2010; Goldman, 2005; Heynen et al., 2009). I used the identified corresponding syntaxes of the three (3) keywords and combined them with standard Boolean Operators and parenthesis (e.g., AND, OR) to search multiple times in the \u201cTitle,\u201d \u201cTopic,\u201d \u201ckeywords,\u201d and \u201cabstracts\u201d columns of the six (6) databases. I modified this process according to the standard search guidelines and the proper functioning of the Boolean Operators in each database. These modifications were necessary to address the differences in the meaning, functioning, and applicability of the Boolean Operators in each database. Here is an example of the search string used in Scopus: ((TITLE-ABS-KEY(public water OR Cit* OR municipal* OR public water OR drinking water OR Tap water OR residential water use OR domestic water use))) AND (TITLE-ABS-KEY(\"equity\" OR \"equal water access*\" OR \"affordable water\" OR \"exclusion\" OR \"discrimination\" OR \"impact*\" OR \"burden\" \"marginaliz*\" OR \"poor\" OR \"universal\" OR \"participation\" OR \"fairness\" OR \"justice\")) AND (TITLE-ABS-KEY(\"Water management\" OR \"demand management\" OR \"water supply\" OR \"water restriction\" OR \"water meter*\" OR \"water conserve*\" OR \"water pric*\" OR \"volumetric pric*\" OR \"water tariff*\" OR \"water use regulat*\" OR \"efficient water use\" OR \"efficient water technologies\" OR \"conservation campaign*\" OR \"rainwater harvesting\" OR \"leak repair\")) AND (LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE, \"English\")) AND (LIMIT-TO (SRCTYPE, \"j\") OR LIMIT-TO (SRCTYPE, \"p\")).  Following a similar process in the selected databases, the initial search produced 1,066 records. After eliminating duplicates within the databases (for those with a de-duplication function) and the first round of title reviews, the number was reduced to 453 (excluded 613). These records were  reviews in agricultural and environmental science, AGRICOLA, Environmental Sciences & Pollution Management, and Environmental Impact Statements. PAIS is an index to the literature of public policy, social policy, and the social sciences in general. GEOBASE is a multidisciplinary database supplying bibliographic information and abstracts for human and physical geography, ecology, geology, oceanography, geomechanics, and development studies.   43 downloaded into an Excel Spreadsheet and deduplicated using the \u201cconditional formatting by duplicate values\u201d in the title column (n=100, excluded 353). I used the same search terms to search in the Google Scholar search engine and screened for the first 100 finds. I retrieved 25 records after reviewing the titles and abstracts and added them to the initial list (n=100+25) from the 6 databases. I did a quick scan in the Google Scholar search engine to ensure no relevant resource was missed. But I did not include Google Scholar in the initial search because the review is focused on academic texts (and not grey literature). After a second round of abstract reviews and full-text assessment, 41 records were retrieved. I added nine (9) other relevant articles through citation chaining\/referencing. Table 2.2 summarizes the inclusion and exclusion criteria in retrieving the review records:  Table 2.2: Inclusion and exclusion criteria Inclusion  Exclusion \u00a7 Empirical research focused on Equity and WDM in public drinking water systems \u00a7 Global scope  \u00a7 Peer-reviewed journal articles, conference proceedings, and book chapters  \u00a7 Records published between 1980 -2021  \u00a7 In the English language \u00a7 Records on equity in broader water management (Ducrot & Bourblanc, 2017; Goff & Crow, 2014) \u00a7 Records on agriculture or irrigation water use (Parween et al., 2020; Pott et al., 2009) \u00a7 Records on other impacts of WDM, including consumption reduction, effectiveness and did not attend to equity (Gurung et al., 2014; Monks et al., 2021) \u00a7 Other review articles (Abu-Bakar et al., 2021; Koop et al., 2019) \u00a7 Grey literature sources (US Water Alliance, 2022).  A total of 50 records were used for the final review. Figure 2.1 shows the full search and screening process followed to retrieve the relevant records for the review paper as adapted from Page et al. (2021). The pdf versions of these records were uploaded into an NVivo software and coded using predetermined themes in the protocol. The coded themes included (i) the study design, (ii) WDM measures and conservation practices, (iii) how the study defines and frames equity, and (iv) the equity impacts reported and how to address them. I coded each of these claims as themes according to what is contained in the study.    44 Table 2.3: Databases and search terms combined with Boolean Operators (\u201cAND,\u201d and \u201cOR\u201d).  Concept 1: Public water supply Concept 2:  Demand management  Concept 3:  Equity \u201cPublic water supply\u201d \u201cWater supply\u201d \u201c\u201cpotable water\u201d \u201cDrinking water\u201d \u201cTap water\u201d \u201cResidential water use\u201d  \u201cCity water\u201d \u201cMunicipal water\u201d  \u201cDomestic water use\u201d  \u201cWater management\u201d \u201cWater demand management\u201d \u201cDemand-side management\u201d \u201cWater restrictions\u201d  \u201cWater metering\u201d  \u201cWater conservation\u201d  \u201cWater pricing\u201d  \u201cVolumetric pricing\u201d  \u201cWater tariffs\u201d  \u201cWater-use regulation\u201d  \u201cWater conservation\u201d  \u201cEfficient water use\u201d  \u201cEfficient water technologies\u201d  \u201cWater conservation campaigns\u201d  \u201cRainwater harvesting\u201d  \u201cLeak repairs\u201d  \u201cEquitable water access\u201d  \u201cEqual water access\u201d \u201cAffordable water\u201d  \u201cExclusion\u201d \u201cDiscrimination\u201d  \u201cImpact\u201d  \u201cBurden\u201d \u201cMarginalized\u201d  Poor\u201d  \u201cUniversal\u201d  \u201cParticipation\u201d  \u201cFairness\u201d  \u201cJustice\u201d Note: Boolean operator \u201cOR\u201d used between search terms in each concept (AND between concepts).   45   Figure 2.1: Flowchart showing eligibility and records selection process. PRISMA diagram adapted from (Page et al., 2021).  2.5 Results  Distribution and characteristics of the studies This review uncovered 50 records that fit the eligibility criteria. The journals that published the articles cut across disciplinary boundaries \u2013including environmental and resource economics, urban planning and utility management, development economics, and sustainable development. The most common journal outlets included Water Policy (5), Australian Journal of Agriculture and Resource Economics (2), Utilities Policy (2), Journal of American Water Resources Association, Water International, Water Resources Management, and Water Resources Research. Identification Screening IncludedEligibility 125 full-text records reviewed 100 records 453 record 353 removed: excel de-duplication and  title review 250 records used in reviewWoS =123, Engineering Village =163 AESD = 249, PAIS = 300, PubMed = 175, Scopus =56(n=1,066)84 removed : Abstract & full-text review   613 removed: de-duplication and title review 19 records from reference chaining  25 added: Google Scholar Search  46 All but three (3) of the records were journal articles. A full list and summary of the selected records is included in Appendix A3.  I have shown the yearly distribution of publications from 1980 to 2021 in Figure 2.2. There was a gradual increase in the number of studies that examine both water demand management and equity at some point (2012-2016). It is reasonable to attribute this rise to a period of key global pledges \u2013including the declaration of the Human Right to Water (HRW), the Millennium Development Goals and the Sustainable Development Goal (Sadoff et al., 2020; UN, 2010). These events advocated for Nations to commit to universal and equitable water access without discrimination. They also highlighted the intrinsic linkages between water scarcity and other crises, such as conflicts (Pearson et al., 2021), gender-based violence (Tallman et al., 2022), and death and malnutrition (Leal et al., 2022). As a result, researchers could be interested in investigating the equity impacts of water policies, including WDM and conservation.  Globally, the studies were unevenly distributed, with more than 50% (n=26) in North America and Europe, followed by Asia (n=9), Africa (n=7), 5 were unknown locations, 2 in South America and 1 in Australia. Most studies were conducted in regions experiencing droughts or water-stressed regions. For instance, more than 70% (n=20) of studies in North America were in California, Oklahoma, and Texas. These states are noted to have droughts or water scarcity, which could drive WDM efforts and the focus of researchers (Ananga et al., 2019). A similar pattern occurs in Europe, especially in Spain (e.g., Barcelona, Zaragoza, Alcantara). Even in Africa, the few eligible studies were conducted in notably high drought-prone areas of Bajaia city in Algeria and Cape Town, South Africa.    47  Figure 2.2: Number of WDM and equity studies over the last 40 years. Dominant WDM tools and equity framing  I observed that 77% of studies discussed only one WDM tool, while 23% focused on two or more. Fifty percent of studies explored economic\/financial tools. These studies reported how pricing policies could be used to optimize water usage and promote conservation (Kayaga & Smout, 2014), ensure fair billing and distribution (Renzetti et al., 2015; Schoengold & Zilberman, 2014), and cross-subsidize water supply for poor households (Ismail et al., 2003; Mohamed & Savenije, 2000). A few papers highlighted the water-saving potential of efficient technologies, including slow-flow faucets, dishwashers, leak detection and repairs, recycling and reuse that can ensure long-term sustainable water supply (Ananga et al., 2019; Timmins, 2003). These statistics are important because different measures have different (levels of) potential impacts on residential water use in terms of access and cost aspects. For instance, using financial policies such as volumetric water rates, taxes, fees, and charges to regulate water use is often considered as adding more direct financial burden on residents\u2019 incomes (Pierce, Chow, & DeShazo, 2020). Meanwhile, education policies such as water-saving campaigns are considered voluntary and non-invasive and do not have a direct financial burden on water users when compared with other policies. Figure 2.3 shows the summary magnitude coding results.  11334545312211124211111012345620212020201920182017201620152014201320122011200820072006200520042003200220001998199519941987Number of Records  48  Figure 2.3: Number of studies that discuss various WDM measures.  What equity dimensions were discussed in the included studies? Most studies discussed more than one equity dimension, so the magnitude coding was done to illustrate the frequency of how the literature conceptualizes and reports on equity issues. A study could be coded more than once, thus, under one or more equity dimensions. The dominant equity framing and issues reported bordered on fair billing or volumetric pricing of water. For example, 25 (50%) of articles discussed equity along the lines of paying for water according to actual consumption, irrespective of other differentiating factors. Seventeen (34%) of the studies discussed equity as when water managers consider social indicators such as income, household size, and type of use in distributing and pricing water (see, e.g., (Garc\u00eda-Rubio et al., 2015; Molinos-Senante & Donoso, 2016).  Considering ongoing global discussions on universal and equitable water access, it is surprising that a substantial number of WDM studies frame equity similar to equality. Thus, in 50% (n=25) of the studies, equity is often perceived as \u201cequal treatment for everyone,\u201d thereby applying strictly the pay-per-use principle, where water is charged based on actual consumption irrespective of the ability to pay or the water needs of users. Specifically, Kayaka and Smout (2014) frame equity around the benefit principle, suggesting that water should be priced based on the benefits consumers derive from it (see Table 2.5 for examples of equity issues reported in the studies). Table 2.4 shows the complete list of how the studies frame and report on equity. 411712140 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50Economic\/financialTechnologicalRegulatoryEducationStudy Count WDM Tools  49  Table 2.4: How the articles (50) conceptualize equity with excerpt examples Equity Framing  Code definition Count (%) Exact Excerpt phrases from the studies  Access  Expand or improve water quantity\/quality for unserved and underserved populations and communities  10  (20%) (i) Increased prices reduce the per unit cost of water to poor people (ii) Increases coverage of poor urban and peri-urban populations because additional water is available for extending the system (iii) Reduces reliance by the poor on water vendors\u2026 (Rogers et al., 2002) Affordability  Pricing water using social indicators or support for people who cannot afford it (e.g., cross-subsidize water bills, WDM adoption, etc.)  17 (34%) In this context, equity exists if the water charges distribution per household follows that of income or, in line with the concept of \u2018equity among income groups\u2019 in OECD (2003), if there is a positive association between water charges and household income. - Martins et al., 2013 Equality  Applying the principle of pay-per-use. Pricing and charging for water according to actual consumption without considering other social-economic factors 25 (50%) The allocation of costs among consumers should be proportional to obtained benefits. That is, consumers receiving the same benefits should pay the same costs (horizontal equity), and those receiving different benefits should pay different costs (vertical equity) - Kayaga & Smout, 2014 Participation  Improving or providing opportunities for consumers to contribute to WDM adoption  6 (12%) Community participation is vital for the sustenance and smooth running of the scheme as it provides the scope for the direct involvement of beneficiaries in water supply schemes(Singh et al., 2005). Redress for Marginality  Improving or making structural amends and financial investment to eliminate water access barriers 0 (0%)      50 The equity implications of WDM policies  WDM policies have different equity implications for different population groups. But, the dominant equity issues reported in the studies include water access and affordability issues. Here, many studies reported increases in water bills, water supply shut-offs, conversion of water bills into property taxes that are subsequently auctioned at tax sales, exclusion in decisions, and invasion of privacy (Reniko & Kolawole, 2020; Schoengold & Zilberman, 2014). Table 2.5 gives illustrative examples of how various WDM policies affect equity in relation to water access, affordability, and participation. Even though everybody can be affected by WDM policy measures, the review revealed that low-income households, people on fixed incomes, renters, students, and large-sized families using essential water were more affected than wealthy residents using water for luxury purposes (Zaied et al., 2020). In the review, WDM policies can introduce new water costs through increased rates, purchase of devices, or surcharges in case of violations. Table 2.4 shows details of the equity implications, including the type of policy with specific examples.            51 Table 2.5: Reported equity issues with examples and suggested redresses WDM Tool  Equity issues  Specific examples Economic\/Financial Increased water bills  Water shut-offs Tax sales  Exclusion in decisions \u00d8 In Algeria, Zeid et al. (2020) found that a 10% increase in water bills would result in a 4.8% delay in bill payments. \u00d8 After metering household water and charging volumetric rates, water bills went up by 70 Bolivianos per month across-board in La Paz and Alto Beni, Bolivia. This impact was felt more by certain groups, including students, low-income households, renters, and large-sized families (Cairns, 2018).  \u00d8 In Jerusalem, large-sized families (2 or more members) end up paying high average prices for water under the Increasing Block Tariffs structure, which was intended to ensure equitable billing (Dahan & Nisan, 2007).  Regulatory\/institutional  N\/A* \u00d8 N\/A Technological\/Engineering) Exclusion in decisions Privacy invasion Public exclusion\/resistance  \u00d8 The Southern Water\u2019s Universal Metering Programme (UMP) in England caused low-income households to spend \u00a320\u201323 more on water on a yearly basis (Ornaghi & Tonin, 2019). \u00d8 Due to claims of exclusion from metering decisions, 63% of households rejected the installation of meters in the Bambili community in Cameroon (Tanto, 2021).  \u00d8 With the amount of water used, residential renters experienced increases in bills by up to 30% upon changing to unit-level metering in France. Meanwhile, the aim was to deal with conflicts in collective metering\/billing in condominiums (Barraqu\u00e9, 2011) Education\/Behavioural N\/A \u00d8 N\/A N\/A* \u2013 No specific examples of equity implications of these policies were found in the included articles. Most policies were discussed together with economic or technological measures, so researchers easily report on the latter.  Based on the review, some recommendations on addressing equity concerns have been made depending on the type of WDM policy, the equity issue, and the affected population. For economic\/financial policies, some researchers have recommended that governments redesign water tariffs by consciously lowering the unit tariff for lifeline consumers and providing direct bill assistance programs for low-income and other marginalized populations (Kayaga & Smout, 2014; Martins et al., 2013a). In Andalusia, a relatively low-income   52 area in Spain, Garc\u00eda-Vali\u00f1as et al. (2010) suggested that utilities reconsider and possibly align the fixed elements of tariffs to a wealth index or readjust the minimum threshold, including the block size according to family size or income level (M. A. Garc\u00eda-Vali\u00f1as et al., 2010). Others have also suggested the use of targeted financial support for eligible and deserving households to procure or acquire efficient water technologies such as meters, efficient devices, and appliances. For example, in developing countries where WDM can be unaffordable, especially for low-income households, Banerjee et al. (2010) suggested that governments subsidize metering installation and provide standposts water sources and deliberately reduce the unit tariff for those unable to connect to the network system or living in slums. For all policies, including education and regulatory policies, some researchers have suggested that all the relevant stakeholders, including residents, NGOs, and community organizations, be actively involved, especially in the financial options of the policies (Kusena et al., 2016). These suggestions are claimed to be participatory and aimed at making water affordable even as utilities and governments manage demand.       53 2.6 Discussion  This synthesis review highlights and discusses the equity implication of WDM based on various studies from across the globe. I discuss key insights based on the question and the results in relation to the broader water equity literature in this section (2.6). The main themes discussed include: (i) the literature dominantly conceptualizes equity simply as equality, (ii) various WDM policies have different effects on water equity, (iii) there is growing literature on the use of non-financial tools, and (iv) there is the need to redefine equity for WDM.  Reflection #1: Equity is conceptualized simply as \u201cequality.\u201d The current WDM discourse defines and conceives equity, most often as equality or horizontal equity in distributing water (Rogers et al., 2002; Ruijs et al., 2008). Generally, equity and equality are often misconstrued as if they are synonyms; indeed, they are different concepts. Equity means \u201cfairness and impartial treatment,\u201d while equality refers to \u201cequal amounts to each recipient,\u201d as espoused, particularly in the earlier works of Eckhoff (K. S. Cook & Hegtvedt, 1983; Lucy et al., 1977). Meanwhile, equity means more than the distribution of goods and services based on the needs and capabilities of people; it also pays attention to the process of making and applying policies \u2013 procedural equity (K. Osman & Faust, 2021). This framing is rooted in the environmental justice literature that pays critical attention to the process, outcome, and redress of historical barriers in water resource management (Johnson & Svara, 2015).  However, Table 2.4 shows that most studies emphasize the use of economic policies applying the pay-per-use policy as a potentially important measure to manage water demand. As well, the studies simply assume that equitable water access can be achieved if economic tools are implemented. Conversely, the conceptual background and history of WDM align more with neoliberal ideals known to allocate resources, goods, and services based on this principle using market mechanisms (Anderson & Leal, 2019; Bakker, 2014). Therefore, it is not surprising that equity is mainly framed this way since the primary objectives of most tools are to recover costs, generate revenue, improve the system, and conserve water (Hung & Chie, 2013; March et al., 2017). Studies rooted in these foundations will more likely conceptualize equity as equality.      54 Proponents of this framing perceive that equity is when water managers ensure everyone pays for the amount of water they consume irrespective of the type of use, need or ability to pay (Kumar, 2014). This framing fails to consider other critical factors that might influence water distribution, access, and affordability for various user groups. For instance, disparities in income, household size, and location can affect the water needs and purchasing power of some user groups. Consumers can be affected in multiple ways, including high water bills, shut-offs for their inability to pay or receiving less quality water services. For example, Zaied et al. (2020) found delays in water bill payments in Algeria resulting from a tiered rate structure that increased water bills for low-income households (Zaied et al., 2020).  Aside from this dominant framing, some studies also conceive equity differently, comprising issues around access and affordability. The declaration of the human right to water (HRW) and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG 6) has elevated water management conversations to include access and affordability issues (Mehta, 2006). Based on these global declarations and commitments, it can be expected that researchers and utilities will start to conceptualize and incorporate water access and affordability goals into the analysis and evaluation of WDM policies. Indeed, such conversations are ongoing. For instance, in discussing the social dimensions of water tariffs, Martins et al. (2013) show how utilities and water managers adjust water rates using the \u201cessential minimum quantities\u201d principle in order to provide water to low-income households (Martins et al., 2013a). Although limited, some studies explore the potential complexities in WDM processes, including decision-making, planning and implementation, that can undermine equity. The magnitude coding results show that 12% of studies deliberate on participation as an equity concern. This demonstrates that it is important to pay attention to the process of implementing WDM policies as it can influence the outcomes of policies. As well, the effectiveness of WDM policies largely depends on water users\u2019 participation \u2013including their willingness to adopt and practice, buy-in, and cooperate with utility managers (Kusena et al., 2016).  Reflection #2: WDM policies have different impacts on equity  Each WDM policy has unique equity implications. This depends on several factors, including how equity is conceptualized, the objective and implementation of the policy, and the context of the study. If water managers and policymakers explicitly apply the equality notion of understanding equity, then marginalized and vulnerable populations will more likely be affected by WDM      55 policies. This is because, already, certain groups of people are more vulnerable than others, and if everyone is treated equally, the outcome will be inequitable. Many studies show how different tools affect various groups of consumers in terms of water access, affordability, and participation, but financial tools dominate the list. I have summarized how various policies undermine equity with specific examples in Table 2.4. Financial tools aim to ensure equitable water access through fair billing, cross-subsidization, and expanding water services to poor and unserved populations (Rogers et al., 2002). However, many studies have criticized economic\/financial tools for undermining equity through direct increases in water bills, fines, and, in extreme cases, water shut-offs and lien auctions. These challenges may arise from the inability to estimate the size of households and water-use dynamics, including the price elasticity of water demand, which volumetric rates particularly rely on (Schoengold & Zilberman, 2014). The demand, especially for non-discretionary use, is mainly price-inelastic (Garc\u00eda-Rubio et al., 2015). Thus, a change in price may not necessarily lead to a (significant) change in consumption level. This raises serious questions about equity and fairness in using prices to regulate water use among user groups with different economic statuses \u2013 including high-income and low-income households. The studies show how water rates can increase water bills for low-income households and supply disconnections for non-payment (Singh et al., 2005). For example, Zaied et al. (2020) analyzed household-level data in Algeria and found a new Increasing Block Tariff (IBT) was responsible for delays in bill payments (Zaied et al., 2020). Their results show that a 10% increase in the marginal price of water would delay bill payments for an extra nine (9) days.  Financial\/economic incentives, such as subsidies, tax credits, and rebates, could be used to reduce the cost burden or expand water to poor and underserved populations. However, they can be regressive in some cases, especially when utilities are unable to address the challenges in targeting and identifying deserving households, revenue generation, and availability of household-level data. For example, in their study, Nauges and Whittington demonstrate, in a hypothetical community, how Increasing Block Tariffs (IBT) could not benefit the intended and deserving low-income households even though utilities made huge profits due to challenges with targeting (Nauges & Whittington, 2017). In some cases, the subsidy to the lowest block rate does not exclusively benefit people experiencing poverty. This is because some poor people are not able to      56 afford the lowest block rate, and in developing countries, they cannot even afford connection to the piped services into the housing unit (Banerjee et al., 2010).  The synthesis review also demonstrates that other WDM measures, including water technologies to promote efficiency, negatively affect water consumers regarding extra cost, privacy invasion, and complications in adoption. For instance, some studies show that installing unit-level water meters is seen as invading personal privacy since engineers enter private apartments to fix meters, especially during the COVID-19 period. Some new technologies aimed at optimizing water usage or preventing losses are sophisticated, expensive to procure, and take time to adopt by non-expert consumers (March et al., 2017; Ornaghi & Tonin, 2019). As a result, if utilities introduce such technologies, non-expert and low-income water users may not necessarily benefit from them, especially as compared to more informed and wealthy residents.  Even though public involvement may be crucial in achieving public support, especially for user-dependent policies like WDM, the literature does not give it much attention. As Brockner et al. (2007) emphasize, being part of the decision-making process is as important as the decision itself (Brockner et al., 2007). As such, some potential equity impacts could be minimized or avoided if the water-users were meaningfully engagement in the decision-making process stages. For instance, Kusena et al. (2016) explored public participation in water conservation and demand management in Gweru, Zimbabwe. They found that most residents (e.g., 98% of 489 participants) were excluded from WDM decisions, which stymied the progress of water restrictions, system repairs, and volumetric pricing policies. Since most WDM policies depend on the cooperation and compliance of consumers, for example, to change water-use behaviour or make optimal use choices, it is imperative that utilities involve users in deciding the policies and instruments to achieve the objectives.  Reflection #3: The adoption of non-financial policies is on the rise  A growing body of literature is touting the use of non-financial tools such as more equitable because they are more participatory and rarely involve direct cost to consumers. The use of water-efficient devices and appliances, water-saving campaigns, and water system retrofitting are becoming more prominent (Mart\u00ednez-Espi\u00f1eira & Garc\u00eda-Vali\u00f1as, 2013). These reasons support this claim: first, the magnitude coding results show (see Figure 2.3) that the second dominant      57 WDM policies in the reviewed studies were technological and educational campaigns. Second, a critical look at the year of publication shows a shift of focus in the studies from financial tools to discussions on metering installations, efficient water devices and appliances and other technological tools. For instance, six (6) of the 9 publications between 2017-2021 focused on the use of metering programs to manage water demand. Extant literature shows that non-financial tools offer more choices to users, they have little-to-no direct financial burden to users yet have the most significant impact in terms of optimizing water usage and promoting conservation (Ong et al., 2023). For example, Tortajada et al. (2019) found using individual household meters in Seville, and Malaga resulted in a 20-25% reduction in water consumption between 2002-2016 (Tortajada et al., 2019). In these cities, the water companies subsidized the cost of acquiring the meters, which made the meters affordable for low-income households. Meanwhile, issues about cost burdens are the dominant challenges many residents could face when financial policies are used indiscriminately to manage water demand (see Reflection #2). Tortajada et al. (2019) further recommend that since non-financial tools ensure \u201cmore efficient use of water resources,\u201d municipalities should focus their effort there.  Reflection #4: Reframing and redefining equity for WDM  All told, the current form, frame, and understanding of equity with respect to the WDM literature is different, especially when gauged against the goals and objectives envisioned by the Sustainable Development Goals, and the UN declaration of the water as a human right (UN, 2010; United Nations, 2017). The broader environmental governance literature has already an elaborate definition of equity to attend to recent complexities in managing resources (see section 1.5.2: Reframing the equity concept in Chapter 1, for a detailed discussion of the various schools of thought on framing equity). But here is a brief recap. Some scholars have conceptualized equity as justice \u201cbeyond the written law\u201d (Rutledge, 2002) to encompass aspects of social life such as emotions, ethics, and norms to achieve fairness and justice (Torio et al., 2019). This school of thought defines equity well beyond the sheer distribution of benefits and costs among all groups to include fairness in the processes leading to such decisions recognizing systemic barriers to participation.       58 Additionally, the resource conservation and sustainability pieces of literature expect the utilization of this expanded and diversified framing and definition of equity in environmental governance (Friedman et al., 2018; Gurney et al., 2021). Thus, one that acknowledges and integrates differences on the grounds of social, cultural, economic, and historical marginalities in distributing benefits and burdens in a participatory manner. This framing demonstrates explicitly beyond the capabilities theory to emphasize the need to relook at how stakeholders (e.g., governments, citizens, NGOs) can participate in and benefit from the decisions and policies on WDM and conservation. In using this definition, the expectation is that water managers consider household income, family size, water use type, gender, and other historical factors in implementing WDM measures. As Gerlak et al. (2022) emphasize, water inequities such as affordability, access, and quality cannot be addressed without unravelling and addressing historical marginalities (Gerlak et al., 2022). As such, greater attention may be required to address the historic and diverse features of such marginality, including the intersectional considerations as noted above. To build on this exposition and fill the literature gap, I propose a definition to guide WDM and conservation outcomes and can be adapted for other aspects of environmental governance. I define equity in WDM as the supply of good-quality, sustainable, affordable, and adequate quantity of water to all through participatory processes, including the redress of systemic marginalities\/barriers. This definition encompasses substantive elements of water equity, including quality, sustainability, affordability, adequate quantity, participatory processes, meeting the needs of future generations, and redressing systemic marginalities. Conversely, the diverse objectives for managing water demand coupled with the multiplicity of equity elements can sometimes generate tensions and sometimes open conflicts between them, making it difficult for WDM policies to achieve equitable outcomes.   Reflection #5: Tensions and conflicts among equity dimensions.  Reflecting on the literature on equity and WDM, there are conflicting tensions among the various dimensions of equity that complicate the processes and efforts to achieve \u201cfull\u201d equity. First, the major goals often used to price water \u2013 the benefit of service and cost-of-service, sometimes conflict with each other (Davis & Teodoro, 2014; Woodcock, 2014). That is, while the former aims to achieve economic efficiency, the latter intends to distribute the cost among resident users of water services fairly. However, the definition and understanding of equity emphasized in the EJ      59 literature add a social equity lens to the discussion, complicating these objectives. For instance, if water itself is indeed a purely social good, why should people be denied access simply because they cannot afford it? However, despite its social good features, the infrastructure and organizations required to provide potable water services are collective enterprises that must be financed collectively (Teodoro, 2018). Second, reflecting on the multiple claims about the meaning of equity in the literature, some challenges may emerge as WDM policies attempt to be equitable. The tensions are in process, as well as the substantive equity dimensions: procedural, distributional, recognitional, and intergenerational. For example, unmetered water services financed through general taxes might be good for affordability and \u201cadequate quantity\u201d but could also threaten water conservation efforts for future generations if allowed for wasteful consumption. Very high marginal water prices might lead to efficient water use and conserve water resources for future generations but could impose extra cost burdens for households on fixed incomes consuming essential water. In relation to procedural equity, a local government could employ technocratic, closed-door processes to achieve high-quality, sustainable, affordable water service. On the other hand, free, active, and meaningful participation has the potential to lead to decisions that are better anchored among all stakeholders (Jim\u00e9nez et al., 2019). In attempts to redress systemic injustices against a minority group, local governments could discriminately impose costs on a majority group through the coercive force of the state, perhaps even in the face of popular opposition. Reflecting on these tensions and conflicting objectives of the various equity dimensions, achieving equity in water demand management can be challenging.  While these conflicting tensions persist, WDM should likely pay more attention to (participatory) processes that may deliver good-quality and adequate water at affordable rates for all population groups now and in the future. As the Global Water Partnership asserts, equity in water management is \u201cprimarily about people, not water\u201d (Global Water Partnership, 2009). Other conceptual and practical proclamations have also been advanced in the literature to support this position. First, the Dublin Principles on Water Governance and the Three Pillars of the Aarhus Convention, both emphasize procedural equity\/justice \u2013 the importance of engagement and participation, especially of women and other marginalized populations, in environmental matters, including water management (Gonzalez-Villarreal & Solanes, 1999; Koester, 2007; United Nations Economic      60 Commission for Europe (UNECE), 1998). These international policy prepositions have established general consensus and highlight participation as a core pillar in achieving equitable environmental policy outcomes (Fasoli, 2017; Morales & Harris, 2014). Second, the UN\u2019s declaration and acceptance of the Human Right to Water (HRW) 2010 began a shift in water governance, including legislations, institutions, and organizations for integrated water management approaches that can provide for all population groups (UN, 2010). As part of this ambition, scholars have emphasized stakeholder participation and engagement as central to recognizing and protecting the human right to water (Sultana & Loftus, 2012). Third, the emphasis in the broader environmental justice literature is to comprehensively consider equity issues, including critical observations of the process, outcome, and historical barriers, and providing for unborn generations in water resource management (Johnson & Svara, 2015; Seigerman et al., 2023). The expectations are that people can meaningfully participate in policy decisions and receive the benefits and burdens fairly and justly (Schaider et al., 2019; Svarstad & Benjaminsen, 2020). However, participation in itself does not guarantee equitable policy outcomes; instead, it may conflate state negligence and failure to provide necessary services (Anand, 2020; Stoler et al., 2022). Instead, free, active, and meaningful participatory process have can lead to equitable policy outcomes. 2.7 Conclusion This literature review assessed 50 studies on water demand management (WDM) and equity published between 1980\u20132020, following a systematic search process. This literature synthesis makes four key contributions to the WDM literature regarding equitable water access.  First, I emphasize how WDM studies generally conceptualize equity as equality, referring to situations of equal treatment for everyone in terms of managing water demand. As a result, implementing WDM policies with this notion of equity does not conform with the global priority and ambition of ensuring universal and equitable water access to marginalized and vulnerable populations as contained in Sustainable Development Goal 6. This notion of understanding equity in WDM usually operates under the pay-per-use principle, so such policies may not subsidize the cost of water for poor groups who cannot pay. This way of perceiving equity can also mask the significance and critical role of water for human well-being, dignity, and rights. By that, I suggest an inclusive way of understanding equity that incorporates multiple aspects of water, including      61 water quality, access, affordability, conservation for future generations, when managing water demand. This proposed equity definition is based on the environmental justice perspective often used in the broader environmental governance literature (Tisdell, 2003). This definition can provide the groundwork for researchers and practitioners to leverage as a consistent and standard definition to help address water equity issues. Researchers and utility managers can develop performance measurements across a diverse range of equity dimensions, including water quality, access, affordability, participation, provision for future generations, and redress of systemic barriers. That way, they can monitor and improve the progress of water equity efforts in implementing WDM tools. Utilities are already using similar benchmarking to monitor and improve their operations, services, organizational development, and customer service (American Water Works Association, 2022). For instance, further research can determine an acceptable level of water quantity and cost residents can expect from utility managers to adjudge WDM policies as equitable.  Second, the review shows that sometimes WDM adversely impacts water equity, particularly for marginalized and vulnerable populations. Different WDM tools have diverse negative impacts on different groups of people, including increases in water cost burden for low-income, fixed-income, or large households, exclusion in decisions for all consumers, and water shut-offs and lien auctions for delinquent bills in extreme cases (see Reflection #3 and Table 2.5 for more details). Considering some policies, including the pay-per-use principle in managing water demand in the studies, it follows that utility managers might not always adequately consider consumers\u2019 ability to pay for water and water services. Particularly, the capricious fixing of water rates exclusively based on use volume without considering income levels, family sizes, and non-discretionary use can limit access to marginalized and vulnerable populations using water for drinking, cooking, and hygiene. And if consumers resort to cheaper alternatives that can be non-potable sources, it can increase health and well-being risks. Most studies did not highlight public participation in WDM, which, from a procedural justice perspective, can hinder efforts to achieve equitable access to water. Meanwhile, public policy studies have underscored the significance of engaging stakeholders, including residents, to understand the rationale, objectives, and potential impacts of policies before implementation (Mostert, 2003; Priscoli, 2004). More importantly, WDM is a management      62 framework that primarily relies on the support and compliance of consumers to achieve its targeted objectives (Magnusson, 2004). Therefore, engaging residents through an inclusive, transparent, and fair process is essential and helpful to motivate or influence a change in consumer behaviour. Thus, equity can be achieved when water users participate in, accept, and are satisfied with the process and the quality of water services received. However, the studies did not treat public\/stakeholder participation as a prominent equity component. Giving it full consideration, public participation can draw more attention and contribute to expanding the disciplinary confines of WDM and in managing water for social interest. The negative equity impacts reported in this review can also signal policymakers and water managers to be aware of the risk of inequities so they can incorporate equity-centred objectives when developing and implementing WDM policies. The discoveries can also be a foundation for conducting empirical research to ascertain the impacts of WDM policies, especially in a water-rich context.  Third, aside from the dominantly adopted financial tools, the studies also point to the increasing adoption of non-financial tools. More recent studies recommend the use of technological and educational policies to manage domestic water use, especially given that they are perceived as non-invasive, to offer more options, and without having direct financial burdens. These attributes of non-financial policies might interface with equity in terms of expanding access and reducing water cost burdens for marginalized populations. However, the practicality of this recommendation in addressing water equity remains an important area for further research.  As Ong et al. (2023) have suggested, the use of WDM policies is on the rise (Ong et al., 2023). As such, it is imperative for water managers and governments to carefully consider the equity dimensions of these tools, instruments, and policies. The review of the literature above, helps to offer a starting point in terms of such an understanding, including a sense of the types of concerns that have been highlighted in studies to date, as well as key gaps and conceptual reframing that might be useful. Some scholars have already suggested a number of steps, including the active involvement of stakeholders (e.g., residents) and subsidizing water rates, metering, and efficient technologies, and proper targeting of equity-deserving and eligible households for assistance programs (Levine et al., 2022; Pierce et al., 2021). That way, marginalized and vulnerable populations can still access water, especially for basic use, under WDM.       63 Considering our eligibility criteria in selecting the review records focusing on (i) only English language publications, (ii) public and domestic water use, and (iii) peer-reviewed papers, we might have missed studies that could introduce different perspectives of the issues we have discussed. For instance, policy-related documents and publications in languages other than English could have provided different insights into how equity issues are framed, identified, and addressed. Despite these limitations, this review synthesis reveals the diverse ways that WDM policies can affect water access and affordability for different population groups. This revelation can regenerate newer and sounder conversations around reintegrating equity principles into water conservation. While WDM initiatives may bring us closer to wise water use, municipal managers should be aware of the potential negative impacts on marginalized populations.      64 CHAPTER 3: Progress in water demand management in British Columbia, Canada 3.1 Introduction  Water is an essential resource that sustains life, drives economies, and supports ecosystems. However, the pressure from changing climatic patterns, high water demand from population growth and urbanization, and multiple uses for water are causing mismatches between supply and demand (Alcamo et al., 2007; Rogers & Leal, 2010). The high cost of building new and upgrading water infrastructure can exacerbate water access disparities (Greer, 2020). Like many places, heatwaves, floods, and wildfires across Canada are reducing and polluting freshwater resources (Tam et al., 2019). British Columbia, for example, has been experiencing seasonal droughts and diminishing snowpacks for the past few years (Government of British Columbia, 2022). Even more rapid and extreme temperatures have been projected for the province, with the potential to cause more devastating hydrologic shifts (Eyquem & Feltmate, 2022). The average daily residential use per capita of the population served in the province is 286 litres, which is higher than the country\u2019s average daily residential use per capita of the population served of 223 litres (Statistics Canada, 2020). As well, this figure is also higher than the 50-200 litres of water per day recommended by the World Health Organization to meet most basic needs.  In response to these challenges, local governments in Canada are adopting policies and management practices to promote water conservation and optimize usage (Brandes & Ferguson, 2004; Maas, 2005; Stavenhagen et al., 2018). These actions are partly based on the targets set out in the Water Conservation Guide for British Columbia through the \u201cLiving Water Smart\u201d policy in 2008 with several targets, including to achieve 33% water use efficiency by 2020 and to acquire 50% new municipal water needs through conservation (Belzile et al., 2013). The province motivates and encourages local governments to take action towards these targets, providing a seven-step water conservation planning process to guide communities to develop or revise their plans (ibid). Sometimes, developing a conservation plan in accordance with this guideline improves local governments\u2019 chance of benefiting from the drinking water infrastructure funding      65 from the province.5 Given this guidance, about 40% of local governments have developed water conversation plans by 2013, and many localities are adopting various measures, including restrictions\/rationing, water-saving campaigns, metering and volumetric pricing, efficient technologies, financial (dis)incentives, and rainwater harvesting (Honey-Ros\u00e9s et al., 2016; Metro Vancouver, 2019). These policies and programs are often favoured as they are considered to be helpful to ensure productive and efficient water use, fair distribution and billing, and to reduce wasteful use and system losses (M. \u00c1. Garc\u00eda-Vali\u00f1as & Su\u00e1rez-Fern\u00e1ndez, 2022; Zapana-Churata et al., 2022). Other policies and plans to help conserve water in the province include drought and water scarcity management plans to help conserve water (Government of British Columbia, 2022, 2023). Based on this and other information, it is important to note that local jurisdictions are conscious of the threats of drought and are increasingly planning and investing in these policies to reduce demand and conserve water resources (Metro Vancouver, 2021; Sunshine Coast Regional District, 2020).  Meanwhile, there is no comprehensive synthesis report or academic research on the progress of adopting WDM policies in the province. Apart from the 2016 BC Municipal Survey, which assessed the adoption and impact of residential metering (Honey-Ros\u00e9s et al., 2016; Metro Vancouver, 2019), no known study has reported on the progress of WDM policies. There is broad interest in understanding how local governments are responding to climate change (Satorras et al., 2020) and water scarcity (Switzer, 2020; Switzer & Deng, 2023). The case of British Columbia is particularly interesting because this region is considered to be relatively water-rich, and this case allows us to focus on the extent to which local governments are responding to new climatic and water scarcity challenges. In this context of climate adaptation, this chapter examines the progress made by local jurisdictions in implementing WDM policies from the perspective of water managers and policymakers in British Columbia, Canada. Providing up-to-date provincial information on the adoption of WDM policies, including how jurisdictions prioritize, invest, and implement WDM, can show gaps or identify patterns in how water managers anticipate and aim to respond to droughts and future water scarcity. Overall, it is clear that local governments have made efforts to prepare for drought and to mitigate the impacts of water scarcity. My approach for  5 Province of British Columbia. (n.d.). Water Conservation - Province of British Columbia. Retrieved November 3, 2023, from https:\/\/www2.gov.bc.ca\/gov\/content\/environment\/air-land-water\/water\/water-conservation      66 measuring \u201cprogress\u201d follows what other authors have done to measure the progress of WDM and conservation. For instance, scholars conceptualized and used the level of adoption, impact in reducing water consumption, water rates, and water efficiency planning to assess the progress and performance of WDM policies (Stavenhagen et al., 2018; Tate, 1989; Tortajada et al., 2019). For instance, Stavenhagen et al. (2018) presented 13 WDM policies and asked water utility managers to rate the relative impact of each policy on reducing water consumption in four European cities: Berlin, Copenhagen, Tallinn and Zaragoza. The authors found that the most effective policies were water systems maintenance, regulations, individual meters, and education campaigns. Learning from these studies, I used indicators such as how jurisdictions prioritize, plan, invest in, and implement various policies as reported by water managers and policymakers themselves. As a result, I examined (i) how jurisdictions prioritize WDM and conservation, (ii) what measures are being adopted, (iii) the association between prioritizing WDM and developing water-use efficiency plans, (iv) the level of investment in various measures in terms of personnel and financial, as well as (v) implementation of various policies.  The analyses in Chapter 3 are essential and useful for many reasons: (i) we can now understand how far the province has gone in terms of adopting policies to reduce demand and conserve water when compared overtime and space, (ii) we can now know the proportions of jurisdictions adopting different measures, (iii) since different measures have different (levels) of potential equity impacts (from the literature), it gives a hint at whether equity is a concern in managing water demand. The chapter is structured as follows: Section 3.2 provides an overview of WDM policies in British Columbia and the factors pushing jurisdictions to manage water demand. Section (3.3) describes the methodology, including the research questions, data collection, and participant recruitment. I have also illustrated the descriptive and inferential analyses of the survey data in this section. In the results section (3.4), I describe the patterns and characteristics of the data, followed by analytic tables and charts showing how jurisdictions prioritize, plan, and adopt various WDM policies. I also present analyses of the association between water efficiency planning and the adoption of WDM policy. I then discuss the implications of these results in relation to existing literature and policy practice in section 3.5. I highlight that jurisdictions are aware of the threat of drought and are interested in managing water demand, as demonstrated by the high prioritization of water and WDM issues among policymakers. Another important point is      67 the dominant adoption of water restrictions, conservation campaigns and other regional-level policies over municipal-level policies. 3.2 Water demand management in British Columbia Like many regions, water management in British Columbia (BC) has been focused on supply-side approaches over many decades, including estimating future demand, and expanding infrastructure to produce, store and distribute more water to serve the population (van Netten et al., 2002). However, due to multiple challenges, such as the high cost of building new infrastructure, pollution and seasonal droughts, the province has increasingly turned to demand management\u2014putting in place measures to promote water conservation and reduce usage. This section summarizes the contextual background to water management in BC.  In Canada, water management generally is a provincial responsibility, but local jurisdictions such as regional districts, municipalities, and towns manage water treatment and other aspects within their service areas6. For instance, the provincial Water Sustainability Act (adopted in 2016) provides guidelines and regulations on water licensing and rights, groundwater protection and water quality standards and monitoring, while regional (water) districts build infrastructure and sell treated water to other lower-level jurisdictions in most cases (Government of British Columbia, 2016). Municipalities, cities, and communities manage water supply within their service areas, including redistribution to end-users and setting water rates. Their mandate also includes WDM policies and compliance with provincial or federal governments\u2019 water regulations and directives. As stated, WDM policies are measures aimed at the demand side of the supply-demand equation, involving changing water-use behaviour, reducing losses, or ensuring efficient and productive water use (Brandes & Ferguson, 2004; Brandes & Kriwoken, 2005). Many local jurisdictions in BC are adopting various WDM policies to achieve these objectives (Metro Vancouver, 2019). Before offering an overview of these policy measures in the province, below delves further into the context to consider why the province and local governments might seek to manage (and minimize) water demand.  6 This is however not the case in First Nation communities. See Irvine et al., 2020; Von der Porten & De Lo\u00eb, 2013.       68 First, changing climatic patterns in the province have been causing low spring rains and snowfall, contributing to reductions in freshwater sources, resulting in perennial summertime droughts and overall water scarcity (Gower & Barrorso, 2019). For example, as of August 18, 2023, about 19 of the 34 water basins were experiencing Drought level 5, which meant that adverse impacts to socio-economic and ecosystem values were almost certain.7 Some water basins experiencing Drought Level 5 during this time included Finlay, Fort Nelson, North Thompson, Parsnip, and South Peace. In 2022, the Northeast, Omineca, Boundary, Nicola, Vancouver Island, South Coast and Central Coast water basins experienced Drought Level 4. See the British Columbia Drought Information Portal for up-to-date information on the drought situation in the province. Second, erratic weather events such as floods, wildfires, and storms are increasingly polluting water sources, thereby complicating the treatment process and increasing the cost of water provision for most municipalities. The province is also experiencing abnormally high temperatures in the summer months (up to 46.60C in 2021), causing unprecedented heat waves and increased water demand for cleaning and cooling. Third, the province has one of the highest water consumption patterns in the country, as evaluated based on per person per day of population served. About 274 litres of water is the average daily residential use per capita of the population served in the province. This figure is higher than the country\u2019s average daily residential use per capita (215 litres) of the population served (Statistics Canada, 2020). As well, it is the third highest when compared with other provinces. According to a report by Metro Vancouver (2019), high temperatures and heat weaves have generally doubled the daily water demand\/use during summertime within its service area. Fourth, population and economic growth in some cities are rising, and given average affluence and lifestyles, this is also driving up water consumption (Brandes & Ferguson, 2004). These pressures can negatively affect the capacity of some jurisdictions to sustainably manage water resources to meet current and future demand. Jurisdictions could face other potential challenges, such as limited expertise in maintaining water infrastructure, excessive water losses due to leakages, and poor conservation  7 The province has categorized drought levels into five (5), each level with its anticipated impact on socio-economic and ecosystem values and the prescribed actions, including total ban on outdoor water use. Drought level 1 is the lowest and 5 is the highest. See the BC DIP: Drought Level s Map for more information.       69 practices. In response, the province and its local jurisdictions are designing and implementing policy measures to mitigate drought by managing water demand.  Following severe droughts in 2003, the government developed the British Columbia Drought and Water Scarcity Response Plan in 2010 (and updated yearly), which outlines mitigating actions and practices for the province (Government of British Columbia, 2022, 2023). See the British Columbia Drought and Water Scarcity Response Plan for more information on drought levels and the prescribed measures to address them. Particularly for drought mitigation and preparedness, the province has outlined guidelines on water conservation planning, including the definition of drought levels and the actions and measures to adopt. For example, at Drought Level 4, the Sunshine Coast Regional often bans outdoor water use such as lawn watering, car washing, washing driveways and sidewalks, and filling swimming pools (Sunshine Coast Regional District, 2020). The penalties for violating these restrictions range from CA$ 200 to CAD$500 for stages 1 to 4 drought levels, respectively. Localities are implementing other WDM policies, such as residential water metering, incentives for efficient water devices\/appliances, and conservation campaigns. For example, approximately half of the municipalities and cities receiving water from the Metro Vancouver Water District have metered residential water connections and charging rates according to actual consumption. For example, municipalities such as Richmond, Surrey, Langley, Burnaby, New Westminster, and the District of West Vancouver have metered all single-family homes (Metro Vancouver, 2019). The Sunshine Coast Regional District offered up to $1,000 per property owner to install a minimum of 9,000 litres of new rainwater storage in January 2023 under the Rainwater Harvesting Rebate Program (Sunshine Coast Regional District, n.d.). The district has also installed residential meters in the Pender Harbour, Halfmoon Bay, Egmont, Earls Cove, Roberts Creek, Elphinstone, and West Howe Sound areas since 2014 to help measure and bill water according to actual consumption in 2018 (SCRD, 2023). The regional board has approved a CAD $7.25 million loan to install household-level water meters beginning in 2023 in the Sechelt Area to reduce water consumption and facilitate leak detection and resolution (ibid). Despite these examples, there is little-to-no comprehensive, province-wide information\/data on the progress of WDM adoption across the province. Of course, the level of adoption of WDM      70 policies is not likely to be uniform among all jurisdiction types. This information is either absent, incoherent, or scattered sources (e.g., websites, reports), making it difficult to track and understand the progress the province has achieved so far. For example, individual localities have isolated studies and reports on the adoption progress of some policies within their service areas (see e.g., (Metro Vancouver, 2019; Ryan & Wang, 2012; Sunshine Coast Regional District, 2020). In the academic literature, Brandes and Ferguson (2004) have provided a comprehensive report espousing the overarching reasons, benefits, and recommended strategies to effectively implement WDM policies (Brandes & Ferguson, 2004). Lepsoe (2009) investigated the drivers and patterns of water consumption as well as the conservation efforts in two BC Mountain resort communities \u2013Rossland and Invermere. The author found that climate impact on water resources, hot weather, and seasonal demand increases due to tourists in these areas (Lepsoe, 2009). In the recommendations, the author called for scaling up WDM and conservation since such measures could allow these jurisdictions to provide drinking water to between 2,500 \u2013 5,000 more people without increasing supply (ibid). More recent research by the Water Planning Lab at the University of British Columbia examined the progress of residential water metering and the political climate for its adoption in selected jurisdictions (Honey-Ros\u00e9s et al., 2016; Volker & Honey-Ros\u00e9s, 2019). The authors found high interest and support for residential water metering policies among elected officials within the Metro Vancouver area. The BC Municipal Water Survey 2016 also found that 26% of all residential connections among surveyed jurisdictions across the province have individual water meters to measure and charge volumetric rates (Honey-Ros\u00e9s et al., 2016). These isolated studies have highlighted key insights on water use patterns and the progress of metering programs, which can be leveraged to conduct a more comprehensive study evaluating the progress of WDM policies in BC. The next section details the methods used to collect, analyze, and report on the results of the province-wide survey data for this study.  3.3 Methods  This chapter primarily uses quantitative survey data to evaluate the adoption progress of water demand management (WDM) policies in British Columbia (BC). Between January and May 2022, I administered a survey questionnaire via the Qualtrics platform to 94 out of 162 local jurisdictions in British Columbia. These jurisdictions include municipalities, cities, and towns\/communities and villages. The research was focused on jurisdictions managing water supply according to colonial      71 settler governance systems and laws. As a result, I did not include areas that have unique water governance systems, such as Unincorporated Areas and First Nation communities (Simms et al., 2016). We know that First Nations communities still do not have full and legal access to water rights, adequate drinking water, or full governance authority within their jurisdictions (Von der Porten & De Lo\u00eb, 2013). Therefore, special attention and approach could explore and fully understand the equity challenges from an Indigenous water rights and governance perspective. I also excluded regional districts from the list of jurisdictions because they do not directly manage residential water supply and, therefore, may not be directly involved with residential water management and policy. As a result, regional district participants may not know about policymaking and the equity impacts at the local level. The target participants were water managers and policymakers, including mayors, chief administrative officers, and public work officers (e.g., engineers, directors of operations, utility supervisors\/managers). For ease, I summarize these diverse respondents with the terms water managers and policymakers, even as the roles of the respondents are diverse. While mayors and council members are political figureheads, chief administrative officers supervise the day-to-day administration of their jurisdictions, and public works officers directly operate and maintain the water systems (Statutes of British Columbia, 2015). These are the topmost officers with institutional influence and responsibility to make decisions and policies and implement the plans, including water (demand) management. More specifically, the mayor and council members are political figureheads who formulate and approve by-laws, policies and programs that guide the administration of the local government area (Union of BC Municipalities, 2006). The other two groups of officers then administer and implement these policy decisions (see more details in Section 1.1 in Chapter 1). It is worth noting that the potential disparities in authority, roles, and responsibilities among the three (3) groups of participants regarding water management could have possible qualitative differences between their responses. For instance, an engineer could be more concerned and focus on the functionality and technical efficiency of water systems. At the same time, a mayor would be more concerned about protecting public interest in advancing WDM. Such divergent views and opinions could be reflected in the survey and interview responses which has implications for inferences. I acknowledge the potential different perspectives that analyses based on the unique responses from each group could bring out, the cumulative responses have produced results that can serve as foundational for further research to build on. As explained later in the section, the varied number of participants from each      72 group makes such analysis impossible. As a result, users of the study results and findings should consider these limitations.  Nonetheless, all participants were deemed to be knowledgeable of these policies and thus as appropriate to respond to the survey. Water management in BC is unique when compared with other provinces, such as Newfoundland and Labrador, where communities independently build, operate, and manage their water systems (Chireh, 2019). In BC, bulk water supply is part of regional districts\u2019 mandate to the municipalities and electoral areas within their jurisdiction according to the Local Government Act (Statutes of British Columbia, 2015).  The Act also bestows authority and direction for a city, town, or village as an incorporated entity to manage domestic water supply. A brief sketch of the differences between the layers of local government institutions will help explain the limitations in the analysis, interpretation, and application of the research results. The Local Government Act authorizes the incorporation of individual municipalities and electoral areas within a defined boundary to form a regional government to provide local services such as community planning, fire protection, water supply, and waste disposal (Statutes of British Columbia, 2015). The Regional District Board draws its administrative powers, authority, and functions from the explicit expression and instructions of member municipalities and electoral areas (ibid). Below the regional district is an incorporated municipality that is autonomous, responsible, and accountable to its community and governed by elected members and hired skilled staff (Community Charter, 2003). The elected members set policy decisions while the employees carry out the actual day-to-day administration of the municipality (ibid). Depending on the geographical size and population density, an incorporated municipality could be classified as a town, city, or village. Considering potential capacity differences in terms of land size and financial and human resources, regional districts may take on more significant responsibilities and functions than municipalities, cities, and villages. For instance, regional districts supply treated water at wholesale prices to localities within their jurisdiction in most cases (Metro Vancouver, 2011). On the other hand, the mayor and council members in a municipality make decisions and policies relating to residential water use, including demand management and conservation, for the administrators, planners, and engineers to implement (ibid).       73 These differences among the jurisdiction types could have some implications for WDM and conservation policy in the province. For instance, the differences in physical location and population density could explain the differences in financial capability. For example, more financially capable jurisdictions could be more conscious about adopting WDM and conservation than small villages with low revenues. Even the capacity differences could have affected the ability to participate in this research, assuming that some localities could lack the facilities to be contacted or access the survey questionnaire. Analyzing the data with these differences in mind could be helpful. But I could not do so because of the different proportions in the number of jurisdiction types included in the research. As a result, study results and findings offer broader insights into WDM and conservation policy in the province and should be used with such limitations in mind.  I used an institutional-level questionnaire so that any of the three possibly relevant officials could provide responses. The survey questions were framed to seek participants\u2019 water management-related views and experiences, not personal opinions. I took guidance from past studies that invited individuals as \u201ckey informants\u201d or \u201cproxies\u201d to collect data for groups or institutions (see, e.g., (Bhattarcherjee, 2012; Giupponi & Sgobbi, 2013; Volker & Honey-Ros\u00e9s, 2019). Even though Bhattarcherjee (2012) warned about the potential biases in the responses of informants and \u201cproxies,\u201d the closed-ended nature of my survey and how it was structured around participants\u2019 roles limited this risk (see survey instrument in Appendix B2). I adopted a mailing list (containing the names, positions, office email addresses and phone numbers) of government officials from the erstwhile Water Planning Lab in recruiting survey participants. I also accessed a public database (CIVICINFOBC) containing similar information on all local government jurisdictions in British Columbia for a comprehensive list of potential participants. Considering the different portfolios of potential participants, I grouped them into three (3) categories (mayors, chief administrative officers, and public works officers) and sent personalized recruitment emails. This is based on the understanding that people will more likely respond to personalized rather than generic requests (Mitchell, 2006). The survey link was added to the recruitment email, but immediately after linking to the study, a compulsory consent question was required before one could access the entire survey. Participants who declined this question exited the survey. I also provided options for participants to respond to the survey via phone or Zoom, but no one opted for this. The recruitment email had a directive like if you are the      74 appropriate person, please respond, if you are not, please forward the link to the right person. By this, I was targeting either of the three officials, and this was made known in each email to minimize the incidence of duplication. As well, participants provided the name of their jurisdiction in the survey in case more than one person responded. In such cases, the mayor\u2019s (because they are the heads of the jurisdiction and would hold more information regarding water management\/decisions) responses would be included, but I did not encounter anything like that.  Research questions and data collection To evaluate the adoption progress of WDM policies, I gathered and analyzed data on a series of survey variables, including how jurisdictions prioritize WDM and water conservation issues, plan for water efficiency\/conservation, as well as how they invest in, and implement various WDM policies. I then developed a survey questionnaire comprising 18 questions covering these variables. There were direct and indirect questions to measure each variable. For example, in assessing the implementation variable, I asked respondents to select which WDM measures they had implemented in their jurisdiction from a list of eight (8) possible measures as of 2020. Even though the BC Municipal Water Survey 2016 catalogued 28 measures, I condensed some specific activities into one. For example, I classified school and community outreach, water-saving tips and fact sheets, and water conservation in school curricula under water conservation campaigns. I also collected data on the type of jurisdiction the water system serves, the position\/job of respondents, and the number of years they have been on the job. Participants spent, on average, 10 minutes to complete the survey as recorded in the Qualtrics platform. After organizing and cleaning the survey data, 94 complete and valid responses were used in the analysis. See Appendix B2 for the complete list of survey questions, but below are sample questions:  1. How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Managing water demand is a high priority for my jurisdiction.  2. Has your jurisdiction adopted any of these water demand management measure(s)? (a) residential water metering, (b) commercial water metering, (c) volumetric pricing (pay per use), (d) water-use restrictions (or rationing), (e) subsidies for water-efficient dispensers (e.g., low-flow shower heads), (f) rainwater harvesting\/barrels (g) water efficiency and conservation campaigns, and (h) water infrastructure retrofitting  3. Does your jurisdiction have a policy\/plan for water efficiency or conservation?       75 4. Has your jurisdiction implemented the water-efficiency or conservation policy\/plan? Yes, No, and Don\u2019t know.  Data analysis I used the IBM Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) Version 29 to organize and analyze the survey data. This SPSS software makes it possible to show data patterns and trends in bar charts, histograms, and pie charts where appropriate (Okagbue et al., 2021). SPSS is a common quantitative data analysis software used, especially by social science researchers unfamiliar with more advanced coding software (e.g., R, STATA, MATLAB) to analyze numeric datasets (Okagbue et al., 2021). The choice for SPSS was based on its prevalent use in research to assess water demand management (e.g., (Hung & Chie, 2013; Manzungu & Machiridza, 2005).  Most of my analysis focused on four (4) survey variables: how jurisdictions (i) prioritize WDM, (ii) plan for water efficiency, (iii) invest in, and (iv) implement WDM and conservation policies. I conducted inferential analyses, including crosstabulations, Chi-squares, and the Fisher test, to examine the relationships and significance among these survey variables. In doing so, first, I developed a single index for all eight (8) WDM policies together so I could cross-tabulate with the other variables (e.g., jurisdiction type, prioritize, plan, and invest). This analysis shows, on average, the number of policies each jurisdiction implemented, especially those with WDM\/conservation plans. Specifically, I tested for the significance of the relationship between (a) having a conservation plan and implementing it among various jurisdictions, (b) prioritizing WDM\/conservation and developing a plan for it, and (c) prioritizing WDM\/conservation and investing in it. I also tested for the relationship among all the variables put together as an illustration\/evaluation of the adoption progress of WDM policies. In some cases, I analyzed and compared the variables within each jurisdiction type. For example, I calculated the proportion of municipalities in the province that have efficiency\/conservation plans. I could not compare survey variables across jurisdictions. For instance, I did not compare municipalities and cities or cities and towns because of the vast differences in participant numbers from each jurisdiction type. For example, more than 50% of participants are from municipalities, and 26% are from cities.       76 However, to appreciate the progress in adopting WDM\/conservation, I compared my results with past surveys and reports on these variables. It is important to state that there was no similar past data and information in the province to compare, aside from the BC Municipal Water Survey 2016. The BC Municipal Water Survey obtained responses from 45 local governments, which correspond to 66% of the population in the province and 32% local governments. In contrast my research obtained 94 (58%) local governments and 68% of the provincial population. The figures for all sampled jurisdictions were computed using Statistics Canada 2020 population estimates. My analyses also utilized data\/information from publicly accessible policy documents from selected jurisdictions to provide context and illustrate as case examples and provide details to support my arguments. I used data\/information from documents, including the provincial Water Sustainability Act, waterworks by-laws, WDM and conservation by-laws and plans, and utilities, fees, and rates by-laws to compare with my study results. Even though I acknowledge the valuable information these documents add to the research, this thesis does not include detailed analysis of those sources.  Instead, I worked with the policymakers who have institutional influence and responsibility, including the preparation and implementation of these policy documents.  3.4 Results I find that: (a) most jurisdictions are prioritizing water supply and WDM issues, (b) most jurisdictions are implementing multiple policies, (c) those that develop WDM\/conservation plans are more likely to implement them, and (d) there is significant progress in adopting WDM\/conservation policies across the province. It is important to note that across the province on the whole, the results I am presenting may likely be much lower because of the potential of sampling bias in that the individuals and jurisdictions with more interest in these issues, or with more capacity, are more likely responded to the survey. The ensuing paragraphs present the data to support these conclusions, but first, I present a description of the characteristics and patterns of the data.  3.4.1 Patterns and characteristics of the data  This survey received responses from 94 of the 162 local governments, representing 58%, or just over half, of the total number of jurisdictions in the province. This response rate is higher than the BC Municipal Water Survey 2016, which recorded 32% of jurisdictions. Fifty-four percent (n=51)      77 of survey respondents were from municipalities, 28% (n=26) were from cities, and 18% (n=17) were from communities\/towns. Municipalities were overrepresented in the survey than the rest of the jurisdictions, which would likely have implications in the analysis. Out of 80 participants who indicated their job titles, 17 were mayors, 32 were chief administrative officers, and 31 belonged to the public works class (see Figure 3.1). The average years of experience on the job was 7 years. Considering the average years of working in their respective position, it is reasonable to say that participants have sufficient experience and information on water (demand) management to provide well-informed survey responses. However, more than half of the participants who responded to the years of experience question had 1\u20135 years of experience as illustrated in Figure 3.2. This information can help underscore the potential expertise of the research participants and the implications for the results presented.   Figure 3.1: Number of participants within each range of years of experience    146181243110 10 20 30 40 50 0-0.91-56-1011-1516-2021-2526-3031-35No. of ParticipantsYears of experience     78 3.4.2 Prioritizing and planning for water demand management  Most jurisdictions highly prioritize water (88%) and WDM issues (81%), while 84% also have water efficiency\/conservation plans in place. I conducted inferential analyses to see if there is a relationship between prioritizing WDM issues and developing a plan. The statistical results show a significant association between prioritizing WDM\/conservation issues and developing an efficiency\/conservation plan only in cities. Thus, for cities, the Likelihood Ratio is slightly high (p=0.075), but the Pearson Chi-Square and the Linear-by-Linear Association tests show a significant relationship between the two variables. However, the analysis shows no association between the variables in communities and municipalities since the p-values are more than 0.05 (see full table analysis in Appendix B3). More importantly, when the data for all jurisdiction types are combined, the aggregate p-value (p=0.125) is well above 0.05, meaning there is no statistically significant association between the variables. The results also suggest the two variables are independent.   Many local governments (84%, n=79) have water efficiency\/conservation plans. Eighty-nine percent (89%) of those who have the plans are also implementing the plans. Figure 3.2 shows the proportions of the jurisdictions implementing their efficiency\/conversation plans. I also conducted Pearson Chi-Square computation to examine the statistical significance of the relationship between the two variables among all jurisdiction types. I found the Pearson Chi-Square value of 51.401 with 1 degree of freedom. The p-value associated with this statistic is less than 0.05, which means the two variables have significant association and are statistically not independent. Further analysis using the Fisher\u2019s Exact Test, which is often used for small sample sizes, also shows a highly significant association with both the two-sided and one-sided p-values being less than 0.001.       79   Figure 3.2: Proportions of jurisdictions implementing water efficiency\/conservation plans.   3.4.3: Investing and Implementing demand management measures  According to the survey, the dominant WDM measures being implemented in the province are mandatory water restrictions (86%), institutional, commercial, and industrial (ICI) metering (82%), educational campaigns (65%), and system maintenance (67%). Despite potential differences in datasets, the proportion of jurisdictions with mandatory water restrictions appears to increase from the 73% of surveyed jurisdictions reported by the 2016 BC Municipal Water Survey. Approximately half of the jurisdictions sampled (49%) are metering residential water supply (all or partial connections). On the other hand, fewer jurisdictions are practicing rainwater harvesting and offering subsidies for efficient water technologies. Figure 3.3 shows the full list indicating the proportions of jurisdictions implementing all various WDM measures.8 8 Some explanations to the analyses here: N\/A means missing data or omitted responses, and it is important to add them because all participants had the chance to respond to these questions. Implementing any of these measures comprises any efforts to adopt (small, half, or full) by the jurisdiction. ICI metering refers to the installation of meters in institutional, commercial, and Industrial water connections.  Yes 88.6%No11.4%N=79Has your jurisdiction implemented the water efficiency\/conservation plan?     80   Figure 3.3: Proportions of jurisdictions adopting or not adopting WDM policy measures.23.4%26.6%48.9%64.9%64.9%67.0%81.9%86.2%72.3%71.3%51.1%35.1%31.9%26.6%17.0%11.7%4.3%1.1%1.1%6.4%0.0%1.1%1.1%2.1%1.1%1.1%0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%Subsidies for efficient waterdispensersRainwater harvestingResidential MeteringWater conservation campaignsVolumetric Pricing (pay-per-use)System MaintenanceICI meteringWater restrictions\/rationingYes No Don't Know N\/A     81 The survey asked water managers and policymakers to rate the level of resources invested in terms of finances and personnel commitment their jurisdictions have made in implementing WDM. Eight (8) measures were listed, and participants were asked to rate each policy on a scale of 1\u20135, with 1 being less investment and 5 being more investment. Residential water metering is the policy where city planners have spent the most resources, followed by infrastructure retrofit and commercial metering. In contrast to these items, rainwater harvesting, and subsidized water dispensers are reported as approaches that have received less investment (Figure 3.4).  Figure 3.4: Resource investment (finances and personnel) in WDM by surveyed jurisdictions  The range of WDM measures adopted by various jurisdictions is relatively even across all jurisdiction types. However, unsurprisingly, cities and municipalities tend to adopt more measures than communities\/towns. While multiple reasons could account for these disparities, the BC Municipal Water Survey 2016 report suggests that resource constraints account for the fewer measures being adopted by communities and towns.  1.88 2.09 2.67 2.70 3.02 3.51 3.54 3.94  -  0.50  1.00  1.50  2.00  2.50  3.00  3.50  4.00  4.50Rainwater HarvestingSubsidize Water DispensersWater-use RestrictionsConservation CampaignsVolumetric PricingCommercial  MeteringInfrastructure RetrofitResidential MeteringAverage level of resources invested     82  Figure 3.5: The average number of WDM measures adopted by each jurisdiction type. I computed the relationship between developing a water efficiency\/conservation plan and adopting various policies. The crosstabulation analysis shows that having an efficiency\/conservation plan is associated with the implementation of various WDM policies. For instance, I found that, on average, between 64%\u201386% of jurisdictions with plans were implementing five (5) WDM measures, as illustrated in Figure 3.5. The scatterplot (Figure 3.5) shows a positive relationship between the two variables. The position and thickness of the coloured diamonds indicate the number of WDM policies (y-axis) being adopted by jurisdictions. This result suggests that most jurisdictions focus on water conservation and, therefore, are adopting WDM policies in line with their efficiency\/conservation plans.  3.4.4: Adopting Residential Water Metering.  This section presents results on rates of residential water metering in the sampled jurisdictions. Surveyed jurisdictions reported at least some residential metering in single-family (51%, n=48) and multi-family household units (57%, n=54). Figure 3.6 also shows the proportion of localities      83 metering single-family and multi-family household units among surveyed jurisdictions. The survey also asked participants to provide estimates of total household connections and the proportions metered according to household type. A tabulation of survey responses suggests that approximately 296,430 residential connections included in the survey are metered. This represents 55% of all residential water connections within the sampled municipalities. Regarding the distribution according to household type, 58% of single-family connections have water meters, and 46% of multi-family connections have water meters. Appendix B4 shows the proportions of metered connections by housing type and jurisdiction type. My result suggests an increase in the metering coverage rate over the years in the province. While the BC Municipal Water Survey 2016 only found 26% of metered connections in the province, if my sample is assumed to be representative of the province, it would mean that metering coverage has more than doubled to 55%. Because of the challenge in comparing the two studies it is difficult to make this claim with certainty however at the very least, there is strong indication that there has been considerable progress in metering in the province.   Figure 3.6: Percentage of metered connections in surveyed localities by household type    69%29%49%73%29%59%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%City Community\/Town MunicipalitySingle-family homes Multi-family homes     84 3.4.5: Water Rate Structures and Bill Payments Local governments in BC use a diversity of rate structures to charge for water use. However, all of them can be classified under flat rate and volumetric rate structures for simplicity. For instance, volume-based water charges may include constant unit charge, decreasing and increasing block rates. As can be observed in Figure 3.7, the number of metered jurisdictions is equal to the number with volumetric water rate structures. This suggests that jurisdictions with water meters where actual water consumption per household can be determined are more likely to use volumetric rates than unmetered jurisdictions. Households with unmetered connections are typically charged flat fees because the actual water consumption cannot be determined. The survey results show many jurisdictions use both rate structures for single- and multi-family housing units (Figure 3.7).   Figure 3.7: Water rate structures across jurisdictions. This figure was computed based on the number of respondents indicated on the y-axis and not the total sampled jurisdiction1.4%20.4%23.2%6.1%75.4%73.5%0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%Flat rate charge (n=69)Volumetric charge (n=49)Multi-Family only Single-Family only Single-Family & Multi-Family     85 3.5 Discussion My results show significant progress in WDM adoption in the province of British Columbia. In particular, this work highlights that many local governments prioritize WDM and that, compared to past studies, more jurisdictions have efficiency\/conservation plans (84%) in place and are adopting WDM measures. Local governments report that they are investing in residential metering, and the percentage of metered connections is on the rise, now reaching 55% of residential water connections in the sampled jurisdictions. The study also shows that local governments and utilities are taking action to conserve water, considering the positive relationship between having an efficiency plan and implementing WDM policies. It is clear that increasing adoption of WDM can be read in relation both to provincial guidance in the reports, as well as general shifts in the literature (see Chapter 2), as well as a response to worsening experiences with drought in the province (now and into the future). These insights are discussed below with reference to the literature and policy practice among BC municipalities.  3.5.1 Planning and adopting water demand management policies.  Planning and prioritizing issues in environmental governance are fundamental principles of sustainable resource management and development (Millard-Ball, 2013; World Health Organization, 2019). In the water sector, scholars have recommended effective and conscious planning and implementation of various management frameworks to manage water resources sustainably (Fletcher et al., 2022). Our research has demonstrated that local jurisdictions are purposively and progressively adopting WDM policies to promote water conservation and reduce demand. For instance, the survey results show over 81% (n=76) of sampled jurisdictions prioritize WDM issues. Moreover, 4 in 5 jurisdictions have efficiency\/conservation plans to guide the implementation of WDM policies. Despite that the different sampling methods might not permit for full comparison, earlier figures from 2013, estimated that 40% of jurisdictions had water conservation plans according to the Water Conservation Guideline for British Columbia (Belzile et al., 2013). Water efficiency\/conservation plans explicitly illustrate the strategies and actions, including conservation objectives and the financial commitments to implement WDM policies (Metro Vancouver, 2019). As mentioned, these statistics may not be representative of what is happening across the province.       86 Compared with past surveys, more jurisdictions are adopting various WDM policies. There is no known past survey to compare the adoption progress of all WDM policies. For metering, our research results show that 49% (n=46) of surveyed jurisdictions are metering residential water use, and 82% (n=77) have meters for commercial water use. This likely represents a significant increase in the number of residential metered connections compared to the 26% of reporting jurisdictions with metered connections recorded in 2016 (Honey-Ros\u00e9s et al., 2016). It is also important to state that WDM policies formulated by upper-level governments and passed on to local governments, such as water restrictions, are the most adopted among local jurisdictions. These are policies initiated through a legislative bill passed by a Jurisdictional Council or Board and are mandatory to localities within that water service area. For example, the Greater Vancouver Water District has legislated summertime water restrictions and institutional, commercial, and industrial (ICI) water metering, which must be complied with by all 23 jurisdictions receiving treated water from its service area (Metro Vancouver, 2021). Researchers have also argued that WDM measures that are legislated as laws are straightforward to implement given that they have penalties for violating them and are potentially impactful in reducing consumption, especially during droughts (Hughes et al., 2009; Kenney et al., 2004).  Given that more jurisdictions are prioritizing, planning, and adopting various WDM measures across most reporting jurisdictions, it is reasonable to conclude the provincial objectives on water conservation are being met. For instance, many jurisdictions now have efficiency\/conservations and are adopting multiple measures. Take metering, for example, the number of residential metered connections has increased from 26% to 55% between 2016 and 2020. However, I may need more comprehensive or representative data to report on these statistics and make conclusions with greater certainty.  The literature sometimes describes water demand management as a reactionary mechanism in times of water scarcity or crisis to temporarily hold up demand until more supply is secured (Brandes & Ferguson, 2004; Brooks, 2006). For instance, research in Cape Town, South Africa and California, USA, shows water restrictions, metering, and efficiency technologies were common practices used to mitigate drought situations (P\u00e9rez-Urdiales & Baerenklau, 2020; Reniko & Kolawole, 2020). Similar WDM policies were adopted in most cities in Spain affected by the 2000 \u2013 2003 drought (Lopez-Nicolas et al., 2018). Like drought-prone regions such as Cape Town,      87 South Africa (Taing et al., 2019), this study has demonstrated that local governments are planning long-term water conservation in response to climate change impact. For instance, many jurisdictions have developed efficiency\/conservation plans and are implementing these plans among the sampled jurisdictions, and others are also complying with upper-level governments\u2019 directives on water restrictions. For instance, in response to the 2003 drought, the Deputy Minister for Environment formed the Inter-ministry Task Force on Drought (now Inter-Agency Drought Working Group) to develop a handbook, Dealing with Drought: A Handbook for Water Suppliers in British Columbia, to guide drought management and response by local jurisdictions (Government of British Columbia, 2022). This handbook is updated yearly to correspond with changes in drought situations, statutes, and responsibilities of various ministries. As well, the province had a water conservation strategy since 1998 to guide local governments in responding to conserving water use, especially drought and water scarcity situations(Khari\u00e9, 1998).  It is important to state that these plans only serve as recommendations for localities, and they are left to adopt what is deemed appropriate according to local circumstances. Despite that, the province has, at no time, officially declared a water crisis or emergency. This study and past information, as demonstrated, have shown that water conservation and WDM policies were in response to (threats of) drought in the province. Be that as it may, this study has demonstrated that BC local governments are making concerted efforts to conserve water and reduce wastage by adopting WDM policies and practices.  3.5.2 Study limitations Some methodological and practical challenges confronted in conducting this research.  i. The data was collected during the COVID-19 pandemic via an internet-based platform. Even though online platforms, including the Qualtrics panel services, are standard data collection instruments, in-person follow-ups with questionnaires could have increased the survey response rate. Despite missing our target of achieving an 80% response rate, 58% (n=94) is high enough to have confidence in the results and analyses. ii. We should exercise caution in applying or interpreting the survey results because of potential biases in the response rate (58%), proportional differences in the jurisdiction type, and job type of surveyed participants. Even though the 58% response rate is considered high, it also means that the responses and perspectives of 42% of jurisdictions were not captured. As well, it is      88 possible, even likely, that those who did not participate were not interested in discussing issues around WDM, or conversely, that those who did reply find equity issues to be important. As such, there is likely self-selection bias regarding the sample that answered the survey questionnaire. Three (3) different types of respondents (mayors, chief executive officers, and public works officers) from different jurisdiction types (e.g., communities, cities, and municipalities) answered the same survey questionnaire, even as this was without duplication (see Section 3.3). I summed up all the responses and analyzed the aggregate data. This is because the number of participants from each jurisdiction or job type was not the same. For instance, about 54% of the survey respondents are from municipalities, while 28% come from cities. The unequal number of participants from each jurisdiction type in the survey limited the ability to conduct comparative analysis among various jurisdictions and job type. Probably, segregated data could have allowed other analyses of variables beyond what I have reported here. Nonetheless, this research presents the first and most up-to-date assessment of the progress of WDM in British Columbia. Our findings can be used as fundamental data\/information to set up more precise investigations into how various jurisdiction types are adopting different WDM policies in future.  iii. It is reasonable to survey local government officials because they are in charge of critical water decisions and planning and implementing WDM policies. However, a more robust and detailed analysis could be possible with household-level survey data from residents since water demand management largely depends on the support and compliance of water users. For instance, it can be challenging to assess the progress of educational campaigns from the policymaker\u2019s perspective since water users might not be observing water-saving practices that were introduced by the policymakers. 3.6 Conclusion i. First, local governments in British Columbia (BC) are adopting WDM policies to promote water conservation and reduce demand. The survey reveals that most water managers and policymakers prioritize water conservation and, relatedly, have developed efficiency\/conservation plans to guide the adoption of WDM measures. The high proportions of jurisdictions implementing water restrictions, institutional, commercial, and industrial (ICI)      89 water metering, and water conservation campaigns also point to progress in relation to the types of efforts the provincial government recommends.  ii. Second, non-financial policies and those determined by provincial and federal governments are commonly adopted across all jurisdictions. Thus, policies such as mandatory restrictions and water-saving campaigns determined at broader regional or provincial scales have had higher proportions of adoption over the years. More so, these policies have been initiated or legislated as by-laws of regional districts and, therefore, are oftentimes compulsory for compliance by lower-level jurisdictions.  iii. Third, the study concludes that the increasing adoption of WDM is in response to ongoing (and future threats of) drought and water scarcity. For instance, the study finds that mandatory water-use restrictions are oftentimes imposed in places experiencing Droughts levels 4 and 5. While BC local jurisdictions are attentive to climate change and are increasingly planning and adopting WDM policies, it is crucial to conduct further studies into which WDM measures are most consequential, particularly for different types of jurisdictions, given the levels of investment required, and other considerations.      90 CHAPTER 4: The equity implications of residential water metering from policymakers\u2019 perspective in the context of British Columbia, Canada 4.1 Introduction  Water is an essential resource to sustain life and preserve well-being. In the face of growing water scarcity and challenges in meeting demand, many regions around the world, including British Columbia, Canada, have turned to demand management approaches to meet goals related to water conservation and optimized water usage (Ben Zaied et al., 2022; Zapana-Churata et al., 2022). Among other measures and practices, residential metering has been used to promote conservation and incentivize responsible use (Koech et al., 2021; Solis & Bashar, 2022). Utilities and governments use meters to measure water use and bill households according to actual consumption (Khawam et al., 2006). Meters also provide water consumption information so residents can be mindful of their water use, and so water managers can better track uses and trends. The adoption of water metering technology is often accompanied by a shift in billing from a flat rate to a volume-based tariff (March et al., 2017; Randall & Koech, 2019). Meters are thought to benefit utilities and users in multiple ways, including revenue generation to cover costs and improve water systems, detect, and fix leaks, provide data for planning, and also to enable fair billing, and reduce wasteful use (Amir et al., 2022; Ornaghi & Tonin, 2019). More advanced metering technology, or smart meters, can provide high-resolution water consumption data to support water supply network modelling and planning (Gurung et al., 2014).  Despite the potential advantages that have been documented regarding water meters, some studies have raised concerns regarding the equity impacts of metering adoption. For instance, research has shown that residential metering policies are not neutral and can disproportionately burden some social groups over others (Smith et al., 2015; Tyler, 2007; Wilson & Pereira, 2012). For instance, studies in California, USA, and Spain have found unaffordable water bills and supply disconnections for low-income households for non-payment of bills under metering (Goddard et al., 2021; L\u00f3pez-Ruiz et al., 2020). Considering these inequities of metering affecting marginalized groups, scholars have cautioned against metering and volumetric pricing when used as tools to enable profit-making or the financialization of water use, particularly in ways that do not consider inequities or failures with respect to human water needs (Bayliss, 2014, 2020). Given this, it is   91 important to consider the potential that water metering adoption could exacerbate water inequities, including in British Columbia (BC), where meters are being increasingly adopted (Chapter 4). However, how water stakeholders, including residents, participate in, benefit from, and spend under metering programs remains little explored in the province. These questions inform the study presented here, to consider the ways that water managers understand equity and address inequities in water metering programs and ongoing implementation. There are important issues to be considered, especially given the perceived water abundance in the province, as well as persistent and perennial drought conditions, which are becoming more and more part of BC\u2019s reality.  The province of British Columbia has been experiencing extreme weather events, including wildfires, droughts, and heat waves that degrade water resources and put considerable pressure on water supplies (Government of British Columbia, 2022, 2023). This can directly affect water services, including treatment cost, quality, and access to safe and affordable water. These impacts may not be distributed equally across all social groups\u2014issues of affordability, groundwater losses, and contamination affect marginalized and poor communities across the United States of America (Fletcher et al., 2022). As such, the situation can potentially worsen already considerable concerns related to water access, quality, and sanitation, as well as linked considerations of \u2018plumbing poverty\u2019 (Dietz and Meehan, X). As local jurisdictions adopt water metering, there are possible adverse effects in terms of access and affordability, particularly for certain users, as in many other contexts (Metro Vancouver, 2019). As a result, this chapter takes a policy analysis approach to investigate how residential water metering policies affect water access, affordability, and participation in the context of British Columbia, Canada. I explore these equity issues specifically from a policy perspective with water managers and policymakers in mind. In exploring equity from a policy analysis perspective, it is important to understand how the water metering literature has engaged and discussed equity in relation to drinking water management. Water metering literature has different ways of conceptualizing equity, sometimes simply as equality, which is different from what is in the broader environmental governance (EJ) literature. The EJ literature discusses equity from the environmental justice framework, where people are expected to meaningfully participate in policy decisions and receive the benefits and burdens in a fair and just manner (Schaider et al., 2019; Svarstad & Benjaminsen, 2020). However, the synthesis review of water demand management literature (see Chapter 2) reveals a dominant but   92 different notion of equity\u2014often considering equity dimensions in terms of practices of measuring and billing water consumption based on actual household consumption, and not based on the type of water used, need, or user\u2019s ability to pay (Ornaghi & Tonin, 2019). As the literature review in Chapter two (2) makes clear, relatively few scholars consider equity in line with the environmental justice framework \u2013 also discussing issues of access, affordability, and participation (or distributional and procedural justice concerns). For instance, Martins (2013) engages a broad notion of equity by critiquing the unaffordability of metering and volumetric rate programs in Portugal (Martins et al., 2013b). The author found that the program made water unaffordable for 20% of the poorest households in several municipalities. Despite the differences in interpreting and perceiving equity, few exceptional studies have dealt with equity more holistically in terms of water access, affordability, and participation (Carvalho et al., 2010; J. Cook & Whittington, 2020; Goddard et al., 2021).  The different notions and ways of perceiving equity may affect how we determine and measure situations of (in)equities. For instance, scholars have cautioned the propriety and sufficiency of the variables, indicators, as well as data and level of analysis in determining and measuring various dimensions of equity. In assessing the affordability of water services, for example, scholars have proposed the use of three different indicators, including the cost of water services relative to (i) median household income, (ii) county poverty income level, and (iii) the deep poverty income level (Andres et al., 2020; Fletcher et al., 2022). In the same way, Garcia-Vali\u00f1as et al. (2010) proposed the use of the amount of income spent on basic water bills as the index after criticizing the use of total income spent on water bills. In contrast, Amit et al. (2019) chose to use cost incurred on coping strategies in place of the lack of water access to measure water affordability (Amit & Sasidharan, 2019). The authors have cautioned that some studies have employed methods that use inconsistent water expenditure data, which has implications for the accuracy of the affordability index.  Commentators have further criticized the type of data often used to examine various equity dimensions (Amit & Sasidharan, 2019). Most studies described earlier have used quantitative data (e.g., water bills, rates, income, and poverty index) to assess water affordability (Andres et al., 2020; Fletcher et al., 2022). Oftentimes, these data are based on simple metrics or modelling and are seemingly far off from what people are experiencing in real life (Amit & Sasidharan, 2019;   93 Vanhille et al., 2018). My research offers a different approach\u2013engaging with the views and experiences of water managers and policymakers to examine the equity implications of metering programs. Inequities, injustices, and inequalities are value-laden attributes that can be understood better from the perspectives of those directly involved, including policymakers or the most at-risk groups (Guy & Mccandless, 2012). As local government officials, water management is part of their core mandate, including the implementation of water metering programs (Metro Vancouver, 2019). Also, as a policy-related research question, it is important to examine it from the perspective of those with institutional influence and responsibility in terms of formulating, planning, and implementing metering policies and programs. As a result, it is worth exploring firsthand how they understand and perceive equity, which can help us (i) identify potentially important points of harmony or divergence between the framing and notions of equity in academic scholarship and that of practitioners, (ii) what equity dimensions and goals they are aware of and work to achieve as practitioners, and (iii) the strategies and measures they adopt to achieve those equity goals in the local context. This kind of information and knowledge can be the beginning to curating solutions to addressing the tensions both in theory and practice. The overall effect of these gaps \u2013 the multiple ways of interpreting equity, non-standard measuring metrics, and overemphasis on quantitative data \u2013 is linked to the general lack of consensus in the metering literature in terms of (i) what is considered as equitable or inequitable and (ii) how to address water inequities in metering. To fill these gaps, I frame the following research question: What are the equity implications of residential metering programs in British Columbia? I explored the question from water managers\u2019 and policymakers\u2019 perspectives, drawing both from a survey with jurisdictional representatives across the province, and interviews with a subset of them. As a result, I simplified the question into researchable components: (i) What motivates the adoption of residential metering? (ii) how do water users and other relevant stakeholders participate in the program? (iii) how did metering change water rates and bill payments from the perspective of water managers? (iv) How do local government workers involved with water provision conceptualize equity? and (v) how do these managers and policymakers address water equity issues in their work? I used surveys (n=94) and interview data from 21 metered (partially and fully) localities in British Columbia. I analyze critical points of alignment and divergence between policymakers\u2019 and academics' understanding of equity, with the definition (in Chapter 2) as a point of departure. I have focused mainly on the various elements of equity \u2013 distributional, procedural,   94 recognitional, and intergenerational. While this gives some understanding of the equity implications of metering, this should not be construed as a universal finding or generalized since I did not speak with all jurisdictions, or engage with residents, Indigenous communities, non-governmental organizations, and other relevant stakeholders. The remainder of the chapter is structured as follows: Section 4.2 reviews how existing metering research defines and perceives equity (drawing from a more fulsome analysis in Chapter 2). This is followed by a brief background to residential water metering in British Columbia in Section 4.3 (drawing from the more complete analysis in Chapter 3). Section 4.4 provides an overview of the socio-demographics of the localities included in the interviews. Section 4.5 describes the methods and material, including surveys and interview instruments used to collect the data and how the data was analyzed. I present the study results on the reasons for metering adoption, the changes to water rates and bill payments, and local water managers\u2019 understanding of equity in Section 4.6. I then discuss the implications of the changes residential metering causes relating to residents\u2019 ability to access and afford water and the need to reframe equity for WDM in Section 4.7. Finally, key insights from the study, as well as methodological and practical limitations, are stated in Section 4.8.  4.2 Framing equity as central to water metering This section elaborates on how equity is defined, perceived, and applied in past metering studies. I have also provided an overview of the variables used to measure various equity dimensions in past metering studies. I have further shown the lack of research on the equity impacts of metering policies in more water-rich contexts similar to the BC context.  The popular equity dimensions examined in metering research include issues about access, affordability, participation, intergenerational, and redress for historical and structural barriers (K. Osman & Faust, 2021; Teodoro, 2005). Scholars have explored the implications of these equity dimensions in municipalities implementing metering and volumetric pricing (Beecher, 2020; Solis & Bashar, 2022). These studies are generally concerned with how metering affects water access and affordability of diverse groups. For instance, Sebri (2015) used water rates and income levels to suggest that utilities must set tariffs at levels considered affordable for low-income households to access basic water since water supports human life and well-being (Sebri, 2015). Teodoro posits   95 in a blog series that affordability should include issues around quality, efficiency, rate designs, and income-qualified customer assistance programs9. In terms of access, Rogers (2012) urges water managers to expand water services to poor urban and peri-urban neighbourhoods and reduce their reliance on alternate water sources such as vendors and wells, especially in developing countries. These studies imply that there are multiple variables to examine when assessing and addressing water equity. For instance, Swain et al. (2020) found that residents could not pay water bills under metering and volumetric rates in older USA cities of Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Detroit. The authors further claim that this inequity manifested from multiple overlapping marginalities, such as shrinking infrastructure in older cities, low-income levels, and undeveloped neighbourhoods (Swain et al., 2020). Their study implies that inequities under water metering are also linked to issues of historical marginalization. These analyses offer valuable lessons in choosing the dimensions and variables when assessing the water equity implications of metering. Some scholars have cautioned the inadequacy of existing variables and indicators to measure and address inequities facing vulnerable people under metering and volumetric pricing policies (K. Osman & Faust, 2021; Stevenson, 2019). For instance, Goddard et al. (2022) have recommended that equity should be focused mainly on water affordability in line with the Human Right to Water (HRTW) and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG 6). As a result, they offer normative metrics (e.g., affordability ratio, residual income) based on the benefit or ability-to-pay principle as the appropriate instruments to measure equity (Goddard et al., 2022). However, others have suggested that it is important to consider and operationalize equity more comprehensively \u2013 including access, inclusion, participation, and redress for systemic and historical barriers as recommended in environmental justice literature (Guy & Mccandless, 2012; Wooldridge & Bilharz, 2017). As a result, I have proposed (in Chapter 2) an equity definition from the EJ viewpoint as the supply of good-quality, sustainable, affordable, and adequate quantity of water to all through participatory processes, including the redress of systemic barriers. The definition encompasses substantive elements of water equity, including quality, sustainability, affordability, adequate quantity, participatory processes, meeting the needs of the unborn, and redressing systemic marginalities. Conversely, the multiplicity of equity elements can sometimes generate  9Professor Manuel Teodoro has an elaborate and distilled body of research on the affordability of water and sewer services. It includes a comprehensive writeup on five pillars of affordability and policy guides for utility leaders in the USA.     96 tensions and sometimes open conflicts between them, making it difficult for WDM policies to achieve equitable outcomes (see Reflection #5 in Chapter 2 for details on the tensions among equity dimensions). However, in discussing equity in water management, the focus is \u201cprimarily about people, not water\u201d (Global Water Partnership, 2009). As the literature suggests, well-designed policies with a holistic focus on the cost and benefits, rather than piecemeal, could advance all the goals to some extent (ibid). As a result, I have used the proposed definition of equity that encompasses substantive issues around quality, sustainability, affordability, adequate quantity, participatory processes, meeting the needs of the unborn, and redress of systemic marginalities as a reference point in Chapter 4 to examine how policymakers understanding of equity can work to ensure that WDM policies are equitable. The section that follows gives an overview of residential water metering in British Columbia.  4.3 Residential water metering in British Columbia There is growing interest in residential water metering in the province. In this section, I provide an overview highlighting the limited research on residential metering in the province, the predominant use of mandatory instruments, and the shift to volume-based water rates associated with metering. This overview can provide critical insights and updates in terms of metering research and adoption in the province.  There is limited academic literature on residential metering progress in British Columbia (BC). There were a few earlier studies in the province, but they were focused mainly on water demand management and highlighted the appropriate conceptualizations and estimated benefits of various policies and measures (Brandes & Ferguson, 2004; Brooks, 2006; Maas, 2005). Some recent studies were focused on metering, specifically assessing the level of support by political leaders, the adoption progress, and the effectiveness of volumetric water rates (Honey-Ros\u00e9s & Pareja, 2019; Volker & Honey-Ros\u00e9s, 2019). According to the 2016 BC Municipal Water Survey, 20-26% of residential connections in the province were metered at that time, which was far below the national average of 72% (Honey-Ros\u00e9s et al., 2016). Nearly half of the municipalities within the Greater Vancouver Water District, including Richmond, Surrey, Langley, Burnaby, New Westminster, and the District of West Vancouver, have metered all single-family household connections (Metro Vancouver, 2019). Jurisdictions such as Abbotsford, Vancouver, and Richmond are forward-looking by using smart meters (e.g., Advanced Metering Infrastructure,   97 Automated Meter Reading), where water consumption data is collected remotely through a wireless system. Much of this information can be accessed from the websites and water management plans, by-laws,10 and reports of various jurisdictions. Individual jurisdictions sometimes commission studies to assess the practical and financial feasibility of metering. For example, in 2020, Econics, a consultancy firm, conducted a preliminary assessment of the cost and benefits, including water-saving estimates of metering 8,057 single-family household connections for the District of Mission (Econics, 2020). The report concluded that the district would spend $1,884.00 to install a meter and a total of $16.7 million, potentially reducing water consumption by 17.5% from 2018 base year consumption (ibid). Metro Vancouver also conducted a similar study in 2019 and provided guidelines on best practices for local governments planning to implement residential metering (Metro Vancouver, 2019). I have also reviewed water management and conservation plans of selected local governments, which make apparent the conscious efforts and planning they invest in metering to conserve and optimize water use (see, e.g., (City of Langley, 2017; Metro Vancouver, 2021). Aside from these individual reports, no comprehensive academic study has reported on important updates such as the level of adoption and the implications of residential metering regarding water access and affordability.  Metered jurisdictions in BC commonly use mandatory policy instruments in implementing metering programs. In many parts of BC, institutional, commercial, and industrial (ICI) water use is metered and billed by regional-level bodies (Regional Water Districts) while local governments decide whether to meter residential water connections (Metro Vancouver, 2019). Jurisdictions can employ mandatory, semi-mandatory or voluntary policies in implementing metering. For mandatory (or universal) instruments, jurisdictions legislate by-laws that require residents in specific water-user groups (e.g., single-family) to purchase or pay for the installation of water meters. Residents are sometimes asked to voluntarily install meters in their water connections. Semi-mandatory instruments combine both compulsory requirements and incentive-based strategies to motivate residents to sign up for metering. According to the BC Municipal Water Survey 2016 report, 13 (out of 44) jurisdictions had mandatory policies, and 16 used semi-mandatory policies to implement metering by 2016 (Honey-Ros\u00e9s et al., 2016). Generally, the use  10 These are legislations often passed by Council members stipulating the various charges, fees, rates, and licences for the municipal services. See the Fraser Valley Regional District By-law as an example: FVRD BL 1631, 2021   98 of mandatory instruments to implement metering can introduce unexpected costs or increase water costs for certain residents (Pierce et al., 2021). A report by Metro Vancouver; Residential Water Metering in Metro Vancouver: Best Practices Guide for Local Governments, Metro Vancouver report has suggested the use of both instruments because they can increase adoption rates and reduce uncertainties (Metro Vancouver, 2019). According to the report, the City of Richmond started metering single-family households through volumetry sign-ups in 2003, and by 2014, 70% of connections were metered. The city then mandated all residents to install a meter to cover the remaining 30% by 2017. The report further indicates that voluntary policies enable jurisdictions to raise internal revenues to finance metering programs through used rates or special taxes.  Metered jurisdictions in the province can switch from flat-rate payments for water to volumetric rates. They can adopt different volumetric water rate structures, including a constant unit charge, increasing block rates (IBR), or decreasing block rates (DBR) (Honey-Ros\u00e9s & Pareja, 2019). For example, the District of West Vancouver has four consumption blocks, including block 1 (0\u201330m3 =$1.39\/m3), block 2 (31\u201360m3 = $1.59\/m3), block 3 (61\u2013180m3 =$2.43\/m3), block 4 (over 180m3 = $3.32\/m3) (District of West Vancouver, n.d.). These variable rates are designed to induce water-saving behavior, especially among water wasters and reduce consumption in the long round. Honey-Ros\u00e9s et al. (2016) found that 15 (out of 44) local governments in BC were charging volumetric rates for single-family water use in 2016. My study finds that 36 (out of 49) jurisdictions have volumetric rate structures for single- and multi-family household units (see Chapter 3). Generally, volume-based water rates can be unfair, especially to large families using water for essential purposes. These types of water rates have been criticized as repressive since they rarely consider the water needs and ability of users to pay for water services(Grafton et al., 2015).  This review highlights three key points: (i) academic research on residential metering adoption and its associated implications is limited, especially in BC (ii) local governments are more likely to use mandatory instruments to implement metering, as well as switch to volumetric water rate structures post-metering in BC. Reflecting on the survey results on reasons for metering (in Figure 4.1) and associated data, I can suggest that metering programs often focus exclusively on particular management objectives of interest to the utility or provider (e.g., fair billing, leak detection, and revenue generation) other than providing potable water to people who cannot afford it. The section   99 that follows outlines the data collection, analysis, and reporting processes for Chapter 4. Preceding the methods section is a brief description of the case study area.  4.4 The case study area This study was conducted in British Columbia, Canada. My goals in this chapter are to examine (i) how water managers and policymakers understand\/perceive equity, (ii) how they consider metering effects regarding water access and affordability, and (iii) how they intend to address the broad suite of inequities at stake. I analyzed both surveys and interview data for this chapter. The survey was administered by participants from 94 of 162 municipalities.11 The interviews were conducted with a subset of 21 local governments metering residential household water from the larger sample. I recruited the participants from the full range of jurisdictions in the province, from municipalities, cities, communities, and towns\/villages. The interviewed jurisdictions range from big municipalities (pop. \u2265 4 million) serving large water service areas to small villages of less than 100 people. The study participants were from diverse jurisdictions regarding demographic and socio-economic factors and conditions. No First Nation communities were included in this research, given that First Nations water issues are governed in a different way and have separate jurisdictional rights under Canadian law (Simms et al., 2016). Table 4.1 provides some social indicators \u2013 total population, median household income, and proportions of visible minorities of the populations in jurisdictions included in the interviews. I have provided these statistics to situate my analysis and discussions on the equity implications of metering based on the methods of this study. However, these factors were not considered in selecting the jurisdictions but were based on those metering residential household connections and also consented to participate in a follow-on interview through the surveys. I understand that leaving out considerations for critical geographic, socio-economic, political, and physical characteristics in the selection could pose some limitations in the analysis. As a result, my analysis and conclusions for this chapter should be read with this caveat in mind.   11 The term municipalities is used broadly and legally to refer to incorporated municipalities that can be classified as either a town, village, district or city depending on the size and population density.    100  Table 4.1: Socio-demographic information of jurisdictions included in the interviews No. Jurisdiction Type  Population (2021) Visible Minority Median Household Income (000) 1.  Community\/Town 10,001 \u2013 50,000  1,935   ~$60  2.  Municipality  1,001 \u2013 5,000  75   ~$50  3.  City  50,001 \u2013 100,000  10,195   ~$70  4.  City  >100,000  79,015   ~$70  5.  Municipality  1,001 \u2013 5,000  195   ~$60  6.  City  10,001 \u2013 50,000 3,240  ~$100  7.  Municipality  1,001 \u2013 5,000  330   ~$70  8.  Municipality  10,001 \u2013 50,000  3,310   ~$60  9.  City  >100,000  18,810   ~$70  10.  City  1,001 \u2013 5,000  660   ~$90  11.  Municipality  1,001 \u2013 5,000  70   ~$60  12.  Village  <1,000 0   ~$50  13.  Municipality  <1,000  20   ~$60  14.  Municipality  50,001 \u2013 100,000  34,275   ~$60  15.  Municipality  10,001 \u2013 50,000  695   ~$50  16.  Community\/Town 1,001 \u2013 5,000  90   ~$80  17.  City  1,001 \u2013 5,000  180   ~$80  18.  City   10,001 \u2013 50,000   1,010   ~$60  19.  Municipality  <1,000  0   ~$45  20.  Regional District  10,0001 \u2013 50,000 2,865 ~$36 21.  City  50,0001\u2013 100,000  14,060   ~$50  Source: Statistics Canada 2021.  Policy documents, including the BC Drought and Water Scarcity Response Plan (updated 2023), show that promoting water conservation and efficiency have been long-term provincial objectives and suggest that measures such as metering can help achieve this objective (Government of British Columbia, 2022, 2023). Based on such objectives, local governments are implementing various measures such as water restrictions, conservation campaigns, and residential metering, as reported by the 2016 BC Municipal Water Survey (Honey-Ros\u00e9s et al., 2016). More so, the survey results   101 in my study show more than 49% (n=46) of surveyed jurisdictions have meters for approbatory 296,430 residential connections across the sampled province (see Chapter 3). Metering represents an interesting example of WDM to consider specifically, especially because (i) metering is considered to be among the more straightforward measures to implement and (ii) equity issues are contentious in areas where metering is used to manage water demand, given water access and affordability conditions (see Volker & Honey-Ros\u00e9s, 2019). More so, the provincial government has water conservation guidelines and recommendations for local governments, including conditionalities to adopt metering in order to qualify for federal\/provincial infrastructure grants. Thus, municipal and city planners are still working to prove the financial and logistical feasibility of metering to attain the support of decision-makers and residents. The next section outlines the methods used in collecting and analyzing the data for this chapter. 4.5 Methods  I collected the data for this chapter using survey questionnaires and expert interviews. The major highlights in this section include: (i) the combined use of survey (n=94) and interview (n=21) datasets, (ii) an account of the collection processes of surveys and interviews, (iii) descriptive and inferential analysis of the survey data, and (iv) the coding schemes, including magnitude coding used in analyzing the interview transcripts, (v) a description of the metrics such as mandatory policies, delay payments, volumetric rate structures, and the limitedness of assistance programs in assessing equity issues in metering. I have expatiated on these themes in the rest of the section.  4.5.1 Survey data collection Between January and May 2022, I invited all 162 local governments in the province but 94 responded to the survey via Qualtrics. The participants included municipal mayors, chief administrative officers, and public work officers (e.g., engineers, directors of operations, and utility supervisors\/managers). I use the summary term of water managers and policymakers to capture the participants targeted. The methods section in Chapter 3 has a detailed description of the survey data collection procedure followed. For this chapter, I used the data for eight (8) water metering and equity-related questions in my analysis. The questions focused on how policymakers perceive equity, the policy instruments used in implementing metering, and the changes metering brings to water rate structures and bill billing. Appendix C1 has a full list of the eight survey questions used for this chapter analysis. Below are sample questions:   102 1. Please rank these reasons why your jurisdiction would adopt residential metering.  2. Which of the statements best describes your understanding of water equity?  3. Do you (jurisdiction) have water meters for the following building types? Single-family, multiple-family, and industrial, commercial, and institutional (ICI) 4. How does your jurisdiction currently charge for residential water use? Please select all that apply: Flat rate charge, volumetric charge.  5. In the past year (2020), estimate the percentage of residents who were late in paying bills?  4.5.2 Semi-structured expert interviews The interview participants were recruited from those who administered the survey questionnaire and indicated their consent to be interviewed. Among those who replied to the survey, 30 agreed to be contacted for the interviews. Of that subset, I was able to interview 21 jurisdictional representatives across the province. The eligibility criteria \u2013 jurisdiction has an independent water system and metering residential water supply (fully or partially), were used to get the 21 participants. It is reasonable to include jurisdictions already metering residential water supply because the research question intended to examine the metering process to understand the impact on water users in terms of access and affordability. I followed up via email or phone call with interested and eligible participants with Detailed Research Information (see Appendix B1) and a Consent Form (see Appendix C2) to schedule the interview. Each person returned a signed Consent Form and indicated their preferred interview date and platform.  The study sought the perspective of policymakers because (i) they have institutional influence and responsibility and are better placed to provide the relevant information and (ii) they have up-to-date information about the subject matter than policy documents. In literature, scholars have used the perspectives and insights of water managers and policymakers to understand and evaluate water demand policies (K. K. Osman et al., 2023; Spearing et al., 2020). Nonetheless, another approach could mainly focus on analyzing policy documents to understand the progress and equity implications of WDM policies. Even though such an approach could potentially highlight a unique perspective, this research used the perspectives of water policymakers. However, the study has occasionally used relevant information from some policy documents to provide context and details and illustrate case examples to advance important arguments. Some of the documents include the provincial Water Sustainability Act, waterworks by-laws, WDM and conservation by-laws and   103 plans, utilities, fees, and rates by-laws, and annual progress reports. These documents contain valuable information (e.g., water rate structures, consumption data, and budgetary allocations) which was used in the discussions.  I used a semi-structured interview guide in conducting the interviews, some with the assistance of Research Assistants. I created an interview guide (see Appendix C3) following guidelines for conducting interviews in qualitative research (Jacob & Furgerson, 2015). This guide was based on the research question comprising five broad themes \u2013 including the motivation for metering, the decision-making and adoption processes, metering impact on water rates and bill payments, and water managers\u2019 understanding of equity. As a common qualitative data collection tool in the social sciences, a semi-structured interview guide allows researchers the flexibility to personalize questions to each participant and probe for clarity in participants\u2019 responses (Arsel, 2017).  I conducted the interviews mainly on Zoom since the COVID-19 pandemic restricted in-person interactions and to comply with the University of British Columbia\u2019s Behavioral Ethics Review Board (BREB) guidelines. Virtual platforms have become more acceptable tools for collecting qualitative data using structured, semi-structured or unstructured interview guides (Howlett, 2022; Irani, 2019; Oliffe et al., 2021). The physical connection with participants and the chance to observe nonverbal cues could be lost using virtual platforms. However, improved communication technology (e.g., Zoom) has made it more convenient to collect data in real-time through synchronous conversations with research participants over larger geographic areas (Irani, 2019). Internet-based applications also make scheduling more flexible and reduce logistical and spatial location constraints (ibid). For instance, I was able to interview water managers and policymakers in remote localities, which would be significantly more challenging and even prohibitive for in-person interviews.  The interview protocol \u201cguided\u201d the structure of the interview in line with the research themes, but interviewees mainly drove the discussions. I prepared and sent a non-technical text of the questions in advance, including prompts, especially to participants who have never interacted with people of Black African descent, to mediate potential problems with my accent. The non-technical question list helped in prepping participants and addressing other unexpected challenges, including Internet glitches (Burke & Miller, 2001). I also practiced the interview with my colleagues to   104 improve the flow and avoid the use of discipline-related jargon during the interview (Jacob & Furgerson, 2015). The interviews lasted about 30 minutes. Three (3) Research Assistants helped to conduct five (5) interviews when I was tight with time schedules.  With prior permission from participants, all the interviews were audio-recorded. The recorded audio files were automatically uploaded onto the school\u2019s cloud storage, which I later downloaded with my unique student log-in credentials. I used an online transcription tool, Temi (a paid-wall site for transcribing recorded audio\/video files), to transcribe all the audio files (Loxton, 2019). I cleaned and reorganized the transcripts into suitable formats usable by any qualitative data analysis software (Kowal & O\u2019Cconnell, 2013; McLellan et al., 2003). I also listened to each audio file while reading the transcript to fix non-audible and conflicting words that Temi might have misread. In some cases, Native-Speakers spoke so fast that Temi could not capture all the words, and, on my part, it was the Ghanaian accent. The scripts were also cleaned of offtimes, pause durations during interviews, and repetitions, to obtain a more succinct transcript and to reduce the documents\u2019 length (O\u2019Connell & Kowal, 2012). These prosodic parameters were removed because they could be nuisances to the analysis and because the study was not about conversational analysis of speech. While cleaning and reformatting the transcripts, I was conscious of preserving the natural morphology and a verbatim account of the interviews (McLellan et al., 2003). Apart from the recorded files, I also took handwritten field notes of key points for reference purposes and as a backup to the risk of data losses in the recording devices. I anonymized all identifiers in the transcripts by assigning pseudonyms and special characters to interviewees and their jurisdictions to reduce participant risk. The Microsoft Word formats were then converted into Portable Document Format (pdf) and imported into NVivo R1 for Mac software. This is a Computer-Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis (CAQDA) software used to improve the reliability and validity of organizing and analyzing qualitative data sets (Allsop et al., 2022; Deterding & Waters, 2021; Dhakal, 2022; Gibbs, 2013; Welsh, 2002).  4.5.3 Data analysis and reporting I used the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) and an NVivo software to analyze the survey data and interviews, respectively. To understand the equity implications of metering, I examined metering adoption in relation to cost, access, and how residents and other stakeholders   105 were involved in decision-making regarding metering. Before that, I inquired about how water managers conceptualize equity, as a key consideration that impinges on how they might consider and potentially address these concerns. The key themes analyzed included what motivates metering adoption, the changes in water rates and bill payments, and the overall equity implications from a policy perspective. Studies have used similar variables such as delays in bill payments, sale of delinquent water bills and bill assistance programs to evaluate metering impacts on water access and affordability (see, e.g., (Mack et al., 2020; Pierce, Chow, DeShazo, et al., 2020; Zaied et al., 2020). Below is a detailed description of the type of data and analyses I performed in responding to the sub-questions:  1. What motivates the adoption of residential metering?  In the survey data, I presented eight (8) pre-determined statements on the reasons for metering residential water supply to participants to rank using a scale between 1\u2013 5, where 1 means very important, and 5 means not important. These are well-known statements representing the reasons and motivating factors for the adoption of metering programs in the literature (Honey-Ros\u00e9s et al., 2016; Koech et al., 2021; Tortajada et al., 2019). I conducted structural coding of the interview transcripts based on emerging themes throughout the questions, including on metering motivation (see Table 4.2). This is a first cycle coding process intended to label or index the data for the researcher to quickly locate phrases for particular themes or categories (Saldana, 2021). 2. How were residents and other stakeholders involved in the decision-making process?  I used first-cycle structural coding of the interview transcripts on whether residents and civil society organizations were involved in planning and implementing metering.  3. How does metering affect water rates and bill payments? I conducted descriptive analyses of three (3) survey data points: the type of policy instrument, changes in water rates, and delayed\/default payments. These analyses show how mandatory policies and volumetric rates can trigger uncertainties, making marginalized populations more vulnerable. Delays\/defaults in bill payments and bill assistance programs were also used as proxies to demonstrate how metering could make some water users more vulnerable. The interview transcripts were also coded similarly to the survey themes in the codebook in Table 4.2.  4. How do water managers understand equity? and how do they address water equity challenges?   106 First, I analyzed the survey data on how participants understand equity. This was done by showing the proportions of participants\u2019 ranking of pre-determined survey statements presented to indicate which one best describes their understanding of equity. Second, I used the codebook in Table 4.2 to code how policymakers understand equity, the impact on water access, affordability, and participation, and how they address the impacts. Table 4.3 was used to conduct magnitude coding to show the numerical strength and evaluative content of how policymakers understand and frame equity. Magnitude coding is a process of assigning alphanumeric or symbolic codes to existing themes\/categories to indicate their intensity, presence, frequency, and evaluative content in the data (Saldana, 2021). I coded throughout the metering process: (i) the metering policy instrument, (ii) changes in rates and bill payments, (iii) delays\/default in bill payments, (iv) bill assistance programs, and (v) policymakers\u2019 understanding of equity. For convenience, I have simply categorized the coding results into two: whether these variables\/activities promote or undermine equity.  The coded frequency counts were then evaluated (based on the coding criteria in Table 4.3) to identify actions that promote or undermine equity. The illustration of the numerical counts of how policymakers understand equity can help in determining how often equity issues come up in water management discourses. As Saldana (2021) emphasizes, \u201csometimes, words say it best; sometimes numbers do; and sometimes, both can work in concert to compose a richer answer and corroborate each other\u201d (p.58).    107 Table 4.2 Codebook for first cycle structural and descriptive coding Themes Categories Codes Description    Metering adoption  Metering motivation Conservation\/reduce consumption, Provincial grant, generate revenues, learning from others Explicit mention of motivation or the reasons for metering. Also, the benefits of metering are included.  Decision-making & stakeholder engagement  Council approval, public meetings, consultative seminars, surveys, & public feedback  How was the decision made to adopt metering? Participants must mention if stakeholders were involved in the decision-making and rate fixing. Implementation policy instrument Voluntary sign-up, mandatory & semi-mandatory.  It must be indicated in the interviews if policymakers used voluntary sign-up, mandatory or semi-mandatory policy. Impact\/changes of metering programs Water rates Changes in water rate structures: Volumetric & flat rates.  Upon implementing residential metering, did water rates change \u2013 including volumetric or flat rates? The interview must mention either one to be coded.  Bill payments  Delayed bills, defaulting bills, & no changes. Has metering affected billing cycle and bill payments? The interview must mention if residents\u2019 delay\/default in bill payments or no changes. Bill assistance programs  Incentive\/assistance program & no incentive\/assistance program The interview statement should indicate what incentive or assistance programs are there to support people unable to afford water bills.  Water Equity  Understanding\/defining Social equity & or economic equity, or  Equity & Equality Policymakers\u2019 responses can identify with and coded under distributional, procedural, recognitional, and intergenerational equity. Some transcripts could also be coded under equality and or social equity.  Equity issues  Access, affordability, and participation issues  How does metering adoption impact water users? The interview may mention or identify with either of these codes. The people affected should also be identified. Addressing inequities  Pro-poor billing, incentives\/assistance programs, learning from best practices, & stakeholder engagement The interview should mention or identify with and be coded under measures jurisdictions are taking to address inequities    108 Table 4.3: Codebook\/scheme for the magnitude coding. This shows the overall image of how policymakers understand and perceive equity under metering  Themes Categories Codes Coding Evaluation Metering implementation  Decision-making & public engagement  Public meetings, consultative seminars, surveys, public feedback, & campaigns.  Code as promoting equity if there is evidence of involvement, undermining equity if there is no engagement, and neutral if nothing is mentioned\/cannot identify. Implementation policy instrument Voluntary sign-up, mandatory & semi-mandatory.  Code as promoting equity if voluntary, undermining equity if mandatory, and as neutral if semi-mandatory or cannot identify Impact\/changes of the metering program Water rates Changes in water rate structure: (i) volumetric & (ii) flat rates.  Code as promoting equity if volumetric, undermining equity if flat rates, and as neutral if both or cannot identify Bill payments  Delayed bills, defaulting bills, & no changes. Code as promoting equity if there are no defaults\/delays, undermining equity if there are defaults\/delays, and as neutral if there is no change or cannot identify  Bill assistance programs  Incentive\/assistance program & no incentive\/assistance program Code as promoting equity if evidence of a program in place, undermining equity if no program and defaulters are punished, and as neutral if nothing is mentioned\/cannot identify. Water Equity  Framing\/definition  Promotes equity & or undermines equity, or  Equity & Equality Code as promoting equity if evidence shows some protective\/support policies, undermining equity if no protective\/support policies, and as neutral if nothing is mentioned\/cannot identify      109 4.6 Study results The key themes reported here include: (i) factors that motivate metering, (ii) the impact of metering on water rates and bill payments, and (iii) policymakers\u2019 understanding of equity and how they address equity impacts. I have discussed these themes with examples and evidence from the data. To contextualize the study results, I have stated the patterns and characteristics of the data. Ninety-four (94) water managers and policymakers across the British Columbia (BC) province responded to survey questionnaires via an online Qualtrics platform. The survey results are based on select questions on water metering, rate structures, bill payments and policymakers' understanding of equity. Most of the questions were mainly on residential metering so, participants from 46 (out of 94) metered jurisdictions responded. I interviewed water managers in twenty-one (21) metered jurisdictions. The distribution of interviewees according to water service areas includes: 1 regional district, 9 municipalities, 8 cities, 2 communities\/towns, and 1 village. The interview participants comprised 13 Public Works Officers, 6 Chief Administrative Officers, and 2 Mayors. Presumably, these people oversee critical water decisions and supervise metering programs in the jurisdictions. I recruited interviewees from metered jurisdictions who expressed interest and consented to participate via the online survey. 4.6.1 The motivation and rationale for residential water metering  I found that most jurisdictions are motivated to adopt metering programs for the following declared reasons: (i) fair billing, (ii) water conservation, and (iii) to meet federal government funding requirements. Below are the survey and interview data to support these claims.  The survey results show that 2 in 5 respondents in the surveyed jurisdictions indicated fair billing, leak detection, and water conservation were major reasons or motivating factors for adopting metering (Figure 4.1). But, only 14% of respondents selected cross-subsidizing water for poor households as an important reason for installing meters. It does appear that subsidizing or making water affordable for marginalized households is among the top priorities for most jurisdictions when metering residential water use. Similar views were expressed in the interviews in support of metering to conserve water and ensure fair billing of residential water supply.      110  Figure 4.1: List of reasons and motivations jurisdictions would adopt residential metering in 2020 (n=94).  Another key insight from the interviews suggest that metering may help high-burden jurisdictions secure additional funding in the form of subsidized loans and grants from upper-level governments -   provincial and federal. For example, the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program provides long-term, stable funding for climate mitigation and resilience for local governments, and the province of BC gives preference for applicants showing more water conservation efforts.12 The following statement from an interview with an operations manager of an incorporated town (~4,000 people) demonstrates that part of the reason to implement residential metering was to better their chances in a federal grant competition:  Okay. So, the universal metering program was decided by our council with recommendations from our engineer and our city manager. It was a requirement for grant funding. So, in order for us to get grants, we had to show that we were doing some kind of  12British Columbia. (n.d.). Local Government Water Systems - Province of British Columbia. Retrieved November 4, 2023, from https:\/\/www2.gov.bc.ca\/gov\/content\/governments\/local-governments\/grants-transfers\/grants       111 water conservation. So, that was one big reason. And because we're a small town, we need the money. The other reason is we have slow sand filtration at our water treatment plant, and it was having trouble keeping up with demand. So, we would've had to invest a lot of money to build another filter bay in order to keep up with the demand that was increasing. \u2013 Interviewee_#017 4.6.2 Stakeholder participation in metering programs  The interview analysis highlights limited public engagement by policymakers in planning and implementing metering programs. In many instances, metering decisions, including the choice of policy instrument and rate setting, were made by elected council members on behalf of residents. When asked how relevant stakeholders were involved in the metering program, a manager of operations of a small-sized city (~ 4000 people) said:  There was no public input, the only thing that took place was at a council meeting, which I did not attend. Uh, but it was just a Council decision, and they just decided we're going universal metering and created a by-law that was by-law 2384 in 2007, that stated metering is going to happen with new bills. And then, from there, the metering program took off and became more mandatory \u2013 Interviewee_#017.  From a representative governance perspective, this excerpt interview shows that Council Members represent their electorates and act on their behalf. However, it can be challenging to ascertain whether elected representatives carry the view of their electorate. This is because, elsewhere, Kusena et al. (2016) found that residents rarely knew their representatives unless they had serious water problems with municipal services, such as water shut-offs or unexpected water bills. From a procedural justice perspective, these analyses can help in understanding whether the process of metering can compromise the outcome of the whole policy. From a procedural justice perspective, the expectation is that metering policies be participatory, giving residents a free choice, but mandatory policies are less participatory and can undermine equity (Beecher, 2020; Chappells & Medd, 2008). In some cases, jurisdictions conducted public engagement, including feasibility studies, consultative meetings, and online feedback surveys to canvas support and address the concerns of residents before metering. For example, a utility manager of a municipality that provides water to      112 seven (7) other local governments pointed out their metering program resulted from a regional consultative workshop that sought to optimize usage and conserve freshwater supplies. The manager also noted that metering was a pre-requisite for a federal water infrastructure grant:  The <jur#20> underwent a comprehensive regional water planning process, and the result of that was a plan launched in 2013 that looked at supply deficit in our systems and demand management approaches moving forward. Water metering was suggested as one piece in terms of recommended is one piece in terms of the demand management report. The first memo I saw was dated 2003 with an approximate budget. It was much smaller than the actual cost of what the < jur#20> already paid back in 2013 for water meters on the coast, so right now, all businesses or designated businesses are metered. And then about half of residential properties are being added. And in terms of the decision-making process, it was a recommendation at the 2013 conference of the regional water plan. It seemed, what I can see is, it is hinged on some, I guess, provincial, federal funding, so they were grants that the <jur#20> sought. They started with some of the smaller water systems \u2013 Interviewee_#020 Interpreting this interview means our results do not indicate wholesale exclusion of stakeholders in metering programs. Instead, it does appear councils or boards make most decisions on behalf of the residents, which is consistent with representative governance perspective. However, it may be challenging to ascertain the representativeness and whether the delegated powers of the people are being exercised in their interest. This is because many equity perspectives emphasize broad and transparent, inclusive consultations, which does not appear to be the norm in this case.  4.6.3 The impact of metering on water rates and bill payments  The survey results show that the use of mandatory policy instruments in implementing metering, the switch to volumetric water rates, and bill payment delays can make certain groups vulnerable in terms of water access and affordability. I have explained how the data supports these claims. First, the survey results show that 72-80% of local governments use mandatory instruments and less than 2% use voluntary instruments in implementing metering for both single-family and multi-family households. These statistics are similar to what was reported by the BC Municipal Water Survey in 2016 (Honey-Ros\u00e9s et al., 2016). Mandatory instruments that are most likely funded by      113 local governments through loans have the potential to introduce unexpected costs, among other uncertainties, thereby increasing the vulnerability of certain groups of water users. The magnitude coding results in Figure 4.3 where 18 jurisdictions used mandatory policies to implement metering. Generally, it was revealed in the interviews that council or board members usually approve and legislate the decision to adopt metering into a by-law for the engineers to implement. A manager of operations of an incorporated town (~4,000 people) noted that while council members approved metering decisions, the installation brought about challenges to some residents:  There were about 300 people out of 1800 homes that really didn't initiate, trying to get their meter installed. And some of them, it was financial reasons because we didn't pay to get them installed. We provided the water meter, but the homeowners were required to install it. And so, there were some people with a bit of pushback. Um, and with most of those, I think we're down to maybe 15 people that don't have meters, but there's been nothing to make it happen. It was just more promoting it and through finance. So, if you didn't have a meter, you were charged a flat rate, and that flat rate was higher than the water meter rate. So that prompted more people to install their meters because they would save money. \u2013 Interviewee_#006 Second, universally applied volumetric rate structures can increase water costs for some residents, including those experiencing leaks and large families using water for basic purposes. The survey data shows that 73-76% of metered jurisdictions charge volumetric rates for residential water use. This is a common practice in the province because research by the Greater Vancouver Water District indicates jurisdictions usually switch to volumetric rate structures after the installation of metering (see Metro Vancouver, 2019). The magnitude coding of the interview transcripts in Figure 4.3 shows that 16 jurisdictions were charging volumetric rates post-metering. It is typical for metered jurisdictions to change from flat rates to volumetric rates with the potential to increase the charge. For instance, the director of the public works department of a small, remote, incorporated community (~2,000 people) where logging and agriculture are the major commercial activities reported how they introduced a volumetric rate structure:      114 Since water and sewer are their own stand-alone budget departments, they have to pay for their services with their billing. In setting the rates, we had to make sure the base rate (monthly charge dependent on the consumption) was enough to ease the unknown revenues of consumption, which was entirely based on how much the residents will consume. We didn\u2019t want to shoot ourselves with a low base rate and rely on a high consumption charge when the whole idea of metering was to lower the consumption of water. The consumption-based pricing resulted in a slightly higher cost for water and sewer \u2013 Interviewee _#011 The interview excerpt suggests that policymakers are more interested in using rates to offset the cost of providing water. Since they did not mention income level, household size, or type of water use, among others, it can be assumed that these factors do not count when setting water rates. Some participants indicated their jurisdictions still charge flat rates because the metering program was yet to cover all residential connections before the switch could be effective.  The study also found that some municipalities are aware of the possibility that metering has potential adverse effects. The study shows that a substantial number of residents defaulted on bill payments in 2020. For example, the survey data shows that as high as 38.3% (n = 36) of jurisdictions had 1-5% of residents delay in bill payments and 6-10% of residents in 23% (n = 18) of jurisdictions (see Figure 4.2).       115  Figure 4.2: Estimated number of residents delayed in bill payments in 2020.  Policymakers reported in the interviews that some residents have been defaulting in bill payments over the years. However, they indicated that although delinquent residents would not be disconnected, default bills attract interest over a period and are eventually converted into property taxes. A chief administrative officer of a city within the Okanagan region described this scenario: Well, we don't disconnect if you can't pay. I mean, if you don't pay in BC, your water bill just goes onto your taxes, right? And then you have five years to pay, and if you don't pay, it goes onto property taxes. So, the complaints about \u201cI can't pay,\u201d well, that's not an issue. Yeah, if you own a home in BC, it's kind of hard not to do that because it will go into your taxes now, for the high bill complaints. \u2013 Interviewee_#008 This interview excerpt suggests some residents actually default in paying their bills in that locality, and the usual redress is adding the water bill to be paid as part of property taxes. The statement only addresses the scenario of homeowners, and the case for renters might differ. Elsewhere, studies have found that residential renters experienced increases in bills by up to 30% upon changing to unit-level metering in France (Barraqu\u00e9, 2011). Meanwhile, the program aimed to resolve challenges of collective metering\/billing in condominiums.  1.3%13.3%48.0%22.7%12.0%2.7%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%None <1% 1-5% 6-10% 11-15% > 15Jurisdictions (%)Proportion of ResidentsIn the past year (2020), estimate the percentage of residents who were late in paying bills?     116 Finally, the descriptive statistics show only 14% (n = 11) of surveyed jurisdictions have bill assistance programs to support struggling residents, and the interview analysis gives further considerations of interest. Some metered jurisdictions have direct and indirect bill support programs such as bill payment plans, discounted rates for senior\u2019s households, large families, and single-parent households consuming non-discretionary water, and bill forgiveness for high consumption due to leaks. For instance, the manager of infrastructure planning of a populated (~70,000 people) and affluent city within the Fraser Valley described the nature of their assistance program: So, for example, the city water rate structures, we do, as I mentioned earlier, there is a senior discount for people who are elderly. There is a senior citizen waiver where they receive a 25% discount on residential rates if they're over 65 years of age, right? Just recognizing, you know, if they are a single person living in a dwelling unit, we assume that they probably consume less water. Yeah. So, recognizing that they are seniors, maybe with less ability to have financial to pay and knowing that they\u2019re probably consuming less water than multiple people living in a unit. \u2013 Interviewee_#014 4.6.4 Policymakers\u2019 understanding of equity and how they address equity impacts I wanted to understand, from a policy perspective, how water managers perceive and understand equity in the context of metering. This section highlights the argument that policymakers generally perceive equity simply as equality, as evidenced by their response to a direct survey question and the interviews. As well, local governments are suggesting to others who want to implement metering to (i) learn from best practices elsewhere, (ii) introduce and properly target bill assistance programs, and (iii) engage with residents and other stakeholders prior to implementation. I have presented analyses of the data to support these claims. First, participants were asked to rank a list of statements that characterize their understanding of equity in a survey question: Which of the statements best describes your understanding of water equity? Two interesting results standout (i) sixty-four percent (64%, n = 54) ranked billing and paying for water according to actual consumption as the statement that best describes equity, and (ii) fifty-two (51%, n = 41) ranked bill and pay for water according to income as the worst description of equity. In contrast, only 3.7% think equity means billing and paying for water according to income levels. These results presuppose policymakers\u2019 understanding of equity aligns      117 more with equality or horizontal equity. The \u201cequality\u201d ideal is noted to commonly identify with the idea that water is an economic good; therefore, pricing policies should primarily be used in distributing and allocating it (Rogers et al., 2002). However, from an equity perspective, if access to water is predicated on the willingness to pay rather than the ability to pay, people without purchasing power might not have access. Again, in the interview discussions, policymakers shared their understanding of equity based on their knowledge, experience, and practices in water management. Most views expressed in the interview transcripts corroborated the survey results. For instance, three (3) policymakers from various jurisdictions have described their understanding of equity that portrays a more nuanced conceptualization of the concept:  Equity is very important. Nobody should get preferred service. All residents are treated equally. By going to the user-pay system, we feel this is fair to all residents. \u2013 Interviewee_#011 Yeah, equity is something that is important that we will be looking into as we review our rates and infrastructure in the coming years. The city has recently introduced an office for equity, diversity, and inclusion, and so we have a new corporate office that is reviewing all city works and practices, and that team is also developing a framework and equity lens for staff, including training and whatnot. So, this is relatively new. It just started earlier this year, late or last year, and so that is something that we will be incorporating and implementing into all our work, policies, and practices. But we're not there yet. \u2013 Interview_#021 Conversely, these interview excerpts can be interpreted to support several viewpoints, including (i) policymakers do acknowledge the importance of equity, (ii) they conceptualize equity as equal treatment for all residents, and (iii) jurisdictions in BC at present are focused about equity issues relating to making structural changes. The magnitude coding summarizes, alphanumerically, the evaluative content of how policymakers understand and apply equity in the context of metering. Magnitude coding is the process of assigning alphanumeric or symbolic codes to existing themes\/categories to indicate their intensity, presence, frequency, and evaluative content in the data. To recap the coding process, I coded the      118 entire metering process (e.g., decision-making, implementing instrument, metering impact on rates\/billing) into two opposite categories (either it likely promotes or potentially undermines equity). A detailed description of the magnitude coding process is illustrated in Section 4.5.3 and Table 4.3. The coding results show that 18 jurisdictions use mandatory instruments to implement metering, and 15 out of 21 changed from flat rates to volumetric rate structures. The complete magnitude coding result is shown in Figure 4.3. These coding figures highlight in summary how metering programs potentially undermine equity issues relating to water access and costs from policymakers\u2019 perspective.  In addressing equity issues in the context of metering, policymakers have proposed a couple of ideas. In order to lessen cost burdens for marginalized residents, policymakers suggest that metering be more participatory, supported by feasibility studies, effective public engagement, and communication before metering. They also recommend that jurisdictions planning to switch to volumetric rates should simulate the new rates for some time to address potential challenges before rolling it out fully. They believe that can prepare residents (e.g., financially) for the new rates. Others have also suggested that further research be conducted to understand water consumption patterns, estimate the net benefits of metering, and identify equity-deserving groups for discounted or pro-poor rates. Effective stakeholder engagement on the details, including the upcoming changes to water rates and bill payment cycles, were recommendations policymakers made to ensure that the metering policies produce equitable outcomes.       119 Figure 4.3: Magnitude coding results showing statements under each thematic area that (i) potentially undermines or (ii) potentially promotes equity in the interview transcripts.  In conclusion, the results have demonstrated that (i) equity issues, in general, do not form part of the motivation or reasons for metering residential water, (ii) jurisdictions commonly use mandatory instruments and volumetric rates post-metering, which has the potential to adversely affect equity, (iii) policymakers commonly perceive equity as equality. These results have several implications for the pursuance of equity under metering. I have discussed these insights in relation to the literature and according to justice and equity principles in the next section (4.7).  4.7 Discussion  This chapter makes the argument from a policy perspective, highlighting the potential of metering to conserve water and reduce usage, but equity issues associated with water access and affordability are challenges for certain groups. Here are two insights to that effect: (i) policymakers perceiving equity simply as equality can affect how they work towards achieving equity in metering, and (ii) the introduction of meters adversely affects water access and increases costs for low-income, seniors, and households on fixed incomes. I have discussed these insights in relation to water management and equity pieces of literature and practices.  50638-15-18-15-13-10-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10ParticipationPolicy InstrumentChanges in water rate structureDelayed billsIncentive\/assistance programUndermines Equity Promotes Equity     120 4.7.1 Policymakers understand and perceive equity as equality  In environmental governance, how issues or problems are framed can influence the search for support and solutions. Framing simply means how actors explain and define problems for the lay audience to understand and support responsive actions (Head, 2022). Head (2022) further argues that the diverse ways people perceive and frame problems can generate misunderstanding in knowing the scope as well as strategies to address it. Based on this perspective, it is possible for policymakers to understand or perceive equity differently from views held by social or environmental justice proponents. As a result, I wanted to understand how policymakers perceive equity since that can affect how they work to ensure equitable outcomes for metering programs.  The study finds that equity is commonly taken to mean equality in accessing water and water services from the perspective of policymakers. This claim is supported by the way policymakers (i) perceive that equitable water access can be achieved by charging for water use according to the quantity consumed and (ii) use non-participatory, mandatory policy instruments in implementing metering. The equality notion of equity aligns with that in the academic literature (in Chapter 2). This way of conceptualizing equity, however, resonates and might be explainable by the cost-of-service perspective of managing water. That is, the principle that equity can be achieved if the costs of providing water (a public service) are distributed fairly among resident users of water services (Davis & Teodoro, 2014). Therefore, it does appear that this way of understanding, conceptualizing, and ensuring equity, especially in North America, prioritizes equal treatment for everyone in providing water and water services. For instance, the survey results show that only 3.7% of participants think equity means billing and paying for water according to income levels, whereas 64% perceive that equity means billing and paying for water according to actual consumption (see section 4.6.4). Even the broader WDM literature perceives and uses a similar notion of equity (see Chapter 2). Thus, the pay-per-use principle is often used, which prioritizes the willingness to pay over the ability to pay. Meantime, suppose we want to operationalize equity and achieve the international declarations and commitments on water provision and the broader sustainable development goals (e.g., the human right to water, SDG 6). In that case, I suggest that water policies consider adding other ways of conceptualizing equity along the benefit-of-service principle and the participatory processes in managing water. Thus, social-demographic factors that can make some groups vulnerable should be considered in conceptualizing and applying equity in      121 water management. For instance, the type of use (discretionary versus non-discretionary use), household size, income level, and even location of water users can expose some groups to water challenges, including those related to access and cost (Kayaga & Smout, 2014). However, this way of framing equity implies that persons within these categories could face challenges accessing water, even for basic use. As suggested in Chapter 2, a more refined and comprehensive definition and notion of equity that focuses on broader equity issues, in line with what the EJ literature empathizes will be useful moving forward with metering programs and WDM as a whole.  4.7.2 Residential metering has potential negative equity implications Water access, affordability, and participation are dominant variables and metrics used to assess the equity implications of demand management policies (Garc\u00eda-Rubio et al., 2015; Khawam et al., 2006). In this research, I used same variables examine the equity implications of residential metering in selected jurisdictions in British Columbia. Analysing surveys and semi-structured interviews, it appears metering has the potential to affect water access, increase costs, and exclude water users and other stakeholders from participating in the implementation process. These claims are based on the following results: (i) the dominant use of mandatory instruments and volumetric rate structures that potentially increase water costs for some residents, (ii) reports of bill payment defaults, and (iii) inadequate residents\u2019 involvement in decision making and implementation.  First, how residential metering programs are implemented can make some residents (e.g., low-income households) more vulnerable in terms of increases in water costs in efforts to recover the metering cost by utilities. For instance, the mandatory installation of meters by utilities without prior inputs and support from water stakeholders can introduce unexpected costs for some residents (Solis & Bashar, 2022). As the results show, most metered jurisdictions typically use mandatory instruments in implementing metering. The results also show that jurisdictions usually finance metering through out-of-pocket payments by residents, grants, or loans eventually to be paid by water users through increased water rates or special taxes. For example, the Sunshine Coast Regional District has just contracted a loan facility of CAD$7,250,000 through the Municipal Finance Authority of BC to fund Phase Three (3) of the Water Meter Installation Project in the Sechelt Area, and the loan will be repaid over a term not exceeding 25 years (SCRD, 2021).  Since water infrastructure, including meters, is a public enterprise that requires collective financing, these sources of funding metering are expected (Traudt, 2014). However, doing so through      122 mandatory\/non-voluntary coercion to extract money from people introduces unexpected costs which may conflict with participatory and recognition equity goals. However, from the standpoint of the cost-of-service principle, this process of financing a public service amounts to fairness in distributing the cost among water services users (Davis & Teodoro, 2014). These potential circumstances of conflict and tensions among various equity dimensions are well noted in Chapter 2. The study also finds that most metered jurisdictions charge volumetric rates for residential water supply. A Metro Vancouver report reviewed metered case studies in the region confirms this finding that most jurisdictions switched to volumetric water rate structures post-metering (Metro Vancouver, 2019). Despite the objective (e.g., for conservation, affordability, economic development) in setting water rates, \u201cthe best rate is one that the community understands and accepts\u201d (Brandt et al., 2014) p.301). Even though metered, volumetric rates can induce water conservation and be more equitable and affordable, they could also be potential burdens on large-sized, low-income households consuming essential water. Of course, discretionary residential water consumption is driven by outdoor water use (e.g., car washing and lawn irrigation) and correlates positively with income in the developed world (Reynaud et al., 2005). There is also evidence that inclining water rates may ensure equity (Teodoro, 2005), sustainability (Ward & Pulido-Vel\u00e1zquez, 2008), and affordability (Patterson & Doyle, 2023). On the other hand, many households, especially low-income households and people on fixed income, have to pay more or owe bills and may eventually have their supply disconnected for nonpayment (Solis & Bashar, 2022). Nonetheless, volumetric pricing can be improved by ensuring that it considers the water needs and the different social-economic conditions of water-user groups. For example, the Portuguese Water and Waste Services Regulation Authority (ERSAR) issued a Tariff Recommendation (R1\/2009) in 2009 to subsidize water tariffs for households at a certain gross income level determined by the authority (Martins et al., 2020). According to the authors, a recent amendment (Recommendation R2\/2018) has extended access to social tariffs by including (i) people on government income-assisted programs (e.g., elderly, disabled, unemployed), (ii) households with an annual income of less than \u20ac5.808, and (iii) an automatic qualification and receipt of tariff relieve. In prioritizing equity issues in water policies, these insights can be used to      123 re-examine the linkages between water rates, costs, users\u2019 income, and type of water use to enhance the policy agenda of conserving water resources under current environmental changes.  Second, at the face value, mandatory instruments can be considered as having the potential to infringe on people\u2019s rights to contribute to the decisions. From a procedural equity perspective and as Perreault (2014) posits, when policies emanate or are implemented through participatory engagements, they are likely to be fair and acceptable, which are essential attributes of equity (Perreault, 2014). In the interviews with policymakers, council members make decisions without direct and immediate consultation with residents. Even though democratically elected representatives make these decisions on behalf of the people, it cannot be concluded that the decisions would be in the residents\u2019 interest. As stated earlier in Chapter 2 (Section 2.6), these tensions and contradictions can complicate the processes and efforts to achieve equity in water management policies. Even the planning literature has critiqued the multiple ways that collaborative and participatory processes can sidestep fundamental equity elements. Especially when contexts, resource capacities, and nature of participation are inadequate and require more clarity and understanding (Calderon & Westin, 2021; Michels, 2016). However, the expectation is that \u201cparticipatory processes\u201d meet the commonly accepted environmental justice-oriented ideal for public participation in governance, such as the Aarhus Convention on the right to information and participation in decision-making (Fasoli, 2017). Thus, metering policies that largely depend on public acceptance and behaviour change, at minimum, would comply with some aspects of the Spectrum of Public Participation.13 More transparent and engaged metering implementation could improve (not necessarily achieve) public acceptance, accountability, and transparency of metering programs (Cowie & Borrett, 2005; Reed, 2008). Based on policymakers\u2019 perspectives, the study makes recommendations that may help address water equity issues in WDM.  4.7.3 Addressing water inequities under residential water metering  In redressing water equity challenges under metering, three (3) key recommendations can be made: (i) reconceptualizing equity to a more socially aligned perspective, (ii) conducting feasibility  13 This is one of the three pillars (others are core values and code of ethics) for effective public participation in decision-making that was developed by the International Association of Public Participation. Canada is part of this body of more than 15,000 professionals in public participation working to promote and improve the practice in matters that involve the public and governments\/corporations.      124 studies to estimate metering net impacts as well as piloting, (iii) improving stakeholder participation in implementing metering. First and foremost, the current dominant understanding of equity, simply as equality among many policymakers surveyed, may have some implications. As stated earlier, this is a common understanding in the water demand management literature. Water scholarship has suggested the reconceptualization of equity based on its traditional principles -including access, inclusion, and redress for systemic and historical barriers (Guy & Mccandless, 2012; Wooldridge & Bilharz, 2017). As a result, I suggested a more coalesced definition in the literature review synthesis (in Chapter 2), a definition which utilizes equity principles from the EJ literature, including water access, affordability, stakeholder participation and redress for systemic barriers. More importantly, WDM is a human-centred management framework which depends on behaviour change, support, and acceptance of water consumers (Magnusson, 2004). Now that we understand how policymakers understand equity and based on the proposed definition, we can suggest ways of incorporating equity goals into metering. Conversely, policymakers already have support programs and strategies that can address water inequities. For instance, the director of public works of a predominantly agricultural, remote village (~ 2,000 people) in BC has highlighted several ways of enhancing metering programs to address water access and cost issues: \u2026.. start the process of communicating to the residents very early, with open houses, and stakeholder group communication. Have all your studies and data available for answering the public inquiries and be upfront in what the results will look like but also, what the benefits will be \u2013 Interviewee_#011 This interview excerpt highlights deep conceptual and practical suggestions for addressing inequities in metering residential water use. This statement expresses a missed opportunity and the critical essence of engaging and involving stakeholders in the metering process. The statement also highlights the need to provide an enabling environment for residents to voice their concerns and count their contributions to metering. Simply put, a participatory approach underpinned by empowerment, trust, and fairness has the potential to improve equity goals (Reed, 2008). Some academics have supported the mediating role that community and stakeholder participation plays in ensuring equity in water policies (Cowie & Borrett, 2005; Kusena et al., 2016). It is significant to emphasize that merely involving the residents will not guarantee equitable outcomes. This is      125 because of the complications in the nature and process of participation, including the enabling environment, structural and institutional dynamics, and individuals\u2019 experiences of participation (Jim\u00e9nez et al., 2019; Morales & Harris, 2014; Priscoli, 2004). As a result, participatory processes can sometimes be oppressive and aggravate the marginality of vulnerable populations. As Jimenez et al. (2019) suggest, free, active, and meaningful processes have the potential to lead to decisions that are better anchored among all stakeholders and can drive toward equitable outcomes. Following the recommendation for participatory processes in metering, policymakers have also recommended conducting feasibility studies to ascertain the practicality and estimate the potential effects of metering on water cost, users\u2019 finances (Boyle et al., 2013). As policymakers suggest, when the cost elements are clearly laid out, communicated, and addressed, residents are more likely to be informed and prepared for the impending changes. Similarly, the potential benefits of metering, such as fair billing, consumers having the choice to spend less money on water by reducing consumption, and quality water services (this is not a given), must be included in the estimations and research. For example, in 2020, Econics conducted a preliminary assessment of the cost and benefits, including water-saving estimates of metering 8,057 single-family household connections for the District of Mission (Econics, 2020). The report concluded that the district would spend $1,884.00 to install a meter and a total of $16.7 million and potentially reduce water consumption by 17.5% from 2018 base year consumption (ibid).  As demonstrated, policymakers\u2019 understanding of equity appears to be different from that in the broader EJ literature, which can affect how they work to meet water equity priorities under metering. More broadly, the case study sheds light on the need to reconceptualize equity for WDM policies, including various strategies to address the negative impacts that might come with their implementation. Being mindful of the overarching goals14 for managing public water supply, water managers and policymakers can now understand and refocus on critical areas of water policies that would likely affect water access and affordability for some user groups. The insights can also be  14 The goal is to achieve water equity: ensure access to equitable and affordable water services, maximize community and economic benefits, and build resilient water systems.       126 extended and applied more broadly to other climate adaptation and mitigation policies to ensure equitable policy outcomes. 4.8 Conclusion As water managers regulate water demand by reducing wastage and promoting conservation, metering has become a prominent policy intervention in the BC context. By investigating the equity impacts of residential metering, this dissertation chapter highlights the complex dimensions of its implementation, showing the potential benefits and concerns.  My research findings demonstrate that residential metering holds promise as a WDM mechanism in incentivizing responsible usage and promoting conservation. In some cases, the data shows that policymakers are motivated to adopt metering to enable fair billing, detect and fix leaks, and conserve water. These priorities align with broader sustainable development goals and emphasize the contribution of WDM to addressing water scarcity.  However, it is important to recognize that residential metering has pitfalls and potential equity impacts. The results show the shift from flat-rate to consumption-based water rates and the burden of increases in water cost were major concerns. These changes have the potential to disproportionately affect vulnerable groups, including low-income, seniors, and large-family households. The dominant use of mandatory instruments to implement metering has potential cost burdens for resident water users. Ensuring that water users partake in implementing metering, including rate fixing, can be helpful in ensuring fair and just outcomes. The chapter has also emphasized policymakers\u2019 way of conceptualizing equity as equality and the importance of working towards a more inclusive understanding of equity, maybe, based on EJ principles. It does appear water governance scholarship is not meeting the expectations of practitioners looking at the differences in defining and understanding equity among the WDM literature, policymakers, and the broader EJ literature. Maybe, more research can advise what needs to be done to inform and move perspectives towards more inclusive understandings of equity.  To navigate these equity issues, water managers and policymakers must approach metering more holistically and thoughtfully, integrating social, economic, and environmental considerations. For instance, a looking at equity from an environmental justice perspective can help WDM and      127 conservation policies achieve both environmental sustainability and social justice. According to policymakers, making metering programs more participatory and conducting feasibility studies before implementation can help address potential equity issues. Further studies on how communities and residents can participate and contribute to WDM policies will be crucial steps following the revelations of this study.  Finally, metering conversations in the province are at the initial stages of making a business case and canvasing the support of politicians and the public. Even though policymakers have acknowledged concerns about access and affordability issues for residents, such issues are yet to be integrated into metering. These conclusions are based on the data evidence on metering motivation, water rate structures and metering policies used in implementing metering. This research has exposed the potential adverse impacts of metering, allowing water managers to mitigate them by incorporating equity goals into metering program designs from the start.        128 CHAPTER 5: Conclusion  In the last few years, it has become apparent that something which we have taken for granted for a very long time - safe, reliable water supply, is becoming a challenge for the future. Changing our behaviours and planning for the future is critical \u2013 Interview_#016.  The key part of this interview excerpt, \u201ctaken for granted for a very long time,\u201d is a common North American expression with the connotation of undervaluing, or failing to value, something that deserves conscious appreciation and protection. The statement was made by the mayor of a big city (>1,000 people) within a water basin that experienced a level 5 drought in 2022. The comment conveys a sense of realization by water managers of the overwhelming challenges confronting water resources and the urgent need to take deliberate actions to conserve and reduce usage. Extant literature has shown increasing adoption of water demand management (WDM) and conservation policies, especially in drought-prone areas (Abu-Bakar et al., 2021; Maggioni, 2015, Chapter 2). Some local reports and academic literature have projected that climate events that impact water resources in British Columbia will intensify in the coming years (Government of British Columbia, 2023). As such, the province is adopting measures such as water restrictions, metering, and educational \u201cwater-wise\u201d campaigns to conserve and optimize water use. Even though the above interview excerpt reflects the need for more conscious planning and campaigns with the goal of fostering more mindful water usage by individuals, the progress and impacts of these policies have not been ascertained. This dissertation explores these gaps and related concerns. Considering the growing interest and adoption of WDM policies in the province, with such a dramatic increase in residential metering in recent years, it is imperative to assess progress in prioritizing, planning, investing, and adopting various policies. Again, knowing that society is diversely stratified in terms of capacity and need, the impact of these policies will not be felt evenly across all groups. As a result, I have sought to learn from the people formulating\/implementing these policies, notably what they consider as progress in adoption, as well as what they consider as important regarding equity, and how they mitigate inequities linked to these efforts.  The goal of this dissertation was to understand the progress of WDM and to be able to suggest a more inclusive approach that is attentive to water equity. I hope that this thesis and its associated insights can inform water policy formulation and implementation moving forward. I have built      129 this case beginning with a literature review and synthesis of the equity implications of WDM, as well as with observations and synthesis regarding the adoption of these policies and technologies in British Columbia. Following this, I have highlighted residential metering programs as a case study, based on 21 interviews with local governments and focused on equity considerations from both policy and practitioner perspectives. The current chapter summarizes the key findings and contributions of the dissertation overall, followed by methodological and practical limitations of the study and suggestions for further lines of inquiry that could stem from this study. 5.1 Key Research Findings and Conclusions  I situate my research within the current discussions on WDM and equity. Some synthesis reviews exist, including the impacts of WDM policies on per capita consumption (Abu-Bakar et al., 2021), a comparison of WDM in developed countries and South-East Asia (Araral & Wang, 2013), and a three-decade-old review of the feasibility of WDM policies in Canada (Tate, 1989). However, to date, this is the only synthesis review that focuses on the equity impacts of WDM and conservation policies on a global scale. In undertaking this review for Chapter 2, I employed systematic review protocols in retrieving, analyzing, and synthesizing the evidence. As informed by past reviews in WDM, this methodological process introduces additional rigour by following structured and standard procedures in synthesis reviews. As demonstrated in Chapter 2, there is increasing adoption of WDM policy measures and widespread use of economic\/financial tools in regulating residential water use across the globe. A review of the literature suggests that assumptions based on market environmentalism likely influenced the uptake of these and other economic\/financial tools. Key themes also suggest that high water rates, the absence of assistance programs for low-income households, and the lack of participation in the design and implementation of these policies have potential negative effects on marginalized and vulnerable groups. These findings can enhance our understanding and highlight the areas where WDM policies fall short in terms of equity. Considering this, water managers and researchers alike have the opportunity to go beyond discussing WDM as purely positive approach and be mindful of potential shortcomings relating to water access, affordability, or participation. Chapter 3 explores the progress of WDM implementation in British Columbia. It does so by analyzing survey data administered to water managers and policymakers at the local level across      130 the province. As the evidence suggests, many jurisdictions are increasingly adopting WDM policies such as water restrictions, residential water metering, and educational campaigns to promote water conservation and reduce usage. This chapter contributes to water management literature and policy practice in multiple ways. It has been suggested that the increase in adopting WDM policies is a response to severe droughts and rising water demand. For example, in the past 5 years, there have been yearly increases in the number of basins under summertime drought level 5, according to the BC Drought Information Portal. Around the same period, the survey results showed an increase in jurisdictions with mandatory water restrictions from 73% in 2016 to approximately 86% in 2022. This suggests that increases in mandatory restrictions are reactionary measures against perennial droughts and rising water demand. This also squares with the suggestion by some scholars that WDM is often a response to water scarcity, as an attempt to hold up demand, at least until more supply is secured (Brandes & Ferguson, 2004). Even if this is part of what is at play, the survey found that many jurisdictions (84%) had water efficiency\/conservation plans, suggesting that local jurisdictions are conscious about water conservation, both in the immediate future and as a long-term strategy looking towards climatic uncertainty. Notably, the survey also reveals that many residents defaulted\/delayed paying their water bills in 2020. These results support the goal of this research to probe further into the equity implications of residential water metering from the policymakers\u2019 perspective.  Chapter 4 responds to the question on the equity implications of residential water metering from the policymakers\u2019 perspective in the context of British Columbia. I used quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews to examine and understand how policymakers and government officials conceptualize and plan for the equity implications of residential water metering programs in British Columbia. First, water policymakers conceptualize equity in ways similar to that in the academic literature (Chapter 2). There is a common understanding of equity simply as \u201cequal treatment for all residents,\u201d irrespective of possible social differences such as race, age, gender, or economic background. For instance, in the survey, 64% of policymakers perceive equity as billing for water according to actual consumption. In comparison, only 3.7% consider equity as billing and paying for water according to household income (an approach that would likely be more consistent with a broader equity understanding). The interviews also show similar interpretations of equity. For example, the head of the public works department of a small town said, Nobody should get      131 preferred service. All residents are treated equally, when I asked about their understanding of equity as implementors of the residential water metering program. Thus, water rates are fixed according to actual consumption, not based on users\u2019 water needs or ability to pay. Even though this way conceptualizing equity can be explained by the cost-of-service principle in managing water, it is different from the definition in environmental justice principles \u2013distribution of burdens and benefits of policies taking into consideration social factors.  In the context of policymaking, some initiatives appear to contradict this way of conceptualizing equity, instead conform with environmental justice principles. Policymakers did indicate that some incentives exist for equity-deserving groups, such as special water rates for seniors and single-parent households who struggle to pay water bills in jurisdictions charging volumetric rates. Meanwhile, policymakers expressed equity as equality in the surveys and the interviews. As such, special rates are supposed to subsidize water for certain groups, which seems contradicts their way of conceptualizing equity. This also suggests there might be some conceptual differences and challenges in the conceptualization of equity in the academic literature and in practice. As a result, there is the need to move towards a more inclusive way of conceptualizing equity as a concept. Be that as it may, policymakers suggest that participatory planning and implementation of metering programs can better address the potential inequities regarding access to affordable water supply.  5.2 Study Limitations The COVID-19 pandemic has had widespread impacts on academic work since 2020 and continuing into the present. The entirety of my research activities, including ethics application, participants\u2019 recruitment, and data collection, were done in this context. The pandemic affected both practical activities and conceptual orientation due to the redirection of the world\u2019s attention to global health. COVID-19 overshadowed other crises the world was facing at the time, including climate change. Despite this, the pandemic\u2019s devastating impacts exposed the vulnerability of a globalized system in ways that intersected in important ways with inequities from other crises themselves (Sultana, 2021). Because of this, it was not certain if policymakers would give the same attention and support to my research goals as they may have given someone researching COVID-19. Despite this, the pandemic may have, in fact, elevated water equity issues among some policymakers, attracting considerable attention and reaction. For instance, penalties against      132 delayed\/default water bills were suspended in some jurisdictions because of the pandemic. A chief administrative office of a city (~20,000 people) in the northeastern corner of BC stated that: we did implement a bit of an amnesty where we eliminated the late payment fees on our bills in order to make sure that we weren't, you know, contributing to the financial and economic discomfort, you know, of the pandemic. The statement can be interpreted to mean that local governments were also concerned about the overall welfare of their residents. Even around the globe, access to water and sanitation was deemed critical in mitigating the spread of the disease, and many jurisdictions implemented policies to avoid cut-offs (Stoler et al., 2021). The interview excerpt also shows insight into how the COVID-19 pandemic affected people\u2019s lives, incomes, and jurisdictional activities and revenues. It is difficult to discern how much of my participants\u2019 responses were informed by their experiences of COVID-19; many exogenous factors relating to the pandemic could have affected the findings and conclusions in the dissertation. Methodologically, all the instruments used in conducting the research were done entirely on internet-based platforms. The ethics certification prohibited in-person interactions following the COVID-19 protocols issued by the BC Provincial Health Services Authority. The research participants were recruited through email exchanges and phone call follow-ups. The survey questionnaires were administered using the Qualtrics platform (see details in Section 3.3 in Chapter 3) and the interviews on Zoom (see details in Section 4.5.2 in Chapter 4). Even though online platforms are standard and commonly used platforms to recruit participants and collect research data (Oliffe et al., 2021), in-person interaction has proved to increase participation rates (Jacob & Furgerson, 2015). The research could not meet its targeted response rate of 80% for the surveys. However, I still achieved a 58% response rate, which is a decent threshold compared with past surveys in BC (Honey-Ros\u00e9s et al., 2016), based on which meaningful conclusions can be made. This study did not include participants from First Nation communities and electoral areas. The main focus was jurisdictions managing water systems operating according to colonial settler water governance systems and laws. Giving that First Nation communities do not still have full and legal access to water rights, reservations, and governance even within their jurisdictions, deserves full attention and different approach to fully understand and appreciate the challenges they face. As such, my findings and conclusions may not apply in their context but provides insights into equity      133 issues associated more broadly with water conservation efforts in the province. Identifying equity challenges according to colonial settler systems may reveal important insights to conduct similar studies in First Nation communities using different approaches and methods.  This research focuses on drinking water supply. This one-sided focus on conducting water-related research is not new in the literature. For instance, Allaire and Acquah (2022) assessed the disparities in health-based violations in community drinking water systems in California, USA. The authors found violations by water systems serving low-income and communities of colour are several times higher compared to other neighbourhoods (Allaire & Acquah, 2022). However, this specific focus of my study on drinking water may overshadow other critical roles that water plays in household settings, including cooking, cooling, and sanitation. This scope has also limited attention to the effects on source water and the ecological benefits of reducing water use. The jurisdictions included in the interviews were selected based on who volunteered to be interviewed. Although I acknowledged the differences among jurisdictions in terms of geographical location, population, and resource capacities, I could not consider these factors in selecting the participants for several reasons. First, the province has a small number of jurisdictions metering residential water supply at the time (13 municipalities, according to the BC Municipal Water Survey). Second, few policymakers from metered jurisdictions showed interest and consented to participate in the interviews. Third, metered jurisdictions were characteristically diverse regarding geographic location, population, economic and financial capacities, and political and administrative setups. It was challenging to develop and apply an eligibility criterion to recruit qualified participants while also trying to reach a wide variety of jurisdictions. Admittedly, though negligible, there could be some shortcomings in this study\u2019s analysis and generalizability by overlooking these unique differences between jurisdictions. Tied to this limitation is that, by focusing on policymakers, I did not engage with populations affected by water restrictions themselves, or with advocacy groups that focus on environmental justice. Both groups are key constituents who likely have many unique insights to share regarding WDM and equity.  5.3 Future Research Directions This research has the potential to evoke further research in three major areas. First, from an environmental justice perspective, equity and justice issues can best be understood from the      134 perspectives of those (likely to be) experiencing such challenges. Thus, it would have been appropriate to explore the equity implications of WDM policies based on the views, opinions and lived experiences of water users. Again, while this likely would have been complicated by the context of COVID-19, it would be a worthwhile focus for future research. As C\u00f3rdova et al. (2023) argue, when we fail to consider the inputs and perspectives of those on the frontline of environmental injustice, it could lead to \u201cfalse solutions\u201d that further worsen the disproportionate distribution of the impacts. That said, it is still appropriate to approach the research question from the policymakers\u2019 stance\u2014particularly as these issues are taken on with renewed vigour in policy realms. Thus, it was important to explore and understand from the perspective of the people with institutional influence and responsibility in water management at the local level \u2013 including mayors, chief executive officers, and engineers. The finding that policymakers often conceptualize equity as \u201cequal treatment for all residents,\u201d shows the urgency of justice and equity issues now than before worth paying attention to as water managers. Could the results be different if I had asked marginalized water users, including low-income households, seniors, renters, large-sized families, and single parents who consume non-discretionary water yet struggle to pay their water bills?  Indeed, the foci and policy recommendations from such an approach would likely be different, perhaps focused more on the complex and intersecting challenges those households face, where water is only one component. As well, the perspectives of these residents may have highlighted the emotional experiences of what it means not to be able to afford a water bill, or to be unable to meet household water needs. Thus, empirical research that explores this topic among these groups could possibly yield different, but also insightful findings. Doing work of this type might also reveal further disconnections between how users experience and understand equity, in contrast to planners and managers of local jurisdictions. Although I did not interview activists or representatives from ENGOs, my research with the goal of better understanding the perspectives of water planners will still be helpful to environmental justice advocates as they strategize and plan.  Secondly, the potential of metering programs to induce behaviour change and sustain these changes requires deliberate and purposeful research. This interview excerpt concisely summarizes this research gap:       135 So, we need better research done on some of our, you know, neighbouring municipalities to understand, okay! Once you're metering, are you, does the behaviour change because of the metering? Does it change? Maybe initially, there's a behaviour change? Does it progress back to, you know, business as usual over time? Uh, or is it because, you know, people maybe, again, go back to the equity point, right? If people say, well, I can afford it. I don't care. I'll pay for more water. It's never changed my behaviour. So, how, you know, more research to understand how the public behaviour change with metering \u2026 Interviewee #014 Scholars have explored similar concerns regarding the effectiveness, impact, and how to sustain the gains of metering programs (Cairns, 2018; Solis & Bashar, 2022). For instance, even though Ornaghi and Tonin (2019) found, on average, a 22% reduction in water consumption in Southeast England under a universal metering program, they further noticed that smaller households living in luxurious dwellings were spending less on water than other residents. This means that universal metering programs may be reducing water consumption, but even within this reduction, large, less economically privileged families consuming only essential water were paying more. Similarly, and inferring from the above quote by the operations manager of a big city (~71,000 people) within Metro Vancouver, more research is needed to better understand the impacts of metering programs in terms of effecting and sustaining \u201cwater-wise\u201d behaviour changes in the province. My work offers a starting point for discussions to explore these research ideas with a wider variety of research approaches and participants.  Third, the research findings and conclusions are based on combined quantitative survey data and interviews from multiple jurisdiction types \u2013 including regional districts, municipalities, towns, and villages. The results broadly highlight the progress of WDM and conservation policies for the whole province without segregating into different jurisdiction types. Researchers can use these results to further conduct, on a case-by-case basis, how one jurisdiction type performs against the others. For example, a new study could use household survey data to compare the performance (e.g., in terms of consumption reduction, impact on access and cost) of mandatory restrictions between single-family and multi-family households, and between big towns and small communities. When more segregated and specified data is used, the findings can be unique and, in turn, enhance our understanding of WDM and conservation.      136 5.4 Final thoughts This dissertation contributes to a growing body of water (demand) management research, which largely focuses on mitigating drought and water scarcity, but pays less attention to equity concerns. There are several reasons to support the claim that more attention should be paid to water equity concerns. First, as the synthesis review shows, the conceptualization of equity as equality means that equal service to all residents is prioritized over accommodations in services for socially vulnerable households. Chapter 4 elaborates on this. This also shows that WDM literature has not fully conceived equity in accordance with environmental justice principles, which can help to mediate the potential negative implications of WDM and conservation.  Second, the survey results show that policymakers mainly focus on promoting water conservation and reducing usage using WDM policies. Even though special rates are offered to senior households struggling with water bills, the survey and interview results did not clearly demonstrate how local governments prioritize water provision for people who cannot afford it. This can be seen in how policymakers conceptualize equity as equality, which can affect the UN\u2019s declaration of water as a human right, where water management frameworks are expected to prioritize and ensure universal, affordable, and equitable access to potable water.  Third, aside from this research, a germane water issue in the public domain15 is more about mitigating drought and water scarcity than it is about ensuring equitable access. Despite, concerns about how WDM policies affect water access and cost for vulnerable groups continue to be overlooked. For instance, the Provincial Water Conservation and Drought Response Plans outline guidelines and suggestions to mitigate drought but do not address potential cost and access issues associated with such mitigating measures (Government of British Columbia, 2023). Even in the media and in advocacy by ENGOs, discussions similarly sideline equity concerns to focus instead more on motivating the uptake of measures to reduce water use during summertime. It is reasonable to make this claim considering the extensive work that communities and ENGOs are  15 Public domain is used loosely here to refer to the media (e.g., newspapers, websites, radio, television), workshops, and deliberations sighted in city council and board meeting minutes across the province. Many stories exist in the dailies about Council Members or Boards deciding on a feasibility study or loans to install more water meters or increase metered water prices for residential use. See for example: https:\/\/www.summerlandreview.com\/news\/osoyoos-may-spend-6-million-on-water-metering\/       137 doing to ensure that energy transition policies, including home energy retrofit programs and EV vehicles, do not exacerbate the marginal living conditions of vulnerable groups (Chireh et al., 2021, 2022). Given the findings and conclusions in this study, key policy considerations needing attention include (i) a decisive province-wide focus on other related WDM measures such as residential metering, efficient water dispensing devices and appliances, and volumetric pricing could potentially improve water conservation and reduce wastages. This was also recommended by Tortajada et al. (2019) in Servile and Malaga, Spain. (ii) particularly with metering, more comprehensive feasibility studies, including cost-benefit analyses that consider long-term environmental, social, and economic benefits to inform and enhance the understanding of political leadership and residents for their support and compliance. (iii) this study has found that metering can negatively affect water access for some vulnerable populations in selected communities. More research using different approaches and methods, especially involving residents and other associated equity-deserving groups, could build on this study\u2019s findings using lived experience and personal stories to create fit-for-context solutions to metering programs and WDM as a whole.   As the research results show, introducing incentives to enable vulnerable groups to access potable water shows that local governments are conscious of equity issues. However, the limitedness of the assistance programs coupled with policymakers\u2019 way of conceptualizing equity as equality (even as it is supported by the cost-of-service principle of managing water) also shows this awareness has not been put in any meaningful way to reflect the social inequities water users face. As a result, equity issues are unable to be included in the agendas of local governments. I have observed that more research and advocacy are needed to give water equity issues meaningful highlights and consideration within the policy realm.  Reflecting on the tensions and conflicting objectives of the various equity dimensions, it can be challenging to achieve equitable outcomes in managing water demand. But in discussing equity in water management, the focus is \u201cprimarily about people, not water\u201d (Global Water Partnership, 2009). As suggested in this study and in sync with existing literature, well-designed policies that with a holistic focus on the cost and benefits, rather than piecemeal, could advance all the goals to some extent (ibid).      138 BIBLIOGRAPHY Abansi, C. L., Hall, R. A., & Siason, I. M. L. (2018). Water demand management and improving access to water. Global Issues in Water Policy, 8, 233\u2013259. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/978-3-319-70969-7_11 Abu-Bakar, H., Williams, L., & Hallett, S. H. (2021). A review of household water demand management and consumption measurement. Journal of Cleaner Production, 292, 125872. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.jclepro.2021.125872 Adams, E. A., Juran, L., & Ajibade, I. (2018). \u2018Spaces of Exclusion\u2019 in community water governance: A Feminist Political Ecology of gender and participation in Malawi\u2019s Urban Water User Associations. Geoforum, 95(June), 133\u2013142. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.geoforum.2018.06.016 Alcamo, J., Fl\u00f6rke, M., & M\u00e4rker, M. (2007). Future long-term changes in global water resources driven by socio-economic and climatic changes. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 52(2), 247\u2013275. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1623\/hysj.52.2.247 Allaire, M., & Acquah, S. (2022). Disparities in drinking water compliance: Implications for incorporating equity into regulatory practices. AWWA Water Science, 4(2). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/aws2.1274 Allsop, D. B., Chelladurai, J. M., Kimball, E. R., Marks, L. D., & Hendricks, J. J. (2022). Qualitative Methods with Nvivo Software: A Practical Guide for Analyzing Qualitative Data. Psych, 4(2), 142\u2013159. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3390\/psych4020013 American Water Works Association. (2022). 2022 AWWA Utility Benchmarking: Performance Management for Water and Wastewater. Amir, A., Fauzi, R., & Arifin, Y. (2022). Smart water meter for automatic meter reading. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 1212(1), 012042. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1088\/1757-899x\/1212\/1\/012042 Amit, R. K., & Sasidharan, S. (2019). Measuring affordability of access to clean water: A coping cost approach. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 141, 410\u2013417. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.resconrec.2018.11.003 Anand, N. (2020). Consuming Citizenship: Prepaid Meters and the Politics of Technology in Mumbai. City and Society, 32(1), 47\u201370. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/ciso.12243      139 Ananga, E. O., Becerra, T. A., Peaden, C., & Pappas, C. (2019). Examining water conservation behaviors and attitudes: evidence from the city of Ada, Oklahoma, USA. Sustainable Water Resources Management, 5(4), 1651\u20131663. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s40899-019-00329-y Anderson, T. L., & Leal, D. R. (2019). Free market environmentalism. In Free Market Environmentalism. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.4324\/9780429033773 Andres, L., Brocklehurst, C., Grabinsky, J., Joseph, G., & Thibert, M. (2020). Measuring the Affordability of Water Supply, Sanitation, and Hygiene Services: A New Approach. Water Economics and Policy, 6(3). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1142\/S2382624X20500022 Araral, E. (2009). The failure of water utilities privatization: Synthesis of evidence, analysis, and implications. Policy and Society, 27(3), 221\u2013228. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.polsoc.2008.10.006 Araral, E., & Wang, Y. (2013). Water demand management: Review of literature and comparison in South-East Asia. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 29(3), 434\u2013450. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/07900627.2013.826413 Arsel, Z. (2017). Asking questions with reflexive focus: A tutorial on designing and conducting interviews. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(4), 939\u2013948. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1093\/jcr\/ucx096 B. C. Treaty Commission. (n.d.). History of Treaties in B.C. - Province of British Columbia. Retrieved November 2, 2023, from https:\/\/www2.gov.bc.ca\/gov\/content\/environment\/natural-resource-stewardship\/consulting-with-first-nations\/first-nations-negotiations\/about-first-nations-treaty-process\/history-of-treaties-in-bc Baird, J., Plummer, R., Bullock, R., Dupont, D., Heinmiller, T., Jollineau, M., Kubik, W., Renzetti, S., & Vasseur, L. (2016). Contemporary water governance: Navigating crisis response and institutional constraints through pragmatism. Water (Switzerland), 8(6), 1\u201316. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3390\/w8060224 Bakker, K. (2005). Neoliberalizing nature? market environmentalism in water supply in England and Wales. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 95(3), 542\u2013565. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/j.1467-8306.2005.00474.x Bakker, K. (2007). The \u201cCommons\u201d Versus the \u201cCommodity\u201d: Alter-globalization, anti-privatization, and the human right to water in the global south. Antipode, 39(3), 430\u2013455. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/j.1467-8330.2007.00534.x      140 Bakker, K. (2010a). Governance Failure: Reframing the Urban Water Supply Crisis. In Privatizing Water: Governance Failure and the World\u2019s Urban Water Crisis (pp. 19\u201351). Cornell University Press. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.7591\/9780801463617-006 Bakker, K. (2010b). Protesting Privatization: Transnational Struggles over the Human Right to Water. In Privatizing Water: Governance Failure and the World\u2019s Urban Water Crisis (pp. 135\u2013161). Cornell University Press. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.7591\/9780801463617-010 Bakker, K. (2014). The business of water: Market environmentalism in the water sector. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 39, 469\u2013494. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1146\/annurev-environ-070312-132730 Bakker, K. (2015). UNCEDED WATERS: INDIGENOUS WATER GOVERNANCE IN CANADA (Vol. 564, Issue Tier II). Bakker, K., Simms, R., Joe, N., & Harris, L. (2018). Indigenous peoples and water governance in Canada: Regulatory injustice and prospects for reform. Water Justice, 193\u2013209. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/9781316831847.013 Banerjee, S., Foster, V., Ying, Y., Skilling, H., & Wodon, Q. (2010). Cost recovery, equity, and efficiency in water tariffs: Evidence from African utilities (No. 5384; Policy Research Working Paper, Issue July). https:\/\/openknowledge.worldbank.org\/bitstream\/handle\/10986\/3868\/WPS5384.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Barber\u00e1n, R., & Arbu\u00e9s, F. (2009). Equity in domestic water rates design. Water Resources Management, 23(10), 2101\u20132118. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s11269-008-9372-3 Baroudy, E., Abid Lahlou, A., & Attia, B. (2015). Managing Water Demand: Policies, Practices and Lessons from the Middle East and North Africa Forums. Water Intelligence Online. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2166\/9781780402628 Barraqu\u00e9, B. (2011). Is individual metering socially sustainable? The case of multifamily housing in France. Water Alternatives, 4(2), 223\u2013244. Baumann, D. D., Boland, J. J., & Sims, J. H. (1984). Water Conservation: The Struggle Over Definition. Water Resources Research, 20(4), 428\u2013434. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1029\/WR020i004p00428 Bayliss, K. (2014). The Financialization of Water. Review of Radical Political Economics, 46(3), 292\u2013307. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/0486613413506076      141 Bayliss, K. (2020). Moving the goalposts: Reconfiguring the role of the private sector in the provision of water. In Critical Reflections on Public Private Partnerships (pp. 79\u201397). BCStats. (2023). Quarterly Population Highlights. In BCStats (British Columbia Statistics) (Issue #23-01). https:\/\/www2.gov.bc.ca\/assets\/gov\/data\/statistics\/people-population-community\/population\/population_highlights_2019q4.pdf Beecher, J. A. (2020). Policy Note: A Universal Equity-Efficiency Model for Pricing Water. Water Economics and Policy, 6(3), 1\u201329. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1142\/S2382624X20710010 Belzile, J., Martin, M., Edwards, L., Brown, G., Brandes, L., & Sears, A. W. (2013). Water Conservation Guide for British Columbia (Issue December). https:\/\/sustain.ubc.ca\/campus-initiatives\/water\/water-conservation Ben Zaied, Y., Taleb, L., Ben Lahouel, B., & Managi, S. (2022). Sustainable Water Demand Management and Incentive Tariff: Evidence from a Quantile-on-Quantile Approach. Environmental Modeling and Assessment, 27(6), 967\u2013980. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s10666-021-09814-1 Bennear, L. S., Taylor, L., & Lee, J. (2012). Participation Incentives, Rebound Effects, and the Cost-Effectiveness of Rebates for Water-Efficient Appliances. SSRN Electronic Journal. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2139\/ssrn.1970011 Berhanu, B. M., Blackhurst, M., Kirisits, M. J., Jamarillo, P., & Carlson, D. (2017). Feasibility of Water Efficiency and Reuse Technologies as Demand-Side Strategies for Urban Water Management. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 21(2), 320\u2013331. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/jiec.12430 Berk, R. A., Schulman, D., McKeever, M., & Freeman, H. E. (1993). Measuring the impact of water conservation campaigns in California. Climatic Change, 24(3), 233\u2013248. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/BF01091831 Bernstein, S. (2001). The compromise of liberal environmentalism. Columbia University Press. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.5860\/choice.39-4838 Bhattarcherjee, A. (2012). Social Science Research: Principles, Methods, and Practices. Textbooks Collection. http:\/\/scholarcommons.usf.edu\/oa_textbookshttp:\/\/scholarcommons.usf.edu\/oa_textbooks\/3 Bithas, K. (2008). The sustainable residential water use: Sustainability, efficiency, and social equity. The European experience. Ecological Economics, 68(1\u20132), 221\u2013229. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.ecolecon.2008.02.021      142 Black, K., & McBean, E. (2017). First Nations\u2019 water sustainability and Security Strategy: Tools and methodologies for community-driven processes for water treatment in Indigenous communities. Technology in Society, 50, 57\u201365. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.techsoc.2017.04.004 Boelens, R. (2014). Cultural politics and the hydrosocial cycle: Water, power, and identity in the Andean highlands. Geoforum, 57, 234\u2013247. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.geoforum.2013.02.008 Boelens, R., Perreault, T., & Vos, J. (2020). Introduction: Hydrosocial De-Patterning and Re-Composition. Water Justice, 108\u2013114. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/9781316831847.007 Boyle, T., Giurco, D., Mukheibir, P., Liu, A., Moy, C., White, S., & Stewart, R. (2013). Intelligent metering for urban water: A review. Water (Switzerland), 5(3), 1052\u20131081. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3390\/w5031052 Bramer, W. M., de Jonge, G. B., Rethlefsen, M. L., Mast, F., & Kleijnen, J. (2018). A systematic approach to searching: An efficient and complete method to develop literature searches. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 106(4), 531\u2013541. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.5195\/jmla.2018.283 Brandes, O. M., & Ferguson, K. (2004). The Future in Every Drop: The Benefits, Barriers, and Practice of Urban Water Demand Management in Canada. In Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling (Issue 9). POLIS Project on Ecological Governance, University of Victoria. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/CBO9781107415324.004 Brandes, O. M., & Kriwoken, L. (2005). Changing Perspectives \u2013 Changing Paradigms: Demand management strategies and innovative solutions for a sustainable Okanagan water future. Water, 2005. Brandt, P. A., Locklear, H. H. P., & Noyes, C. J. (2014). Public Outreach and Gaining Stakeholder Commitment. In Water and Wastewater Finance and Pricing: The Changing Landscape (4th ed., pp. 301\u2013317). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1201\/b17255-24 British Columbia Ministry of Municipal Affairs. (2023). Regional Districts in B.C. - Province of British Columbia. https:\/\/www2.gov.bc.ca\/gov\/content\/governments\/local-governments\/facts-framework\/systems\/regional-districts Brockner, J., Fishman, A. Y., Reb, J., Goldman, B., Spiegel, S., & Garden, C. (2007). Procedural Fairness, Outcome Favourability, and Judgments of an Authority\u2019s Responsibility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1657\u20131671. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1037\/0021-9010.92.6.1657      143 Brooks, D. B. (2006). An operational definition of water demand management. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 22(4), 521\u2013528. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/07900620600779699 Brooks, D. B., & Wolfe, S. (2007). Water demand management as governance: Lessons from the Middle East and South Africa. In Water Resources in the Middle East: Israel-Palestinian Water Issues - From Conflict to Cooperation (Vol. 2, pp. 311\u2013323). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/978-3-540-69509-7_32 Budds, J., Linton, J., & McDonnell, R. (2014). The hydrosocial cycle. Geoforum, 57, 167\u2013169. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.geoforum.2014.08.003 Burke, L. A., & Miller, M. K. (2001). Phone Interviewing as a Means of Data Collection: Lessons Learned and Practical Recommendations. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 2(2), Art. 7. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.17169\/FQS-2.2.959 Cairns, M. R. (2018). Metering water: Analyzing the concurrent pressures of conservation, sustainability, health impact, and equity in use. World Development, 110, 411\u2013421. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.worlddev.2018.06.001 Calderon, C., & Westin, M. (2021). Understanding context and its influence on collaborative planning processes: a contribution to communicative planning theory. International Planning Studies, 26(1), 14\u201327. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/13563475.2019.1674639 Canfield, K., Cato, A., Torso, K., & Mulvaney, K. (2023). Waves of change: A preliminary literature review of non-drinkable water and environmental justice research. Hydrological Sciences Journal. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/02626667.2023.2280679 Cantin, B., Shrubsole, D., & A\u00eft-Ouyahia, M. (2005). Using Economic Instruments for Water Demand Management: Introduction. Canadian Water Resources Journal, 30(1), 1\u201310. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.4296\/cwrj30011 Carvalho, P., Sim\u00f5es, P., & Marques, R. C. (2010). Affordability and accessibility in the water and wastewater services in Portugal. Engenharia Sanitaria e Ambiental, 15(4), 325\u2013336. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1590\/s1413-41522010000400005 Chappells, H., & Medd, W. (2008). What is fair? Tensions between sustainable and equitable domestic water consumption in England and Wales. Local Environment, 13(8), 725\u2013741. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/13549830802475658 Chireh, V. K. (2019). Exploring a Regional Approach in Drinking Water Management in The Strait of Belle Isle, Newfoundland and Labrador.      144 Chireh, V. K., Chorobik, M., & Lohmann, M. (2021). Climate Equity Framework for the \u201cBig Moves\u201d for Deep Emissions Reductions (Issue August). Chireh, V. K., Westerhoff, L., & Ho, J. (2022). Equitable Approaches to Multi-Unit Residential Rental Building Energy Retrofits in Victoria, BC. City of Langley. (2017). DRINKING WATER CONSERVATION PLAN BY-LAW NO. 3037 A (Vol. 6, Issue 3037). Collins, L. M. (2007). Revisiting the Doctrine of Intergenerational Equity in Global Environmental Governance. The Dalhousie Law Journal, 1(1), 79. Committee Report. (1954). Determination of Water Rate Schedules. American Water Works Association, 46(3), 187\u2013219. Community Charter, 26, Community Charter 1 (2003). Cook, J., & Whittington, D. (2020). Editorial-Water Tariffs and Affordability: The Economics and Policy of Protecting the Poor. In Water Economics and Policy (Vol. 6, Issue 3). World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte Ltd. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1142\/S2382624X20020014 Cook, K. S., & Hegtvedt, K. A. (1983). Distributive Justice, Equity, and Equality. Annual Review of Sociology, 9(1), 217\u2013241. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1146\/annurev.so.09.080183.001245 Cowie, G. M., & Borrett, S. R. (2005). Institutional perspectives on participation and information in water management. Environmental Modelling and Software, 20(4 SPEC. ISS.), 469\u2013483. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.envsoft.2004.02.006 Dahan, M., & Nisan, U. (2007). Unintended consequences of increasing block tariffs pricing policy in urban water. Water Resources Research, 43(3), 1\u201310. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1029\/2005WR004493 Davidson, M. D. (2012). Intergenerational justice: How reasonable man discounts climate damage. Sustainability, 4(1), 106\u2013122. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3390\/su4010106 Davis, J. P., & Teodoro, M. P. (2014). Financial Capability and Affordability. In Water and Wastewater Finance and Pricing: The Changing Landscape (pp. 443\u2013465). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1201\/b17255-30      145 De Young, R., & Robinson, J. E. (1984). Some perspectives on managing water demand: Public and expert views. Canadian Water Resources Journal, 9(4), 9\u201318. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.4296\/cwrj0904009 Deterding, N. M., & Waters, M. C. (2021). Flexible Coding of In-depth Interviews: A Twenty-first-century Approach. Sociological Methods and Research, 50(2), 708\u2013739. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/0049124118799377 Dhakal, K. (2022). NVivo. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 110(2), 270\u2013272. Dietz, T., Gardner, G. T., Gilligan, J., Stern, P. C., & Vandenbergh, M. P. (2009). Household actions can provide a behavioral wedge to rapidly reduce US carbon emissions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(44), 18452\u201318456. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1073\/pnas.0908738106 District of Sunshine Coast. (2019). Public Participation Summary: Drought Management Plan and Water Conservation Programs Review. District of West Vancouver. (n.d.). Services: Utility Fees. Retrieved November 5, 2023, from https:\/\/westvancouver.ca\/services\/taxes-utility-fees\/utility-fees Ducrot, R., & Bourblanc, M. (2017). Promoting equity in water access: the limits of fairness of a rural water programme in semi-arid Mozambique. Natural Resources Forum, 41(3), 131\u2013144. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/1477-8947.12128 Dunn, G., Bakker, K., & Harris, L. (2014). Drinking Water Quality Guidelines across Canadian provinces and territories: Jurisdictional variation in the context of decentralized water governance. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 11(5), 4634\u20134651. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3390\/ijerph110504634 Econics. (2020). Water Metering Feasibility Study for District of Mission (Issue February). Elder, J. D., Beruvides, M. G., & Burgess, R. A. (2019). Water Resources Management and the Pitfalls of Privatization: A causal feedback structure for commoditized water and the management of unintended consequences in privatization. 2019 International Annual Conference Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Management and 40th Meeting Celebration: A Systems Approach to Engineering Management Solutions, ASEM 2019. Erensu, S. (2015). Abundance and scarcity amidst the crisis of \u2018modern water:\u2019\u2019 The changing water\u2013energy nexus in Turkey.\u2019 In Contemporary Water Governance in the Global South (pp. 61\u201378). Routledge.      146 Eyquem, J., & Feltmate, B. (2022). Irreversible Extreme Heat: Protecting Canadians and Communities from a Lethal Future. In Intact Centre on Climate Adaptation, University of Waterloo. (Issue April). www.uwaterloo.ca Fasoli, E. (2017). The UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making, and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters. Multilateral Environmental Treaties, 422\u2013435. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.4337\/9781783477210.v.38 Fielding, K., Russell, S., Spinks, A., & Mankad, A. (2012). Determinants of household water conservation: The role of demographic, infrastructure, behavior, and psychosocial variables. Water Resources Research, 48(10). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1029\/2012WR012398 Fielding, K. S., Spinks, A., Russell, S., & Mankad, A. (2012). Water Demand Management Study: Baseline Survey of Household Water Use. Urban Water Security Research Alliance Technical Report (Issue 93). Finley, S. L., & Basu, N. B. (2020). Curbing the Summer Surge: Permanent Outdoor Water Use Restrictions in Humid and Semiarid Cities. Water Resources Research, 56(8), 1\u201319. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1029\/2019WR026466 Fletcher, S., Hadjimichael, A., Quinn, J., Osman, K., Giuliani, M., Gold, D., Figueroa, A. J., & Gordon, B. (2022). Equity in Water Resources Planning: A Path Forward for Decision Support Modelers. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 148(7), 02522005. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1061\/(asce)wr.1943-5452.0001573 Food & Water Watch. (2018). America\u2019s Secret Water Crisis: National shut off survey reveals water affordability emergency affecting millions. Frederickson, H. G. (2015). Social Equity and Public Administration: Origins, Developments, and Applications. Routledge. Friedman, R. S., Law, E. A., Bennett, N. J., Ives, C. D., Thorn, J. P. R., & Wilson, K. A. (2018). How just and just how? A systematic review of social equity in conservation research. Environmental Research Letters, 13(5), 53001. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1088\/1748-9326\/aabcde Fuente, D. (2019). The design and evaluation of water tariffs: A systematic review. Utilities Policy, 61, 100975. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.jup.2019.100975 Furlong, K. (2010). Neoliberal Water Management: Trends, Limitations, Reformulations. Environment and Society, 1(1), 46\u201375. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3167\/ares.2010.010103      147 Garc\u00eda-Rubio, M. A., Ruiz-Villaverde, A., & Gonz\u00e1lez-G\u00f3mez, F. (2015). Urban water tariffs in Spain: What needs to be done? Water (Switzerland), 7(4), 1456\u20131479. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3390\/w7041456 Garcia-Vali\u00f1as, M. A., Athukorala, W., Wilson, C., Torgler, B., & Gifford, R. (2014). Nondiscretionary residential water use: The impact of habits and water-efficient technologies. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 58(2), 185\u2013204. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/1467-8489.12030 Garc\u00eda-Vali\u00f1as, M. A., Mart\u00ednez-Espi\u00f1eira, R., & Gonz\u00e1lez-G\u00f3mez, F. (2010). Affordability of residential water tariffs: Alternative measurement and explanatory factors in southern Spain. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(12), 2696\u20132706. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.jenvman.2010.07.029 Garc\u00eda-Vali\u00f1as, M. \u00c1., & Su\u00e1rez-Fern\u00e1ndez, S. (2022). Are Economic Tools Useful to Manage Residential Water Demand? A Review of Old Issues and Emerging Topics. Water (Switzerland), 14(16), 1\u201323. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3390\/w14162536 Garrick, D. E., Hanemann, M., & Hepburn, C. (2020). Rethinking the economics of water: An assessment. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 36(1), 1\u201323. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1093\/oxrep\/grz035 Gerlak, A. K., Louder, E., & Ingram, H. (2022). Viewpoint: An Intersectional Approach to Water Equity in the US. Water Alternatives, 15(1), 1\u201312. Gibbs, G. R. (2013). Using Software in Qualitative Analysis. In The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis (pp. 277\u2013294). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.4135\/9781446282243 Giupponi, C., & Sgobbi, A. (2013). Decision support systems for water resources management in developing countries: Learning from experiences in Africa. Water (Switzerland), 5(2), 798\u2013818. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3390\/w5020798 Gleick, P. H., Wolff, G., Chalecki, E. L., & Reyes, R. (2002). The New Economy of Water. In Benchmarking (Issue February). Global Water Partnership. (2009). Social Equity: The Need for an Integrated Approach (Issue 15). Goddard, J. J., Ray, I., & Balazs, C. (2021). Water affordability and human right to water implications in California. PLoS ONE, 16(1 January), e0245237. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1371\/journal.pone.0245237      148 Goddard, J. J., Ray, I., & Balazs, C. (2022). How should water affordability be measured in the United States? A critical review. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, 9(1). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/wat2.1573 Goff, M., & Crow, B. (2014). What is water equity? The unfortunate consequences of a global focus on \u201cdrinking water.\u201d Water International, 39(2), 159\u2013171. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/02508060.2014.886355 Goldman, M. (2005). Imperial nature: The World Bank and the making of neoliberalism. Yale University Press. Gonzalez-Villarreal, F., & Solanes, M. (1999). The Dublin Principles for Water as Reflected in a Comparative Assessment of Institutional and Legal Arrangements for Integrated Water Resources Management. In Global Water Partnership (Issue 3). http:\/\/www.cawater-info.net\/bk\/iwrm\/pdf\/tec_paper3_e.pdf%5Cnhttp:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:The+Dublin+Principles+for+Water+as+Reflected+in+a+Comparative+Assessment+of+Institutional+and+Legal+Arrangements+for+Integrated+Water Government of British Columbia. (2016). Water Sustainability Act. https:\/\/www2.gov.bc.ca\/gov\/content\/environment\/air-land-water\/water\/laws-rules\/water-sustainability-act Government of British Columbia. (2022). Dealing with Drought: A Handbook for Water Suppliers in British Columbia (Issue August). http:\/\/www2.gov.bc.ca\/assets\/gov\/environment\/air-land-water\/water\/drought-info\/suppliers_drought_handbook_2009.pdf Government of British Columbia. (2023). British Columbia Drought and Water Scarcity Response Plan (Issue August). Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship. https:\/\/www2.gov.bc.ca\/assets\/gov\/environment\/air-land-water\/water\/drought-info\/drought_response_plan_final.pdf Gower, T., & Barrorso, A. (2019). Tapped Out: A Special Report on Water Scarcity and Water Solutions in British Columbia. In Watershed Watch Salmon Society, Coquitlam. Grafton, Q., Chu, L., Kompas, T., & Ward, M. (2015). Volumetric Water Pricing, Social Surplus, and Supply Augmentation. In Understanding and Managing Urban Water in Transition (Vol. 15, pp. 401\u2013419). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/978-94-017-9801-3_19      149 Grafton, Q., Chu, L., & Wyrwoll, P. (2020). The paradox of water pricing: Dichotomies, dilemmas, and decisions. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 36(1), 86\u2013107. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1093\/oxrep\/grz030 Greer, R. A. (2020). A review of public water infrastructure financing in the United States. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, 7(5), e1472. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/wat2.1472 Gurney, G. G., Mangubhai, S., Fox, M., Kiatkoski Kim, M., & Agrawal, A. (2021). Equity in environmental governance: perceived fairness of distributional justice principles in marine co-management. Environmental Science and Policy, 124, 23\u201332. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.envsci.2021.05.022 Gurung, T. R., Stewart, R. A., Sharma, A. K., & Beal, C. D. (2014). Smart meters for enhanced water supply network modelling and infrastructure planning. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 90, 34\u201350. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.resconrec.2014.06.005 Guy, M. E., & Mccandless, S. A. (2012). Social Equity: Its Legacy, Its Promise. Public Administration Review, 72, 5\u201313. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.111\/j.1540-6210.2012.02635.x.Social Haddeland, I., Heinke, J., Biemans, H., Eisner, S., Fl\u00f6rke, M., Hanasaki, N., Konzmann, M., Ludwig, F., Masaki, Y., Schewe, J., Stacke, T., Tessler, Z. D., Wada, Y., & Wisser, D. (2014). Global water resources affected by human interventions and climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(9), 3251\u20133256. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1073\/pnas.1222475110 Head, B. W. (2010). Water policy-Evidence, learning and the governance of uncertainty. Policy and Society, 29(2), 171\u2013180. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.polsoc.2010.03.007 Head, B. W. (2022). Wicked Problems in Public Policy. Wicked Problems in Public Policy, 3(2), 101\u2013118. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/978-3-030-94580-0 Heynen, N., McCarthy, J., Prudham, S., & Robbins, P. (2009). Neoliberal Environments. False promises and unnatural consequences. In Environmental Ethics (Vol. 31, Issue 1). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.5840\/enviroethics200931112 Hommes, L., Boelens, R., Duarte-Abad\u00eda, B., Hidalgo-Bastidas, J. P., & Hoogesteger, J. (2018). Reconfiguration of hydrosocial territories and struggles for water justice. Water Justice, 151\u2013168. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/9781316831847.010 Honey-Ros\u00e9s, J., Gill, D., & Pareja, C. (2016). BC MUNICIPAL WATER SURVEY 2016. www.wpl.scarp.ubc.ca      150 Honey-Ros\u00e9s, J., & Pareja, C. (2019). Metrics and Methods for Comparing Water Utility Rate Structures. Water Economics and Policy, 5(2). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1142\/S2382624X18500182 Howlett, M. (2022). Looking at the \u2018field\u2019 through a Zoom lens: Methodological reflections on conducting online research during a global pandemic. Qualitative Research, 22(3), 387\u2013402. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/1468794120985691 Hughes, N., Hafi, A., & Goesch, T. (2009). Urban water management: Optimal price and investment policy under climate variability. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 53(2), 175\u2013192. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/j.1467-8489.2007.00446.x Hukka, J. J., Castro, J. E., & Pietil\u00e4, P. E. (2010). Water policy and governance in Canada. In Environment and History (Vol. 16, Issue 2). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3197\/096734010X12699419057377 Hung, M. F., & Chie, B. T. (2013). Residential Water Use: Efficiency, Affordability, and Price Elasticity. Water Resources Management, 27(1), 275\u2013291. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s11269-012-0185-z Ingram, H., Feldman, D., & Whiteley, J. M. (2013). Water and Equity in a Changing Climate. In Water, Place, and Equity (pp. 271\u2013308). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.7551\/mitpress\/9780262232715.003.0010 Irani, E. (2019). The Use of Videoconferencing for Qualitative Interviewing: Opportunities, Challenges, and Considerations. Clinical Nursing Research, 28(1), 3\u20138. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/1054773818803170 Ismail, A. S. M., Jayakumar, K. V., & Ahmad, S. (2003). Impact of Subsidised Water Supply on Domestic and Public Water Consumption in Qatar. World Water and Environmental Resources Congress, 2959\u20132965. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1061\/40685(2003)182 Jacob, S., & Furgerson, S. (2015). Writing Interview Protocols and Conducting Interviews: Tips for Students New to the Field of Qualitative Research. The Qualitative Report, 17, 1\u201310. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.46743\/2160-3715\/2012.1718 Jim\u00e9nez, A., LeDeunff, H., Gin\u00e9, R., Sj\u00f6din, J., Cronk, R., Murad, S., Takane, M., & Bartram, J. (2019). The enabling environment for participation in water and sanitation: A conceptual framework. Water (Switzerland), 11(2), 308. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3390\/w11020308      151 Johnson, N. J., & Svara, J. H. (2015). Social equity in American society and public administration. In Justice for All: Promoting Social Equity in Public Administration (pp. 3\u201325). Taylor and Francis. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.4324\/9781315703060-9 Kallis, G., Ray, I., Fulton, J., & McMahon, J. E. (2010). Public versus private: Does it matter for water conservation? Insights from California. Environmental Management, 45(1), 177\u2013191. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s00267-009-9403-8 Katz, D., Grinstein, A., Kronrod, A., & Nisan, U. (2016). Evaluating the effectiveness of a water conservation campaign: Combining experimental and field methods. Journal of Environmental Management, 180, 335\u2013343. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.jenvman.2016.05.049 Kayaga, S., & Smout, I. (2007). Water Demand Management: A Key Building Block for Integrated Resource Planning for the City of the Future (Vol. 5, pp. 1\u20138). Kayaga, S., & Smout, I. (2014). Tariff structures and incentives for water demand management. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Water Management, 167(8), 448\u2013456. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1680\/wama.12.00120 Kenney, D. S., Klein, R. A., & Clark, M. P. (2004). Use and effectiveness of municipal water restrictions during drought in Colorado. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 40(1), 77\u201387. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/j.1752-1688.2004.tb01011.x Khari\u00e9, P. (1998). A Water Conservation Strategy for British Columbia. Khawam, W., Virjee, K., & Gaskin, S. (2006). Water demand management measures: analysis of water tariffs and metering in Barbados. Journal of Eastern Caribbean Studies, 31(2), 1\u201324. Kiesau, L. (2020). An Economic Assessment of the Impacts of Outdoor Water Use Restrictions in South Florida [Florida International University]. In FIU Electronic Theses and Dissertations. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.25148\/etd.FIDC008996 Koech, R., Cardell-Oliver, R., & Syme, G. (2021). Smart water metering: adoption, regulatory and social considerations. In Australian Journal of Water Resources (Vol. 25, Issue 2, pp. 173\u2013182). Taylor & Francis. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/13241583.2021.1983968 Koester, V. (2007). The convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters (Aarhus convention). In Making Treaties Work: Human Rights, Environment and Arms Control (pp. 179\u2013217). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/CBO9780511494345.010      152 Kowal, S., & O\u2019connell, D. C. (2013). Transcription as a Crucial Step of Data Analysis. In The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis (pp. 64\u201378). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.4135\/9781446282243 Kumar, M. D. (2014). Economic Instruments for Water Demand Management in Urban Areas. Thirsty Cities, 167\u2013190. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1093\/acprof:oso\/9780198099550.003.0007 Kusena, W., Desai, S., Heinz, B., & Abel, C. (2016). Assessing public participation in water conservation and water demand management in water stressed urban areas: Insights from the City of Gweru, Zimbabwe. Review of Social Sciences, 1(8), 30. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.18533\/rss.v1i8.51 Larner, W. (2000). Neo-liberalism: Policy, Ideology, Governmentality. Studies in Political Economy, 63(1), 5\u201325. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/19187033.2000.11675231 Leach, M., Reyers, B., Bai, X., Brondizio, E. S., Cook, C., D\u00edaz, S., Espindola, G., Scobie, M., Stafford-Smith, M., & Subramanian, S. M. (2018). Equity and sustainability in the anthropocene: A social-ecological systems perspective on their intertwined futures. Global Sustainability, 1. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/sus.2018.12 Leal, F. W., Totin, E., Franke, J. A., Andrew, S. M., Abubakar, I. R., Azadi, H., Nunn, P. D., Ouweneel, B., Williams, P. A., & Simpson, N. P. (2022). Understanding responses to climate-related water scarcity in Africa. Science of the Total Environment, 806, 150420. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.scitotenv.2021.150420 Lepsoe, S. (2009). Water Demand Management and Adaptations for Mountain Resort a Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree (Issue May). Levine, L., Whillans, S., Wein, O., Lusson, K., & Haynes, B. (2022). Water Affordability Advocacy Toolkit (Issue June). www.suerossi.com Li, L., Wu, X., & Tang, Y. (2017). Adoption of increasing block tariffs (IBTs) among urban water utilities in major cities in China. Urban Water Journal, 14(7), 661\u2013668. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/1573062X.2016.1236134 Linton, J. (2010a). Fixing the Flow: The Things We Make of Water. What Is Water? The History of a Modern Abstraction, 1(2010), 13\u201321. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/1467-8284.00197 Linton, J. (2010b). From Premodern Waters to Modern Water. In What is water? The history of a modern abstraction. (Issue 2010).      153 Linton, J., & Budds, J. (2014). The hydrosocial cycle: Defining and mobilizing a relational-dialectical approach to water. Geoforum, 57, 170\u2013180. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.geoforum.2013.10.008 Liu, J., Savenije, H. H. G., & Xu, J. (2003). Water as an economic good and water tariff design Comparison between IBT-con and IRT-cap. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 28(4\u20135), 209\u2013217. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/S1474-7065(03)00027-5 Lopez-Nicolas, A., Pulido-Velazquez, M., Roug\u00e9, C., Harou, J. J., & Escriva-Bou, A. (2018). Design and assessment of an efficient and equitable dynamic urban water tariff. Application to the city of Valencia, Spain. Environmental Modelling and Software, 101, 137\u2013145. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.envsoft.2017.12.018 L\u00f3pez-Ruiz, S., Tortajada, C., & Gonz\u00e1lez-G\u00f3mez, F. (2020). Is the human right to water sufficiently protected in Spain? Affordability and governance concerns. Utilities Policy, 63(November 2019). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.jup.2019.101003 Loxton, M. (2019). How to Use AI Transcription Services with MAXQDA. MAXQDA Research Blog. Lucy, W. H., Dennis, G., & Guthrie, B. S. (1977). Equity in Local Service Distribution. Academy of Management Review, 37(6), 687\u2013697. Maas, T. (2005). What the Expert Think: Understanding Urban Water Demand Management in canada. In The POLIS Project on ecological Governance. The University of Victoria. Mack, E. A., Wrase, S., Dahme, J., Crosby, S. M., Davis, M., Wright, M., & Muhammad, R. (2020). An Experiment in Making Water Affordable: Philadelphia\u2019s Tiered Assistance Program (TAP). Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 56(3), 431\u2013449. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/1752-1688.12830 Maduku, D. K. (2020). Water conservation campaigns in an emerging economy: how effective are they? International Journal of Advertising, 1\u201321. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/02650487.2020.1780060 Maggioni, E. (2015). Water demand management in times of drought: What matters for water conservation. Water Resources Research, 51(1), 125\u2013139. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/2014WR016301 Magnusson, T. S. (2004). Household responsiveness to water demand management incentives in Windhoek, Namibia. Water Policy, 6(5), 453\u2013471. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2166\/wp.2004.0030      154 Mahlanza, L., Ziervogel, G., & Scott, D. (2016). Water, Rights and Poverty: an Environmental Justice Approach to Analysing Water Management Devices in Cape Town. Urban Forum, 27(4), 363\u2013382. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s12132-016-9296-6 Manzungu, E., & Machiridza, R. (2005). An analysis of water consumption and prospects for implementing water demand management at household level in the City of Harare, Zimbabwe. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 30(11-16 SPEC. ISS.), 925\u2013934. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.pce.2005.08.039 March, H., Dom\u00e8nech, L., & Saur\u00ed, D. (2013). Water conservation campaigns and citizen perceptions: The drought of 2007-2008 in the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona. Natural Hazards, 65(3), 1951\u20131966. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s11069-012-0456-2 March, H., Morote, \u00c1. F., Rico, A. M., & Saur\u00ed, D. (2017). Household smart water metering in Spain: Insights from the experience of remote meter reading in Alicante. Sustainability (Switzerland), 9(4). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3390\/su9040582 Marson, M. (2021). Water Demand Management and Household Level Metering in Low-Income Areas of Urban Africa. In Handbook of Research on Resource Management and the Struggle for Water Sustainability in Africa (pp. 109\u2013126). IGI Global. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.4018\/978-1-7998-8809-3.ch005 Mart\u00ednez-Espi\u00f1eira, R., & Garc\u00eda-Vali\u00f1as, M. \u00c1. (2013). Adopting versus adapting: Adoption of water-saving technology versus water conservation habits in Spain. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 29(3), 400\u2013414. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/07900627.2012.721695 Martins, R., Antunes, M., & Fortunato, A. (2020). Regulatory changes to Portugal\u2019s social tariffs: Carrying water in a sieve? Utilities Policy, 64. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.jup.2020.101038 Martins, R., Cruz, L., Barata, E., & Quintal, C. (2013a). Assessing social concerns in water tariffs. Water Policy, 15(2), 193\u2013211. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2166\/wp.2012.024 Martins, R., Cruz, L., Barata, E., & Quintal, C. (2013b). Assessing social concerns in water tariffs. Water Policy, 15(2), 193\u2013211. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2166\/wp.2012.024 McDermott, M., Mahanty, S., & Schreckenberg, K. (2013). Examining equity: A multidimensional framework for assessing equity in payments for ecosystem services. Environmental Science and Policy, 33, 416\u2013427. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.envsci.2012.10.006      155 McLellan, E., MaCqueen, K. M., & Neidig, J. L. (2003). Beyond the Qualitative Interview: Data Preparation and Transcription. Field Methods, 15(1), 63\u201384. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/1525822X02239573 Meehan, K., Jepson, W., Harris, L. M., Wutich, A., Beresford, M., Fencl, A., London, J., Pierce, G., Radonic, L., Wells, C., Wilson, N. J., Adams, E. A., Arsenault, R., Brewis, A., Harrington, V., Lambrinidou, Y., McGregor, D., Patrick, R., Pauli, B., \u2026 Young, S. (2020). Exposing the myths of household water insecurity in the global north: A critical review. In Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water (Vol. 7, Issue 6). John Wiley and Sons Inc. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/wat2.1486 Meganck, R. A. (2010). The role of water education in achieving the Millennium Development Goals? Reviews in Environmental Science and Biotechnology, 9(2), 79\u201380. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s11157-010-9194-7 Mehta, L. (2006). Do human rights make a difference to poor and vulnerable people? Accountability for the right to water in South Africa. In P. Newell & J. Wheeler (Eds.), Rights, Resources, and the Politics of Accountability (Issue 2004, pp. 63\u201378). ZedBooks. Metro Vancouver. (2011). Drinking Water Management Plan (Issue June). www.metrovancouver.org Metro Vancouver. (2019). Residential Water Metering in Metro Vancouver Best Practices Guide for Local Governments. www.metrovancouver.org Metro Vancouver. (2021). Drinking Water Conservation Plan. November. Metro Vancouver. (2023). Water Supply System 2022 Annual Update. Michels, A. (2016). Arguments for involving the public in water management: Evidence from local and regional water plans in the Netherlands. Water Policy, 18(4), 918\u2013931. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2166\/wp.2016.178 Millard-Ball, A. (2013). The Limits to Planning: Causal Impacts of City Climate Action Plans. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 33(1), 5\u201319. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/0739456X12449742 Mirosa, O., & Harris, L. M. (2012). Human Right to Water: Contemporary Challenges and Contours of a Global Debate. Antipode, 44(3), 932\u2013949. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/j.1467-8330.2011.00929.x      156 Mitchell, J. (2006). The Use (and Misuse) of Surveys in Policy Analysis. In Handbook of Public Policy Analysis: Theory, Politics, and Methods (pp. 369\u2013379). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1201\/9781420017007.ch24 Mohamed, A. S., & Savenije, H. H. G. (2000). Water demand management: Positive incentives, negative incentives, or quota regulation? Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Part B: Hydrology, Oceans and Atmosphere, 25(3), 251\u2013258. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/S1464-1909(00)00012-5 Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., Altman, D. G., Antes, G., Atkins, D., Barbour, V., Barrowman, N., Berlin, J. A., Clark, J., Clarke, M., Cook, D., D\u2019Amico, R., Deeks, J. J., Devereaux, P. J., Dickersin, K., Egger, M., Ernst, E., \u2026 Tugwell, P. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. In PLoS Medicine (Vol. 6, Issue 7, p. e1000097). Public Library of Science. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1371\/journal.pmed.1000097 Molinos-Senante, M., & Donoso, G. (2016). Water scarcity and affordability in urban water pricing: A case study of Chile. Utilities Policy, 43, 107\u2013116. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.jup.2016.04.014 Moore, M. L., von der Porten, S., Plummer, R., Brandes, O., & Baird, J. (2014). Water policy reform and innovation: A systematic review. Environmental Science and Policy, 38, 263\u2013271. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.envsci.2014.01.007 Morales, M. C., & Harris, L. M. (2014). Using subjectivity and emotion to reconsider participatory natural resource management. World Development, 64, 703\u2013712. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.worlddev.2014.06.032 Morinville, C., & Rodina, L. (2013). Rethinking the human right to water: Water access and dispossession in Botswana\u2019s Central Kalahari Game Reserve. Geoforum, 49, 150\u2013159. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.geoforum.2013.06.012 Mostert, E. (2003). The challenge of public participation. In Water Policy (Vol. 5, Issue 2, pp. 179\u2013197). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2166\/wp.2003.0011 Nauges, C., & Whittington, D. (2017). Evaluating the Performance of Alternative Municipal Water Tariff Designs: Quantifying the Tradeoffs between Equity, Economic Efficiency, and Cost Recovery. World Development, 91, 125\u2013143. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.worlddev.2016.10.014 Norma, J., & Svara, J. H. (2015). Justice for All: Promoting Social Equity in Public Administration. Routledge.      157 Norman-Major, K. (2011). Balancing the Four Es; or Can We Achieve Equity for Social Equity in Public Administration? Journal of Public Affairs Education, 17(2), 233\u2013252. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/15236803.2011.12001640 O\u2019Connell, D. C., & Kowal, S. (2012). Dialogical Genres: Empractical and Conversational Listening and Speaking. In Dialogical Genres. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/978-1-4614-3529-7 OECD. (2003). Social issues in the provision and pricing of water services. Social Issues in the Provision and Pricing of Water Services, 9789264099, 1\u2013211. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1787\/9789264099890-en Okagbue, H. I., Oguntunde, P. E., Obasi, E. C. M., & Akhmetshin, E. M. (2021). Trends and usage pattern of SPSS and Minitab Software in Scientific research. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1734(1), 012017. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1088\/1742-6596\/1734\/1\/012017 Oliffe, J. L., Kelly, M. T., Gonzalez Montaner, G., & Yu Ko, W. F. (2021). Zoom Interviews: Benefits and Concessions. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20, 1\u20138. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/16094069211053522 Ong, C., Tortajada, C., & Arora, O. (2023). Developing a Water Demand Management Plan. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/978-981-19-8677-2_3 Ornaghi, C., & Tonin, M. (2019). The effects of the universal metering programme on water consumption, welfare, and equity. Oxford Economic Papers, November 2017, 1\u201324. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1093\/oep\/gpz068 Osman, K., & Faust, K. M. (2021). Toward Operationalizing Equity in Water Infrastructure Services: Developing a Definition of Water Equity. ACS ES and T Water, 1(8), 1849\u20131858. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1021\/acsestwater.1c00125 Osman, K. K., Hacker, M. E., & Faust, K. M. (2023). Conceptualizing Equity for Onsite Nonpotable Water Reuse Systems in the United States. Journal of Sustainable Water in the Built Environment, 9(2), 1\u201312. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1061\/jswbay.sweng-475 Ostrom, V., & Ostrom, E. (1977). Public Goods and Public Choices. In Alternatives for Delivering Public Services (pp. 7\u201349). Otaki, Y., Honda, H., & Ueda, K. (2020). Water demand management: Visualising a public good. PLoS ONE, 15(6), 1\u201314. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1371\/journal.pone.0234621 \u00d6zerol, G., Vinke-De Kruijf, J., Brisbois, M. C., Flores, C. C., Deekshit, P., Girard, C., Knieper, C., Mirnezami, S. J., Ortega-Reig, M., Ranjan, P., Schr\u00f6der, N. J. S., &      158 Schr\u00f6ter, B. (2018). Comparative studies of water governance: A systematic review. Ecology and Society, 23(4). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.5751\/ES-10548-230443 Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hr\u00f3bjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., \u2026 Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 10(1), 1\u201311. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s13643-021-01626-4 Patterson, L., & Doyle, M. (2023). How Sensitive Is Household Affordability to Changes in Water Bills? Journal AWWA, 115(5), 14\u201326. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/awwa.2105 Pearson, A. L., Mack, E. A., Ross, A., Marcantonio, R., Zimmer, A., Bunting, E. L., Smith, A. C., Miller, J. D., Evans, T., Collins, S. M., Balogun, M., Adams, E., Stoler, J., Tshala-Katumbay, D., Boivin, M. J., Santoso, M. V., Young, S. L., Mbullo, P., Maes, K., \u2026 Asiki, G. (2021). Interpersonal conflict over water is associated with household demographics, domains of water insecurity, and regional conflict: Evidence from nine sites across eight sub-Saharan African countries. Water (Switzerland), 13(9), 1150. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3390\/w13091150 P\u00e9rez-Urdiales, M., & Baerenklau, K. A. (2020). Assessing the Impacts of Urban Water-Use Restrictions at the District Level: Case Study of California\u2019s Drought Mandate. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 146(5), 05020004. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1061\/(asce)wr.1943-5452.0001169 Perreault, T. (2014). What kind of governance for what kind of equity? Towards a theorization of justice in water governance. Water International, 39(2), 233\u2013245. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/02508060.2014.886843 Perry, B., Diprose, K., Taylor Buck, N., & Simon, D. (2021). Localizing the SDGs in England: Challenges and Value Propositions for Local Government. Frontiers in Sustainable Cities, 3. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3389\/frsc.2021.746337 Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2008). Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide. In Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/9780470754887 Phansalkar, S. J. (2007). Water, equity, and development. International Journal of Rural Management, 3(1), 1\u201325. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/097300520700300101      159 Phillips, C. V., & Sexton, K. (1999). Science and policy implications of defining environmental justice. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology, 9(1), 9\u201317. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1038\/sj.jea.7500022 Pierce, G., Chow, N., & DeShazo, J. R. (2020). The case for state-level drinking water affordability programs: Conceptual and empirical evidence from California. Utilities Policy, 63(January), 101006. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.jup.2020.101006 Pierce, G., Chow, N., DeShazo, J. R., Gmoser-Daskalakis, K., Gomberg, M., Haven, E., Yang, M., Miller, Z., & Firestone, L. (2020). Recommendations for implementation of a statewide low-income water rate assistance program. https:\/\/www.waterboards.ca.gov\/water_issues\/programs\/conservation_portal\/assistance\/. Pierce, G., El-Khattabi, A. R., Gmoser-Daskalakis, K., & Chow, N. (2021). Solutions to the problem of drinking water service affordability: A review of the evidence. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, 8(4). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/wat2.1522 Pietz, D. A., & Zeisler-Vralsted, D. (2021). Water and Equity. In Water and Human Societies: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives (pp. 103\u2013134). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/978-3-030-67692-6_5 Postel, S. L., Daily, G. C., & Ehrlich, P. R. (1996). Human appropriation of renewable fresh water. Science. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1126\/science.271.5250.785 Prieto, M. (2021). Equity vs. Efficiency and the human right to water. Water (Switzerland), 13(3). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3390\/w13030278 Priscoli, J. D. (2004). What is public participation in water resources management and why is it important? Water International, 29(2), 221\u2013227. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/02508060408691771 Proctor, J. D. (1998). The social construction of nature: relativist accusations, pragmatist, and critical realist responses. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 88(3), 352\u2013376. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/0004-5608.00105 Pullin, A. S., & Stewart, G. B. (2006). Guidelines for systematic review in conservation and environmental management. In Conservation Biology (Vol. 20, Issue 6, pp. 1647\u20131656). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/j.1523-1739.2006.00485.x Qdais, H. A. (2003). Water Demand Management \u2013 Security for the MENA Region. In Seventh International Water Technology Conference, 1\u20133.      160 Randall, T., & Koech, R. (2019). Smart Water Metering Technology for Water Management in Urban Areas. Water E-Journal, 4(1), 1\u201314. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.21139\/wej.2019.001 Reed, M. S. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review. In Biological Conservation (Vol. 141, Issue 10, pp. 2417\u20132431). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.biocon.2008.07.014 Reniko, G., & Kolawole, O. D. (2020). \u2018They don\u2019t read metres, they only bring bills\u2019: Issues surrounding the installation of prepaid water metres in Karoi town, Zimbabwe. South African Geographical Journal, 102(3), 356\u2013371. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/03736245.2019.1691046 Renwick, M. E., & Green, R. D. (2000). Do residential water demand side management policies measure up? An analysis of eight California water agencies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 40(1), 37\u201355. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1006\/jeem.1999.1102 Renzetti, S., & Dupont, D. P. (2015). Water Pricing in Canada: Recent Developments. In Global Issues in Water Policy (Vol. 9, pp. 63\u201381). Springer, Cham. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/978-3-319-16465-6_4 Renzetti, S., Dupont, D. P., & Chitsinde, T. (2015). An empirical examination of the distributional impacts of water pricing reforms. Utilities Policy, 34, 63\u201369. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.jup.2014.12.004 Reynaud, A., Renzetti, S., & Villeneuve, M. (2005). Residential water demand with endogenous pricing: The Canadian Case. Water Resources Research, 41(11), 1\u201311. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1029\/2005WR004195 Roa-Garc\u00eda, M. C. (2014). Equity, efficiency and sustainability in water allocation in the andes: Trade-offs in a full world. Water Alternatives, 7(2), 298\u2013319. www.water-alternatives.org Robinson, J. L. (2013). The Meaning of Water: \u201cThe Commons\u201d as a Socially Constructed Discourse. In Contested water: the struggle against water privatization in the United States and Canada. MIT Press. http:\/\/direct.mit.edu\/books\/book\/chapter-pdf\/224436\/9780262313612_cad.pdf Rogers, P., de Silva, R., & Bhataa, R. (2002). Water is an economic good: How to use prices to promote equity, efficiency, and sustainability. Water Policy, 4(1), 1\u201317. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1088\/1751-8113\/44\/8\/085201      161 Rogers, P., & Leal, S. (2010). Running Out of Water: The Looming Crisis and Solutions to Conserve Our Most (1st ed.). St. Martin\u2019s Press. Ruijs, A., Zimmermann, A., & van den Berg, M. (2008). Demand and distributional effects of water pricing policies. Ecological Economics, 66(2\u20133), 506\u2013516. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.ecolecon.2007.10.015 Rutledge, P. (2002). Some Unfinished Business in Public Administration. Public Administration Review, 62(4), 390\u2013394. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/0033-3352.00192 Ryan, S., & Wang, J. (2012). Residential Water Metering and Pricing Structures for the District of Mission. Sadoff, C. W., Borgomeo, E., & Uhlenbrook, S. (2020). Rethinking water for SDG 6. Nature Sustainability, 3(5), 346\u2013347. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1038\/s41893-020-0530-9 Saldana, J. (2021). Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. In Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Satorras, M., Ruiz-Mall\u00e9n, I., Monterde, A., & March, H. (2020). Co-production of urban climate planning: Insights from the Barcelona Climate Plan. Cities, 106, 102887. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.cities.2020.102887 Savenije, H. H. G., & van der Zaag, P. (2002). Water as an economic good and demand management: Paradigms with pitfalls. Water International, 27(1), 98\u2013104. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/02508060208686982 Schaider, L. A., Swetschinski, L., Campbell, C., & Rudel, R. A. (2019). Environmental justice and drinking water quality: Are there socioeconomic disparities in nitrate levels in U.S. drinking water? Environmental Health: A Global Access Science Source, 18(1). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s12940-018-0442-6 Schoengold, K., & Zilberman, D. (2014). The economics of tiered pricing and cost functions: Are equity, cost recovery, and economic efficiency compatible goals? Water Resources and Economics, 7, 1\u201318. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.wre.2014.07.002 SCRD. (2021). Water Meter Installations Project Loan Authorization Bylaw No. 730, 2021: Alternative Approval Process. SCRD. (2023). Get the Facts on Water Metering | Let\u2019s Talk SCRD. Universal Water Metering: Phase 3- Water Meter Installation Project. https:\/\/letstalk.scrd.ca\/water-metering      162 Sebri, M. (2015). Water affordability and social equity in Tunisian governorates: A distributive approach. Water Policy, 17(1), 26\u201345. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2166\/wp.2014.142 Seigerman, C. K., McKay, S. K., Basilio, R., Biesel, S. A., Hallemeier, J., Mansur, A. V., Piercy, C., Rowan, S., Ubiali, B., Yeates, E., & Nelson, D. R. (2023). Operationalizing equity for integrated water resources management. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 59(2), 281\u2013298. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/1752-1688.13086 Sharpe, R. A., Osborne, N. J., & Skerratt, G. (2015). Household water efficiency strategies in Cornwall, SW of England. Water and Environment Journal, 29(4), 457\u2013473. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/wej.12150 Sibly, H., & Tooth, R. (2014). The consequences of using increasing block tariffs to price urban water. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 58(2), 223\u2013243. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/1467-8489.12032 Simms, R., Harris, L., Joe, N., & Bakker, K. (2016). Navigating the tensions in collaborative watershed governance: Water governance and Indigenous communities in British Columbia, Canada. Geoforum, 73, 6\u201316. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.geoforum.2016.04.005 Singh, M. R., Upadhyay, V., & Mittal, A. K. (2005). Water tariff structure and reform needs for socio-economic sustainability in India. World Water Congress 2005: Impacts of Global Climate Change - Proceedings of the 2005 World Water and Environmental Resources Congress, 40792(May), 93. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1061\/40792(173)93 Smith, N. J., McDonald, G. W., & Murray, C. F. (2015). The costs and benefits of water demand management: Evidence from New Zealand. Water and Environment Journal, 29(2), 180\u2013189. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/wej.12098 Solis, M., & Bashar, S. B. (2022). Social equity implications of advanced water metering infrastructure. Utilities Policy, 79(August), 101430. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.jup.2022.101430 Spearing, L., Osman, K. K., Faust, K. M., & Armanios, D. E. (2020). Systems vary, affordability should not: Trends of water sector affordability based on city attributes. Construction Research Congress 2020: Infrastructure Systems and Sustainability - Selected Papers from the Construction Research Congress 2020, 627\u2013635. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1061\/9780784482858.068      163 Statistics Canada. (n.d.). Potable water use in Canada. Potable Water Use in Canada. Retrieved August 7, 2020, from https:\/\/www150.statcan.gc.ca\/n1\/pub\/11-627-m\/11-627-m2019022-eng.htm Statistics Canada. (2020). Table 38-10-0271-01 Potable water use by sector and average daily use. Statistics Canada. https:\/\/doi.org\/https:\/\/doi.org\/10.25318\/3810027101-eng Statutes of British Columbia, Pub. L. No. RSBC (2015). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/18324460.1914.10439351 Stavenhagen, M., Buurman, J., & Tortajada, C. (2018). Saving water in cities: Assessing policies for residential water demand management in four cities in Europe. Cities, 79(July 2017), 187\u2013195. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.cities.2018.03.008 Stevenson, E. G. J. (2019). Water access transformations: Metrics, infrastructure, and inequities. Water Security, 8(November), 100047. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.wasec.2019.100047 Stoler, J., Jepson, W., Wutich, A., Velasco, C. A., Thomson, P., Staddon, C., & Westerhoff, P. (2022). Modular, adaptive, and decentralised water infrastructure: promises and perils for water justice. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 57(June), 101202. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.cosust.2022.101202 Stoler, J., Miller, J. D., Brewis, A., Freeman, M. C., Harris, L. M., Jepson, W., Pearson, A. L., Rosinger, A. Y., Shah, S. H., Staddon, C., Workman, C., Wutich, A., Young, S. L., Adams, E., Ahmed, F., Alexander, M., Asiki, G., Balogun, M., Boivin, M. J., \u2026 Tutu, R. (2021). Household water insecurity will complicate the ongoing COVID-19 response: Evidence from 29 sites in 23 low- and middle-income countries. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 234, 113715. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.ijheh.2021.113715 Sultana, F. (2021). Progress report in Political ecology II: Conjunctures, crises, and critical publics: Progress in Human Geography, 1\u201310. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/03091325211028665 Sultana, F., & Loftus, A. (2012). The right to water: Politics, governance, and social struggles. In Australian Surveyor. Earthscan. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/00050326.1947.10436971 Sunshine Coast Regional District. (n.d.). Rainwater Harvesting Rebate Program. Retrieved November 4, 2023, from https:\/\/www.scrd.ca\/rainwater-harvesting-rebates\/ Sunshine Coast Regional District. (2020). Water Metering Program Summary: Better management, conservation, and fair billing. In Sunshine Coast Regional District.      164 Svarstad, H., & Benjaminsen, T. A. (2020). Reading radical environmental justice through a political ecology lens. Geoforum, 108, 1\u201311. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.geoforum.2019.11.007 Swain, M., McKinney, E., & Susskind, L. (2020). Water Shutoffs in Older American Cities: Causes, Extent, and Remedies. In Journal of Planning Education and Research (p. 0739456X2090443). SAGE Publications Inc. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/0739456X20904431 Switzer, D. (2020). The Context of Responsiveness: Resident Preferences, Water Scarcity, and Municipal Conservation Policy. Review of Policy Research, 37(2), 260\u2013279. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/ropr.12377 Switzer, D., & Deng, J. (2023). Specialized Local Government and Water Conservation Policy in the United States. Urban Affairs Review, 59(2), 611\u2013629. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/10780874221080122 Syme, G. J., & Nancarrow, B. E. (2001). Social justice and environmental management: An introduction. Social Justice Research, 14(4), 343\u2013347. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1023\/A:1014628827223 Syme, G. J., & Nancarrow, B. E. (2006). Achieving sustainability and fairness in water reform: A Western Australian case study. Water International, 31(1), 23\u201330. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/02508060608691911 Taing, L., Chang, C. C., Pan, S., & Armitage, N. P. (2019). Towards a water secure future: reflections on Cape Town\u2019s Day Zero crisis. Urban Water Journal, 16(7), 530\u2013536. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/1573062X.2019.1669190 Tallman, P. S., Collins, S., Salmon-Mulanovich, G., Rusyidi, B., Kothadia, A., Cole, S., Rusyidi, | Binahayati, Kothadia, A., Cole, S., Cantor, A., Jepson, W., & Seibert, J. (2022). Water insecurity and gender-based violence: A global review of the evidence. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, e1619. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/WAT2.1619 Tam, B. Y., Szeto, K., Bonsal, B., Flato, G., Cannon, A. J., & Rong, R. (2019). CMIP5 drought projections in Canada based on the Standardized Precipitation Evapotranspiration Index. Canadian Water Resources Journal, 44(1), 90\u2013107. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/07011784.2018.1537812 Tantoh, H. B. (2021). Water metering in piped community-based water supply systems: the challenge of balancing social and economic benefits. Development in Practice, 31(6), 1\u201313. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/09614524.2021.1937546      165 Tanverakul, S. A., & Lee, J. (2015). Impacts of metering on residential water use in California. Journal - American Water Works Association, 107(2), E69\u2013E75. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.5942\/jawwa.2015.107.0005 Tashakkori, A., & Creswell, J. W. (2007). Editorial: The New Era of Mixed Methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 3\u20137. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/2345678906293042 Tate, D. M. (1989). Water demand management in Canada: A review and assessment. Canadian Water Resources Journal, 14(4), 71\u201382. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.4296\/cwrj1404071 Taylor, A. (2020, March). Detroit mayor rolls out plan to stop water shutoffs amid coronavirus fears. Detroit News. https:\/\/www.detroitnews.com\/story\/news\/local\/detroit-city\/2020\/03\/09\/detroit-mayor-rolls-out-plan-stop-water-shutoffs-amid-coronavirus-fears\/5000160002\/ Teodoro, M. P. (2005). Measuring fairness: Assessing the equity of municipal water rates. Journal \/ American Water Works Association, 97(4), 111\u2013124. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/j.1551-8833.2005.tb10869.x Teodoro, M. P. (2018). Measuring household affordability for water and sewer utilities. In Journal - American Water Works Association (Vol. 110, Issue 1, pp. 13\u201324). Wiley-Blackwell. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.5942\/jawwa.2018.110.0002 Teodoro, M. P. (2019). Water and sewer affordability in the United States. AWWA Water Science, 1(2), e1129. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/aws2.1129 Timmins, C. (2003). Demand-Side Technology Standards Under Inefficient Pricing Regimes: Are They Effective Water Conservation Tools in the Long-Run? Environmental and Resource Economics, 26(1), 107\u2013124. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1023\/A:1025689706396 Tisdell, J. G. (2003). Equity and social justice in water doctrines. In Social Justice Research. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1023\/A:1026365700255 Torio, P. C., Harris, L. M., & Angeles, L. C. (2019). The rural\u2013urban equity nexus of Metro Manila\u2019s water system. Water International, 44(2), 115\u2013128. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/02508060.2019.1560559 Tortajada, C., Gonz\u00e1lez-G\u00f3mez, F., Biswas, A. K., & Buurman, J. (2019). Water demand management strategies for water-scarce cities: The case of Spain. Sustainable Cities and Society, 45(October 2018), 649\u2013656. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.scs.2018.11.044      166 Tracy Mehan, G., Kline, I., Mehan, G. T., & Kline, I. (2012). Pricing as a demand-side management tool: Implications for water policy and governance. Journal - American Water Works Association, 104(2), 61\u201366. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.5942\/jawwa.2012.104.0011 Traudt, J. M. (2014). Public-Sector Financing Options: Long-Term Financing, Short-Term Financing, and Credit Enhancements. In Water and Wastewater Finance and Pricing: The Changing Landscape (4th ed., pp. 59\u201390). Turton, A. R. (1999). Water demand management (WDM): A case study from South Africa. Water, 4, 1\u201319. http:\/\/www.soas.ac.uk\/water\/publications\/papers\/file38348.pdf Tyler, S. (2007). Water demand management, poverty & equity. Regional Water Demand, December 2007. http:\/\/www.crdi.ca\/EN\/Documents\/wdm-poverty-and-equity.pdf UN. (2014). International Decade for Action \u201cWater for Life\u201d 2005-2015. Focus Areas: The human right to water and sanitation. United Nations. https:\/\/www.un.org\/waterforlifedecade\/human_right_to_water.shtml%0Ahttp:\/\/www.un.org\/waterforlifedecade\/human_right_to_water.shtml UN, G. A. (2010). Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on the human right to water and sanitation. In A\/RES\/64\/292. https:\/\/undocs.org\/en\/A\/RES\/64\/292 Union of BC Municipalities. (2006). Local Government in British Columbia: A community effort (Issue 10). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.12968\/pnur.2013.24.10.474 Union of BC Municipalities. (2013). A community effort (Vol. 24, Issue 10). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.12968\/pnur.2013.24.10.474 Union of BC Municipalities. (2018). Local Government Fact Sheets: a reference guide to local government planning and operations (Issue November). United Nations. (n.d.). Human Rights to Water and Sanitation | UN-Water. UN Water. Retrieved October 31, 2023, from https:\/\/www.unwater.org\/water-facts\/human-rights-water-and-sanitation United Nations. (2017). The Sustainable Development Goals Report. United Nations Publications. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.18356\/3405d09f-en United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). (1998). Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters. Cambridge University Press.      167 UN-Water. (2014). WHO | UN-water GLAAS 2014 Report. Un Glass, 1(1), 1\u2013108. https:\/\/doi.org\/9789241508087 van Netten, C., Pereira, R., & Brands, R. (2002). Drinking water supply and management practices in British Columbia, 1997-98. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 93(1), 14\u201318. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/bf03404409 Vanhille, J., Goedem\u00e9, T., Penne, T., Van Thielen, L., & Storms, B. (2018). Measuring water affordability in developed economies. The added value of a needs-based approach. Journal of Environmental Management, 217, 611\u2013620. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.jenvman.2018.03.106 Varghese, S. (2015). Privatization, marketization, commoditization as dominant themes in water governance A response. In Contemporary Water Governance in the Global South (pp. 167\u2013172). Routledge. Varouchakis, E. A., Apostolakis, A., Siaka, M., Vasilopoulos, K., & Tasiopoulos, A. (2018). Alternatives for domestic water tariff policy in the municipality of Chania, Greece, toward water saving using game theory. Water Policy, 20(1), 175\u2013188. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2166\/wp.2017.182 Volker, P., & Honey-Ros\u00e9s, J. (2019). The political climate for stronger action on water metering policies in Metro Vancouver: A survey of elected council members and mayors (Issue September). Von der Porten, S., & De Lo\u00eb, R. C. (2013). Collaborative approaches to governance for water and Indigenous peoples: A case study from British Columbia, Canada. Geoforum, 50, 149\u2013160. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.geoforum.2013.09.001 Walker, G. (2012a). Analysing environmental justice: Some conclusions. In Environmental Justice Concepts, Evidence and Politics (pp. 215\u2013221). Routledge. Walker, G. (2012b). Environmental Justice Concepts, evidence, and politics. In Environmental Justice Concepts, evidence, and politics (1st ed.). Routledge. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.4337\/9781788972840.00040 Wang, Y. H., Chang, M. C., & Liou, J. R. (2019). Effects of water-saving education in Taiwan on public water knowledge, attitude, and behavior intention change. Water Policy, 21(5), 964\u2013979. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2166\/wp.2019.173 Ward, F. A., & Pulido-Vel\u00e1zquez, M. (2008). Efficiency, equity, and sustainability in a water quantity-quality optimization model in the Rio Grande basin. Ecological Economics, 66(1), 23\u201337. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.ecolecon.2007.08.018      168 Warren, F., & Lulham, N. (2021). Canada in a Changing Climate: National Issues. In Government of Canada. Wegerich, K. (2007). A critical review of the concept of equity to support water allocation at various scales in the Amu Darya basin. Irrigation and Drainage Systems, 21(3\u20134), 185\u2013195. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s10795-007-9035-1 Welch, V., Petticrew, M., Petkovic, J., Moher, D., Waters, E., White, H., & Tugwell, P. (2016). Extending the PRISMA statement to equity-focused systematic reviews (PRISMA-E 2012): Explanation and elaboration. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 70, 68\u201389. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.jclinepi.2015.09.001 Welsh, E. (2002). Dealing with data: Using NVivo in the qualitative data analysis process. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung, 3(2). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.17169\/FQS-3.2.865 West, P. (2005). Translation, Value, and Space: Theorizing an Ethnographic and Engaged Environmental Anthropology. Anthropological Theory: For the Twenty-First Century a Critical Approach, 107(4), 305\u2013310. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1525\/aa.2005.107.4.632 West, P., Igoe, J., & Brockington, D. (2006). Parks and peoples: The social impact of protected areas. In Annual Review of Anthropology (Vol. 35, Issue 1, pp. 251\u2013277). Annual Reviews. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1146\/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123308 WHO\/UNICEF. (2023). Progress on household drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene 2000\u20132022: special focus on gender. http:\/\/apps.who.int\/bookorders. Wilson, J., & Pereira, T. (2012). Water demand management\u2019s shadow side: tackling inequality and scarcity of water provision in Cape Town. Strategies to Overcome Poverty and Inequality, 1\u201316. https:\/\/www.researchgate.net\/publication\/329034761 Woodcock, C. P. N. (2014). Determination of Cost of Service. In Water and Wastewater Finance and Pricing: The Changing Landscape (pp. 183\u2013204). Wooldridge, B., & Bilharz, B. (2017). Social Equity: The Fourth Pillar of Public Administration. Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance, 1\u201310. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/978-3-319-31816-5_2383-1 Wooldridge, B., & Gooden, S. (2009). The Epic of Social Equity; Evolution, Essence, and Emergence. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 31(2), 222\u2013234. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2753\/atp1084-1806310205 World Health Organization. (2019). A guide to equitable water safety planning: ensuring no one is left behind. https:\/\/apps.who.int\/iris\/handle\/10665\/311148      169 Worster, D. (1985). Excerpt From Rivers of Empire: Water, Aridity, and the Growth of the American West. In Land of Rivers. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.7591\/9781501738777-051 Xiao, Y., Fang, L., & Hipel, K. W. (2018). Centralized and decentralized approaches to water demand management. Sustainability (Switzerland), 10(10). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3390\/su10103466 Xiong, Y. J., Hao, X. R., Liao, C., & Zeng, Z. N. (2016). Relationship between water-conservation behavior and water education in Guangzhou, China. Environmental Earth Sciences, 75(1), 1\u20139. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s12665-015-4873-x Zaied, Y. Ben, Kertous, M., Ben Cheikh, N., & Ben Lahouel, B. (2020). Delayed payment of residential water invoice and sustainability of water demand management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 276. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.jclepro.2020.123517 Zapana-Churata, L., March, H., & Sauri, D. (2022). Water demand management strategies in fast-growing cities. The case of Arequipa, Per\u00fa. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 38(3), 363\u2013387. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/07900627.2021.1903401 Zetland, D. (2021). The role of prices in managing water scarcity. Water Security, 12, 100081. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.wasec.2020.100081 Zetland, D., & Gasson, C. (2013). A global survey of urban water tariffs: Are they sustainable, efficient, and fair? International Journal of Water Resources Development, 29(3), 327\u2013342. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/07900627.2012.721672 Zwarteveen, M., & Boelens, R. (2014). Defining, researching, and struggling for water justice: some conceptual building blocks for research and action. Water International, 39(2), 143\u2013158. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/02508060.2014.891168       170 APPENDICES  APPENDIX A: Supporting Documents for Chapter 2 Appendix A1: Synthesis review search protocol Research Question \u00d8 How does water demand management affect equitable water supply Sub questions  \u00d8 How is equity characterized and framed in Water demand management?  \u00d8 What are the types of WDM tools and policies?  \u00d8  How does WDM affect water equity?  Operational Questions  \u00d8 What is the global scope of WDM research in the academic literature? \u00d8 How is equity characterized and framed in water demand management?  \u00d8 How does WDM affect water equity, and how do water managers attend to them?  Operational terms\/synonyms  \u00d8 Public water \u2013 water provided to a population through public funding.  \u00d8 Water demand management \u2013 regulations, technology, and behaviours to reduce wasteful water use, including water metering, conservation campaigns, price reforms, water-use restrictions, and efficient water-use technologies (Baroudy et al., 2015; Brandes & Ferguson, 2004).  \u00d8 Equitable water supply \u2013 having access to safe and affordable water regardless of location, race, gender, or socioeconomic status. Keywords (synonyms) to use in the search include equity, equal access, exclusion, impact, burden, marginalized\/poor, discrimination, and water justice.  Methods \u00d8 English language, peer-reviewed articles published between 1980-2020 in Web of Science Core Collections, Scopus, and ScienceDirect, GEOBASE.  \u00d8 Primary keywords\/terms used: Water demand management and equitable water access, equity, participation, poverty, inclusion, affordability.  \u00d8 Systematic search: identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion \u00d8 Analysis: Thematic analysis Methodical Protocols  1. Article number (DOI) 2. What is the title of the article? 3. What was the year of publication?  4. What are the authors' names, in order from first to last? (Last name, initials) 5. What is the name of the journal and subject area\/field?       171 6. Describe the methodology employed. Check all that apply. Quantitative, Qualitative, Mixed method, Other: specify.  7. What is the primary geographical place of focus of study (Full country name)? If multiple, list as \"Multiple: \"Country 1; Country 2\". 8. What are the major conclusions of the paper? E.g., WDM and equitable water access? 9. Has WDM been explicitly defined? Yes, No. If yes, state the definition.  10. What WDM tools and strategies were included in the study? Classify under economic\/financial, regulatory\/institutional, technology, and education.  11. Has equity explicitly been defined or characterized? Yes, No. If yes, state the definition.  12. Which dimension(s) of equity has the research\/article engaged? E.g., distributional, procedural, recognitional, and intergenerational. Or vertical and horizontal?  13. What are the reported equity issues in managing water demand? To be classified under distributional, procedural, recognitional or intergenerational. 14. What actions were identified or implemented in response to the equity issue?  15. Who is responsible for addressing the issue? E.g., Local Communities, Government, Non-Governmental Organizations, unknown (Not Explicitly Listed), Other: specify.  16. What future research needs are articulated in the paper to improve equitable water supply?  Appendix A2: Search string criteria used in each database.  Database Syntax\/search string  Search Results Web of Science (Search 1\/7) ALL=(\u201cCit*\u201d Or \u201cmunicipal*\u201d OR \u201cpublic water\u201d OR \u201cdrinking water\u201d OR \u201cTap water\u201d OR \u201cresidential water use\u201d OR \u201cdomestic water use\u201d) AND ALL=(\u201cWater management\u201d OR \u201cwater demand management\u201d OR \u201cwater supply\u201d OR \u201cwater restriction\u201d OR \u201cwater meter*\u201d OR \u201cwater conserve*\u201d OR \u201cwater pric*\u201d OR \u201cvolumetric pric*\u201d OR \u201cwater tariff*\u201d OR \u201cwater use regulat*\u201d OR \u201cefficient water use\u201d OR \u201cefficient water technologies\u201d OR \u201cconservation campaign*\u201d OR \u201crainwater harvesting\u201d OR \u201cleak repair*\u201d ) AND ALL=(\u201cEqual water access*\u201d OR \u201caffordable water\u201d OR \u201cexclusion\u201d OR \u201cdiscrimination\u201d impact*\u201d OR \u201cburden\u201d \u201cmarginaliz*\u201d OR \u201cpoor\u201d OR \u201cuniversal\u201d OR \u201cparticipation\u201d OR \u201cfairness\u201d OR \u201cjustice\u201d).   177, 017      172 Filters: SEARCH TYPE: All Fields; TIMESPAN: 1980-01-01 to 2021-12-31; LANGUAGE: English language; DOCUMENT TYPE: Articles, Proceedings papers & Book Chapters (Search 2\/7) TI=(\u201cCit*\u201d Or \u201cmunicipal*\u201d OR \u201cpublic water\u201d OR \u201cdrinking water\u201d OR \u201cTap water\u201d OR \u201cresidential water use\u201d OR \u201cdomestic water use\u201d ) AND TI=(\u201cWater management\u201d OR \u201cwater demand management\u201d OR \u201cwater supply\u201d OR \u201cwater restriction\u201d OR \u201cwater meter*\u201d OR \u201cwater conserve*\u201d OR \u201cwater pric*\u201d OR \u201cvolumetric pric*\u201d OR \u201cwater tariff*\u201d OR \u201cwater use regulat*\u201d OR \u201c OR \u201cefficient water use\u201d OR \u201cefficient water technologies\u201d OR \u201cconservation campaign*\u201d OR \u201crainwater harvesting\u201d OR \u201cleak repair*\u201d ) AND TI=(\u201cEqual water access*\u201d OR \u201caffordable water\u201d OR \u201cexclusion\u201d OR \u201cdiscrimination\u201d impact*\u201d OR \u201cburden\u201d \u201cmarginaliz*\u201d OR \u201cpoor\u201d OR \u201cuniversal\u201d OR \u201cparticipation\u201d OR \u201cfairness\u201d OR \u201cjustice\u201d )   Filters: SEARCH TYPE: Topic; TIMESPAN: 1980-01-01 to 2021-12-31; LANGUAGE: English language; DOCUMENT TYPE: Articles, Proceedings papers & Book Chapters 3,795 (Search 3\/7) TS=(\u201cCit*\u201d Or \u201cmunicipal*\u201d OR \u201cpublic water\u201d OR \u201cdrinking water\u201d OR \u201cTap water\u201d OR \u201cresidential water use\u201d OR \u201cdomestic water use\u201d ) AND TS=(\u201cWater management\u201d OR \u201cwater demand management\u201d OR \u201cwater supply\u201d OR \u201cwater restriction\u201d OR \u201cwater meter*\u201d OR \u201cwater conserve*\u201d OR \u201cwater pric*\u201d OR \u201cvolumetric pric*\u201d OR \u201cwater tariff*\u201d OR \u201cwater use regulat*\u201d OR \u201c OR \u201cefficient water use\u201d OR \u201cefficient water technologies\u201d OR \u201cconservation campaign*\u201d OR \u201crainwater harvesting\u201d OR \u201cleak repair*\u201d ) AND TS=(\u201cEqual water access*\u201d OR \u201caffordable water\u201d OR \u201cexclusion\u201d OR \u201cdiscrimination\u201d impact*\u201d OR \u201cburden\u201d \u201cmarginaliz*\u201d OR \u201cpoor\u201d OR \u201cuniversal\u201d OR \u201cparticipation\u201d OR \u201cfairness\u201d OR \u201cjustice\u201d ).   Filters: SEARCH TYPE: TI; TIMESPAN: 1980-01-01 to 2021-12-31; LANGUAGE: English language; DOCUMENT TYPE: Articles, Proceedings papers & Book Chapters  85,792 (Search 4\/7) AB=(\u201cCit*\u201d Or \u201cmunicipal*\u201d OR \u201cpublic water\u201d OR \u201cdrinking water\u201d OR \u201cTap water\u201d OR \u201cresidential water use\u201d OR \u201cdomestic water use\u201d ) AND AB=(\u201cWater management\u201d OR \u201cwater demand management\u201d OR \u201cwater supply\u201d OR \u201cwater restriction\u201d OR \u201cwater meter*\u201d OR \u201cwater conserve*\u201d OR \u201cwater pric*\u201d OR \u201cvolumetric pric*\u201d OR \u201cwater tariff*\u201d OR \u201cwater use regulat*\u201d OR \u201c OR \u201cefficient water use\u201d OR \u201cefficient water technologies\u201d OR \u201cconservation campaign*\u201d OR \u201crainwater harvesting\u201d OR \u201cleak repair*\u201d ) AND AB=(\u201cEqual water access*\u201d OR \u201caffordable water\u201d OR \u201cexclusion\u201d OR \u201cdiscrimination\u201d impact*\u201d OR \u201cburden\u201d \u201cmarginaliz*\u201d OR \u201cpoor\u201d OR \u201cuniversal\u201d OR \u201cparticipation\u201d OR \u201cfairness\u201d OR \u201cjustice\u201d).   64,894      173 Filters: SEARCH TYPE: Abstract; TIMESPAN: 1980-01-01 to 2021-12-31; LANGUAGE: English language; DOCUMENT TYPE: Articles, Proceedings papers & Book Chapters (Search 5\/7) AK=(\u201cCit*\u201d Or \u201cmunicipal*\u201d OR \u201cpublic water\u201d OR \u201cdrinking water\u201d OR \u201cTap water\u201d OR \u201cresidential water use\u201d OR \u201cdomestic water use\u201d ) AND AK=(\u201cWater management\u201d OR \u201cwater demand management\u201d OR \u201cwater supply\u201d OR \u201cwater restriction\u201d OR \u201cwater meter*\u201d OR \u201cwater conserve*\u201d OR \u201cwater pric*\u201d OR \u201cvolumetric pric*\u201d OR \u201cwater tariff*\u201d OR \u201cwater use regulat*\u201d OR \u201c OR \u201cefficient water use\u201d OR \u201cefficient water technologies\u201d OR \u201cconservation campaign*\u201d OR \u201crainwater harvesting\u201d OR \u201cleak repair*\u201d ) AND AK=(\u201cEqual water access*\u201d OR \u201caffordable water\u201d OR \u201cexclusion\u201d OR \u201cdiscrimination\u201d impact*\u201d OR \u201cburden\u201d \u201cmarginaliz*\u201d OR \u201cpoor\u201d OR \u201cuniversal\u201d OR \u201cparticipation\u201d OR \u201cfairness\u201d OR \u201cjustice\u201d )  Filters: SEARCH TYPE: Author Keywords; TIMESPAN: 1980-01-01 to 2021-12-31; LANGUAGE: English language; DOCUMENT TYPE: Articles, Proceedings papers & Book Chapters.  3,834 (Search 6\/7) Screening: Combination of #1 AND #2 AND #3 AND #4 833 (Search 7\/7) Filters: Combination of #1 AND #2 AND #3 AND #4 & selected journals (e.g., in Environment, Sustainability, & Water).  123 (downloaded) PubMed ((\"Cit*\" OR \"municipal*\" OR \"public water supply\" OR \"drinking water\" OR \"potable water\" OR \"tap water\" OR residential water use\" OR domestic water use\" AND (1980\/1\/1:2021\/12\/31[pdat])) AND (\"Water management\" OR \"water demand management\" OR \"water supply\" OR \"water restrictions\" OR \"water metering\" OR \"water conservation\" OR \"water pric*\" OR \"volumetric pric*\" OR \"water tariffs\" OR \"water use regulation\" OR \"water conservation\" OR \"efficient water use\" OR \"efficient water technologies\" OR \"water conservation campaign*\" OR \"rainwater harvesting\" OR \"leak repair*\". AND (1980\/1\/1:2021\/12\/31[pdat]))) AND (\"Equal water access\" OR \"affordable water\" OR \"exclusion\" OR \"discrimination\" OR \"impact\" OR \"burden\" OR \"marginalized\" OR \"poor\" OR \"universal\" OR \"participation\" OR \"fairness\" OR \"justice\" AND (1980\/1\/1:2021\/12\/31[pdat]))   Filters: SEARCH TYPE: All Fields; TIMESPAN: 1980-01-01 to 2021-12-31; LANGUAGE: English language 175 AESD, noft((\"Cit*\" OR \"municipal*\" OR \"public water\" OR \"drinking water\" OR \"potable water\" OR \"Tap water\" OR \"residential water use\" OR \"domestic water use\") AND (\"Water management\" OR \"water demand management\" OR \"water supply\" OR \"water restriction\" OR \"water meter*\" OR \"water conserv*\" OR \"water pric*\" OR \"volumetric pric*\" OR \"water tariff*\" OR \"water use regulat*\" OR \" OR \" efficient water use \" OR \" efficient water technologies \" OR \" conservation campaign* \" OR \" rainwater harvesting \" OR \" leak 249      174 repair* \" ) AND (\" Equal water access* \" OR \" affordable water \" OR \" exclusion \" OR \" discrimination \" impact*\" OR \"burden\" \"marginaliz*\" OR \"poor\" OR \"universal\" OR \"participation\" OR \"fairness\" OR \"justice\")) AND su((\"Cit*\" OR \"municipal*\" OR \"public water\" OR \"drinking water\" OR \"potable water\" OR \"Tap water\" OR \"residential water use\" OR \"domestic water use\") AND (\"Water management\" OR \"water demand management\" OR \"water supply\" OR \"water restriction\" OR \"water meter*\" OR \"water conserv*\" OR \"water pric*\" OR \"volumetric pric*\" OR \"water tariff*\" OR \"water use regulat*\" OR \" OR \" efficient water use \" OR \" efficient water technologies \" OR \" conservation campaign* \" OR \" rainwater harvesting \" OR \" leak repair* \" ) AND (\" Equal water access* \" OR \" affordable water \" OR \" exclusion \" OR \" discrimination \" impact*\" OR \"burden\" \"marginaliz*\" OR \"poor\" OR \"universal\" OR \"participation\" OR \"fairness\" OR \"justice\")) AND ab((\"Cit*\" OR \"municipal*\" OR \"public water\" OR \"drinking water\" OR \"potable water\" OR \"Tap water\" OR \"residential water use\" OR \"domestic water use\") AND (\"Water management\" OR \"water demand management\" OR \"water supply\" OR \"water restriction\" OR \"water meter*\" OR \"water conserv*\" OR \"water pric*\" OR \"volumetric pric*\" OR \"water tariff*\" OR \"water use regulat*\" OR \" OR \" efficient water use \" OR \" efficient water technologies \" OR \" conservation campaign* \" OR \" rainwater harvesting \" OR \" leak repair* \" ) AND (\" Equal water access* \" OR \" affordable water \" OR \" exclusion \" OR \" discrimination \" impact*\" OR \"burden\" \"marginaliz*\" OR \"poor\" OR \"universal\" OR \"participation\" OR \"fairness\" OR \"justice\")) AND ti((\"Cit*\" OR \"municipal*\" OR \"public water\" OR \"drinking water\" OR \"potable water\" OR \"Tap water\" OR \"residential water use\" OR \"domestic water use\") AND (\"Water management\" OR \"water demand management\" OR \"water supply\" OR \"water restriction\" OR \"water meter*\" OR \"water conserv*\" OR \"water pric*\" OR \"volumetric pric*\" OR \"water tariff*\" OR \"water use regulat*\" OR \" OR \" efficient water use \" OR \" efficient water technologies \" OR \" conservation campaign* \" OR \" rainwater harvesting \" OR \" leak repair* \" ) AND (\" Equal water access* \" OR \" affordable water \" OR \" exclusion \" OR \" discrimination \" impact*\" OR \"burden\" \"marginaliz*\" OR \"poor\" OR \"universal\" OR \"participation\" OR \"fairness\" OR \"justice\"))  Filters: SEARCH TYPE: All Fields; TIMESPAN: 1980-01-01 to 2021-12-31; LANGUAGE: English language; SOURCE TYPE: Conference Papers & Proceedings, Scholarly Journals; DOCUMENT TYPE: Articles, Proceedings papers & Book Chapters PAIS, ab((\"Cit*\" OR \"municipal*\" OR \"public water\" OR \"drinking water\" OR \"potable water\" OR \"Tap water\" OR \"residential water use\" OR \"domestic water use\") AND (\"Water management\" OR \"water demand management\" OR \"water supply\" OR \"water restriction\" OR \"water meter*\" OR \"water conserv*\" OR \"water 323      175 pric*\" OR \"volumetric pric*\" OR \"water tariff*\" OR \"water use regulat*\" OR \" OR \" efficient water use \" OR \" efficient water technologies \" OR \" conservation campaign* \" OR \" rainwater harvesting \" OR \" leak repair* \" ) AND (\" Equal water access* \" OR \" affordable water \" OR \" exclusion \" OR \" discrimination \" impact*\" OR \"burden\" \"marginaliz*\" OR \"poor\" OR \"universal\" OR \"participation\" OR \"fairness\" OR \"justice\")) AND ti((\"Cit*\" OR \"municipal*\" OR \"public water\" OR \"drinking water\" OR \"potable water\" OR \"Tap water\" OR \"residential water use\" OR \"domestic water use\") AND (\"Water management\" OR \"water demand management\" OR \"water supply\" OR \"water restriction\" OR \"water meter*\" OR \"water conserv*\" OR \"water pric*\" OR \"volumetric pric*\" OR \"water tariff*\" OR \"water use regulat*\" OR \" OR \" efficient water use \" OR \" efficient water technologies \" OR \" conservation campaign* \" OR \" rainwater harvesting \" OR \" leak repair* \" ) AND (\" Equal water access* \" OR \" affordable water \" OR \" exclusion \" OR \" discrimination \" impact*\" OR \"burden\" \"marginaliz*\" OR \"poor\" OR \"universal\" OR \"participation\" OR \"fairness\" OR \"justice\")).   Filters: SEARCH TYPE: Abstracts; TIMESPAN: 1980-01-01 to 2021-12-31; LANGUAGE: English language; SOURCE TYPE: Conference Papers & Proceedings, Scholarly Journals; DOCUMENT TYPE: Articles, Proceedings papers & Book Chapters Engineering Village (GEOBASE, Compendex, & GeoRef) ((((((((((((((((Cit* Or municipal* OR public water OR drinking water OR Tap water OR residential water use OR domestic water use) WN TI) AND ((Water management OR water demand management OR demand-side management OR water supply OR water restriction OR water meter* OR water conserve* OR water pric* OR volumetric pric* OR water tariff* OR water use regulat* OR efficient water use OR efficient water technologies OR conservation campaign* OR rainwater harvesting OR leak repair) WN TI)) AND ((Equal water access OR affordable water OR exclusion OR discrimination OR impact* OR burden OR marginaliz* OR poor OR universal OR participation OR fairness OR justice) WN TI))) NOT ((({water supply} OR {water management} OR {potable water} OR {drinking water} OR {decision making} OR {water conservation})).    Filters: SEARCH TYPE: All Fields; TIMESPAN: 1980-01-01 to 2021-12-31; LANGUAGE: English language; SOURCE TYPE: Conference Papers & Proceedings, Scholarly Journals; DOCUMENT TYPE: Articles, Proceedings papers & Book Chapters; JOURNALS: Selected journals (e.g.,  216       176 SCOPUS ((TITLE-ABS-KEY(public water OR Cit* OR municipal* OR public water OR drinking water OR Tap water OR residential water use OR domestic water use))) AND (TITLE-ABS-KEY(\"equity\" OR \"equal water access*\" OR \"affordable water\" OR \"exclusion\" OR \"discrimination\" OR \"impact*\" OR \"burden\" \"marginaliz*\" OR \"poor\" OR \"universal\" OR \"participation\" OR \"fairness\" OR \"justice\")) AND (TITLE-ABS-KEY(\"Water management\" OR \"demand management\" OR \"water supply\" OR \"water restriction\" OR \"water meter*\" OR \"water conserve*\" OR \"water pric*\" OR \"volumetric pric*\" OR \"water tariff*\" OR \"water use regulat*\" OR \"efficient water use\" OR \"efficient water technologies\" OR \"conservation campaign*\" OR \"rainwater harvesting\" OR \"leak repair\"))   Filters: (LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE, \u201cEnglish\")) AND (LIMIT-TO (SRCTYPE,\"j\") OR LIMIT-TO (SRCTYPE \"p\")) 56      177 Appendix A3: Summary of 50 studies that examined the equity implications of WDM tools and measures  Author & Year Location Data source\/type Sample size  Specific WDM tool Equity frame  1.  Agthe & Billing, 1987 Tucson, Arizona  Household income and water consumption data  N\/A Increasing Block Tariffs (IBT) Equality 2.  Al Qahtani, Ismaiel & Sofian, 2016 Saudi Arabia  Household water consumption and unit cost 11 cities Increasing Block Tariffs (IBT) Affordability and access 3.  Asci, Borisova, & Dukes, 2017 Central Florida, USA Household surveys  195 households Volumetric rates  Equality 4.  Baerenklau, Schwabe, & Dinar, 2014 Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) of South California Household surveys  13,000 single-family households Volumetric rates   5.  Banerjee et al., 2010 Selected African countries  Water Utilities  N\/A Increasing Block Tariffs (IBT) Affordability and access 6.  Barber\u00e1n, & Arbu\u00e9s, 2009 Zaragoza, Spain  Multiple municipalities 301 Andalusian municipalities. Volumetric rates Affordability 7.  Barraqu\u00e9, 2011 Paris, France Water rates, consumption, and income N\/A Flat rates, IBT, and Metering  Distributional equity  8.  Berhanu, et al., 2017 Central Texas, USA Cost and adoption data  N\/A Efficient devises and reuse technologies  Affordability, access, & participation 9.  Brocklehurst et al., 2002  Six Cities in Southeast Asia  Water rates, production cost, and income   N\/A  Tariff structures Distributional equity 10.  Burger & Jansen, 2014 Cape Town, South Africa  Household-level water consumption Data & demographics N\/A Water rates and subsidies Affordability and access      178  Author & Year Location Data source\/type Sample size  Specific WDM tool Equity frame  11.   Cairns, 2018  La Paz and Alto Beni, Bolivia.  Household level data  Interviews-43 Focus groups -4 Surveys-138 Water meters and volumetric rates Affordability and access 12.  Campbell, Jognson & Larson, 2004 Arizona, USA Household level data  19,000 households All WDM policies  Affordability, access, & participation 13.  Cantin et al., 2005 Canada N\/A N\/A Economic instruments  Distributional equity 14.  Chambouleyron, 2003 Buenos and C\u00f3rdoba, Argentina  Hypothetical  N\/A Water metering  Distributional equity 15.  Chan, 2015 Global and cities in Australia N\/A  Volumetric rates N\/A 16.  Dahan & Nisan, 2007 Jerusalem  Water consumption and billing data 115,887 households Increasing Block Rates N\/A 17.  Diakit\u00e9, Semenov & Thomas, 2009 C\u00f4te d'Ivoire Water rates, consumption, and income  156 communities Social pricing of water Access and affordability  18.  Edwards, 2006 Melbourne, Australia  Water rates, consumption, and income N\/A All WDM policies  Distributional equity 19.  Farolfi & Gallego-Ayala, 2014 Mozambique Water rates, consumption, and income 15 water systems Volumetric rates Access and affordability 20.  Feldman, 2011 California, USA  Water rates, consumption, and income N\/A Various WDM policies Access, affordability & participation 21.  Fuente et al., 2016 Nairobi, Kenya Economic and demographic data 656 households Pricing and subsidies  Access and affordability      179  Author & Year Location Data source\/type Sample size  Specific WDM tool Equity frame  22.  Garc\u00eda-Vali\u00f1as et al., 2010 Southern Spain Water rates, consumption, and income 301 Municipalities Volumetric rates Access and affordability 23.  Garcia & Reynaud, 2004 Bordeaux Area, France  Water rates, consumption, and income 200 observations Volumetric rates Access and affordability 24.  Grafton & Ward, 2008 Sydney  Water rates, consumption, and income N\/A Metering and water rationing Distributional equity 25.  Grafton, Chu, Kompas & Ward, 2015 Sydney, Australia  Water rates, consumption, and income N\/A Various WDM policies  Distributional equity 26.  Groom et al., 2008.  Beijing  Water rates, consumption, and income N\/A Volumetric rates Distributional equity 27.  Kanakoudis et al., 2016 Kozani, Greece. Water rates, consumption, and income N\/A Socially fair pricing policy Access and affordability 28.  Kayaga & Smout, 2014 Zaragoza and Kampala Household level surveys 2701 households. Increasing Block Tariffs Distributional equity 29.  Khawam et al., 2006 Barbados Household level surveys 136 households in 7 districts Metering and volumetric rates Distributional equity 30.  Kusena et al., 2016 Gweru, Zimbabwe Household surveys  489 residents Various WDM policies  Participation  31.  March et al., 2017 Alicante, Spain  Metering cost and benefits Four institutional interviews Smart water metering  Distributional equity 32.  Mart\u00ednez-Espi\u00f1eira & Garc\u00eda-Vali\u00f1as, 2013 All autonomous communities in Spain Household-level data  27,000 households (18,953 observations) Efficient technologies and water-saving habits Access and affordability      180  Author & Year Location Data source\/type Sample size  Specific WDM tool Equity frame  33.  Martins et al., 2013 Portuguese  Households   Volumetric rates  34.  Molinos-Senante & Donoso, 2016 Atacama and Ays\u00e9n regions, Chile Water rates, consumption, and income N\/A Volumetric rates Distributional equity 35.  Mohamed & Savenije, 2000 Egypt  N\/A N\/A Various WDM policies  Access and affordability 36.  Nauges & Whittington, 2017  Hypothetical community Water use and income data  5,000 households Volumetric rates Affordability and access 37.  Ornaghi & Tonin, 2019 Southern Water\u2019s Universal Metering Programme (UMP), England  150,000 customers Water metering N\/A 38.  Reniko & Kolawole, 2020 Karoi, Zimbabwe  35 individuals\/interviews Water metering  Distributional 39.  Renwick & Archibald, 1998 Goleta & Santa Barbara, California  Household-level panel data  119 single-family households All WDM policies  Access and affordability 40.  Renzetti, Dupont and Chitsinde, 2015 Capital Regional District, BC  627 Census Tracts Volumetric rates Distributional effect of water pricing reforms  41.  Rietveld Rouwendal & Zwart, 2000 Salatiga, Java (Indonesia) Water rates, consumption, and socio-demographic data  951 households Volumetric rates Distributional equity 42.  Ruijs et al., 2008 S\u00e3o Paulo N\/A 39 municipalities Volumetric rates Distributional equity 43.  Saur\u00ed, 2003 Metropolitan region of Barcelona Household water consumption and income data  N\/A Pricing, campaigns and water-saving technologies       181    Author & Year Location Data source\/type Sample size  Specific WDM tool Equity frame  44.  Schoengold & Zilberman, 2014 Four urban areas in Western USA Household consumption by wealth or income level 16 public utilities from 11 urban areas Increasing Block Rates Distributional impact 45.  Sibly & Tooth, 2014 Australian cities  Hypothetical  N\/A Increasing block tariffs  Equal distribution 46.  Smith et al., 2008 Northern New Castle County, Delaware, USA  Water rates, consumption and socio-economic data  500 households Volumetric rates Distributional equity 47.  Tanto, 2021 Bambili in Cameroun Water rates, governance, and catchment protection Ten community-sections  Questionnaires-154 Interviews- 20 Water metering Access and participation 48.  Ward & Pulido-Velazquez, 2009  Rio Grande Basin in N. America Water rates and economic benefits  N\/A Pricing reforms Access and affordability 49.  Whittington, 2003 Various Asian cities  N\/A N\/A Pricing and tariff reforms Access and affordability 50.  Zaeid et al., 2020  Bejaia City in Algeria Water consumption  Water rates Delayed invoice payments   172 sample households  27,363 water records Increasing Block Tariffs Access and distributional equity      182 APPENDIX B: Supporting Documents for Chapter 3 Appendix B1:Detailed Research Information for Data Collection  Project Title: Advancing Social Equity in Water Demand Management This research project is being conducted by Ph.D. student, Mr. Vincent Chireh and supervised by Dr. Leila Harris at the University of British Columbia. Our objective is to understand the impact of managing residential water demand on equitable water supply in British Columbia. Local governments are adopting various strategies to manage residential water demand to meet current and future water needs. Water demand management (WDM) measures such as metering and pricing, water use restrictions, efficient technologies, and water-saving campaigns can ensure fair and equitable billing, revenues to utilities, and leak detection and reduction. While these policies and programs benefit individuals, communities, and the environment, how water managers select and implement them may negatively affect marginalized and vulnerable people. Hence, local governments want to ensure that everyone has access to adequate access to potable water irrespective of their cultural, social, or economic status in society.  While British Columbia municipalities adopt metering to measure and manage water demand, water managers are yet to understand how it affects universal water supply. How municipal metering decisions are made and implemented could exclude marginalized and vulnerable populations from accessing adequate water for subsistence use. Our research aims to examine the equity impacts of metering programs and suggest ways to integrate social equity into future programs. To achieve this objective, We will conduct a literature review of WDM and equity, a survey for all BC municipalities, and follow-ups on interesting metering cases. The provincial survey will explore metering adoption progress and other conversations around support for or resistance against metering. We will use the interviews to understand how municipalities are implementing metering and the effects on water access to low-income and racialized households. Our analysis will show a global synthesis of the equity implications of WDM and the effects of residential water metering at the local level. As part of my graduate studies, I will produce a thesis report for the School of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies, UBC, and academic peer-reviewed publications.        183 You are being invited to take part in this study because you are a municipal staff with water management responsibilities. If you agree to participate, we will ask questions about water use and how your municipality is managing water demand. We want to know how your municipality decided on and implemented water metering. We will also ask how metering affects water supply. We also need information on how residents and other stakeholders were involved in implementing the metering program. This information will help the research team, and municipal planners better understand how water metering can support the provision of adequate water for the needs of all people.   Principal Investigator: Dr. Leila Harris Co-Investigator: Mr. Vincent Chireh Contact information: [redacted]       184 Appendix B2: Survey Instrument  Purpose: As part of my graduate studies, I (Mr. Vincent Chireh) am conducting a study supervised by Dr. Leila Harris (Professor at UBC) to understand how water demand management measures and practices affect drinking water supply to residents. I am contacting you because you are part of the people in charge of managing the drinking water supply in your jurisdiction. I am hoping that you can answer a few questions about the water supply system in your jurisdiction. The decision to participate is entirely voluntary, and there are no consequences if you decline or withdraw at any time. Your participation and inputs are important to this research, and I appreciate your time in responding to the questions.  Details: The survey includes questions about water demand management measures, water billing and the impact on supply. I will ask you questions about your opinion on equitable water access in the context of water demand management. It will take between 10 \u201315 minutes to complete the survey.  Confidentiality, Risks & Benefits: The answers you provide in this survey shall be kept confidential and de-identified of personal information. We shall encrypt and store the data on a password-protected personal computer of the Co-Investigator, Mr. Vincent Chireh. Dr. Leila Harris and Mr. Vincent Chireh do not anticipate any risk to you for participating in the survey. You may choose to stop the survey or decline to answer some questions at any time without any consequences. Dr. Leila Harris and Mr. Vincent Chireh will use this information purely for academic purposes, including writing a graduate dissertation and peer-reviewed articles. All research materials and information shall be discarded after five (5) years of completing this research. Participants will be eligible to win one of five (5) gift cards valued at $20 each. The winners will be randomly selected from a pool of participants, each having an equal chance of winning the prize draw. Participants who withdraw from the study can still participate. We appreciate your time and responses.  Follow-up: If you are interested in hearing about the results of this research, please get in touch with any of the team members, and we can send it when completed. In addition to the survey, Mr. Vincent Chireh (Co-Investigator) is interested in interviewing you about how water metering affects your jurisdiction's water supply. If you are interested in participating, please provide your      185 email\/phone number at the end of the survey, and he will contact you to schedule a meeting. The interview will take approximately 15 minutes to complete.  Consent: By completing this survey, you consent to participate in the research. You can contact Mr. Vincent Chireh (Co-I) if you have any questions before consenting. If you are unable to participate, is there someone else in your jurisdiction who might be able to respond to the survey? Please forward this email and survey link to them so that they may choose whether they want to participate in the survey.  Principal Investigator: Dr. Leila Harris, IRES, UBC. Contact: [redacted] Key Contact: Vincent Chireh, Ph.D. Candidate, IRES, UBC. Contact: [redacted]    Do you consent to respond to this survey and participate in the research? o Yes, I consent!  o No, I do not consent!    SECTION 1: WATER DEMAND MANAGEMENT Here, we want to understand how various jurisdictions are prioritizing, planning, and implementing efficient water use and demand management measures.  Q1. What jurisdiction does your water system serve?  o Community\/Town  o City  o Municipality  o Regional District  o Province         186 Q2. How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements?  Strongly agree Somewhat agree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Don't know Issues about drinking water supply are a high priority in my jurisdiction.  o  o  o  o  o  o  Managing water demand is a high priority for my jurisdiction.  o  o  o  o  o  o  Residential water metering is a high priority in my jurisdiction  o  o  o  o  o  o   Q3. Does your jurisdiction have a policy\/plan for water efficiency or conservation?  o Yes  o No  o Don't know   Display This Question: If Does your jurisdiction have a policy\/plan for water efficiency or conservation? = Yes Q4. Has your jurisdiction implemented the water-efficiency or conservation policy\/plan? o Yes  o No  o Don't know        187 Q5. Has your jurisdiction adopted any of these water demand management measure(s)?   No Yes Don't know Residential water metering  o  o  o  Commercial water metering  o  o  o  Volumetric pricing (pay per use)  o  o  o  Water-use restrictions (or rationing)  o  o  o  Subsidies for water-efficient dispensers (e.g., low-flow shower heads)  o  o  o  Rainwater harvesting\/barrels  o  o  o  Water efficiency and conservation campaigns  o  o  o  Water infrastructure retrofitting  o  o  o  Other, specify  o  o  o   Carry Forward Selected Choices from \"Has your jurisdiction adopted any of these water demand management measure(s)? \" Q6. Please rank the adopted measures according to the level of resources invested (e.g., funds, personnel) by your jurisdiction. On a scale of 1 \u2013 5 (1 being less investment and 5 being more investment).        188  0 1 2 3 4 5  Residential water metering  Commercial water metering  Volumetric pricing (pay per use)  Water-use restrictions (or rationing)  Subsidies for water-efficient dispensers (e.g., low-flow shower heads)  Rainwater harvesting\/barrels  Water efficiency and conservation campaigns  Water infrastructure retrofitting  Other, specify    Q7. Does your jurisdiction have a water efficiency or conservation target?  o No  o Yes, specify the target __________________________________________________ o Don't know    SECTION 2: RESIDENTIAL WATER METERING  Here, we want to understand how jurisdictions are planning and implementing residential water metering and the impact on equitable water supply.  Q8. Do you have any residential water meters for the following building types?  Yes No Single-Family homes  o  o  Multi-family units  o  o  Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional  o  o         189 Carry Forward Selected Choices from \"Do you have any residential water meters for the following building types?\"  Q9. What is your metering policy for these building units?   Mandatory Semi-mandatory Voluntary No Policy Don't know Single-Family homes  o  o  o  o  o  Multi-family units  o  o  o  o  o  Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional  o  o  o  o  o    Q10. What is the number of connections on your water system for the following building units? o Single-family households _______________________________________________ o Connections with water meters __________________________________________ o Multi-family households _______________________________________________ o Connections with water meters __________________________________________       190 Display This Question: If Do you have any residential water meters for the following building types? = No Q11. If no residential metering: What are the main reasons or factors? Please rank them from 1 \u2013 5 (1 being less important to 5 being less important)  0 1 2 3 4 5  Meter installation and maintenance cost  Lack of personnel workers  Lack of political will  Equity concerns  Lack of public interest  Water billing challenges  Water is a human right; access should be universal  Water is abundantly available  Other efficiency or demand management measures are in place  Uncertainties (e.g., cost projections, revenue, budgeting estimates)  Other, specify   Residential Water Metering Q12. Please rank these reasons why your jurisdiction would adopt residential metering (from 1 being less to 5 being more important).   0 1 2 3 4 5  Make billing more fair (you pay for what you use)  Conserve water  Detect and fix leaks  Recover the cost of producing water  Generate revenue for utilities  Cross subsidy - for those who cannot pay  Make water systems efficient  Generate data for planning purposes  Other, specify        191  SECTION 3: WATER BILLING  Here, we want to understand how jurisdictions charge for drinking water and how that affects equitable water supply.   Q13. How does your jurisdiction currently charge for residential water use? Please select all that apply.   Single-Family Multi-Family Flat rate charge (e.g., same price to all users, regardless of actual water consumption)  \u25a2 \u25a2 Volumetric charge (e.g., price varies according to the volume of water consumed)  \u25a2 \u25a2 Other, please specify ...  \u25a2 \u25a2  Q14. In the past year (2020), estimate the percentage of residents who were late in paying bills? o None  o Less than 1%  o 1-5%  o 6-10%  o 11-15%  o More than 15%        192 Display This Question: If In the past year (2020), estimate the percentage of residents who were late in paying bills?. != None Q15 These are possible reasons residents were late in paying their water bills. Please rank them from 1\u20135 (1 being less important to 5 being more important).   0 1 2 3 4 5  The means of payment is challenging  Water bills are not affordable  They do not have time to go and pay  Bills do not reflect the amount of water consumed  Delayed bill notices  Others, specify     Q16. Has your jurisdiction instituted any support for people who could not afford monthly water bills? o No  o Yes, specify __________________________________________________ o Don't know    Q17. Which of the following statements best describes your understanding of equity in water provision? Please rank your choices from 1 \u2013 5 (1 being worst to 5 being best description).       193 Billing and paying for water according to the amount they consume      Participating in the decisions about water metering and billing      Billing and paying for water according to one's income      Cities assisting people who cannot afford to pay for and access water      Others, specific        Q18. How strongly do you agree or disagree with the statement that residential water metering and billing can ensure equity in water provision?  o Strongly agree  o Somewhat agree  o Neither agree nor disagree  o Somewhat disagree  o Strongly disagree  o Don't know    Conclusion and Follow-up Please indicate your ......  \u25a2 Job title _________________________________________________ \u25a2 Name of jurisdiction _______________________________________ \u25a2 Number of years in your current position _______________________   Are you interested in participating in a follow-up interview to discuss residential water metering in your jurisdiction?  o Yes. Please indicate contact email\/phone number _______________________________ o No        194 Would you like to be included in a draw to win one of 5 gift cards, valued at $20 each, for your participation in the survey?  o Yes, I want to be included.  o No, thanks!   Appendix B3: Relationship between prioritizing WDM and conservation plan by jurisdiction type  Value df Asymptotic Significance (2-sided) City  Pearson Chi-Square 10.578b 4 .032 Likelihood Ratio 8.496 4 .075 Linear-by-Linear Association 4.363 1 .037 N of Valid Cases 17   Community  Pearson Chi-Square .451c 3 .930 Likelihood Ratio .581 3 .901 Linear-by-Linear Association .143 1 .705 N of Valid Cases 25   Municipality  Pearson Chi-Square 7.836d 4 .098 Likelihood Ratio 6.567 4 .161 Linear-by-Linear Association .108 1 .742 N of Valid Cases 49   Total Pearson Chi-Square 7.215a 4 .125 Likelihood Ratio 7.451 4 .114 Linear-by-Linear Association 1.035 1 .309 N of Valid Cases 94            195 Appendix B4: Metered connections by housing unit and jurisdiction type     48.0%35.2%67.3%58.4%32.7%49.9%93.5%46.4%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%City Community\/Town Municipalities TotalsSFH_Metered (%) MFH_Metered (%)     196 APPENDIX C: Supporting Documents for Chapter 4 Appendix C1: Sample Survey Questions used in Chapter 4 analysis. No.  Survey Question  Response Options  1.  Do you (jurisdiction) have water meters for the following building types:  Single-family, multiple-family, and industrial, commercial, and institutional (ICI). 2.  What is the metering policy for building units?  Single-family, multiple-family, and industrial, commercial, and institutional (ICI). 3.  Please rank these reasons your jurisdiction would adopt residential metering:  Make billing more fair (you pay for what you use), conserve water, detect and fix leaks, recover the cost of producing water, generate revenue for utilities, Cross subsidy - for those who cannot pay, make water systems efficient, and generate data for planning purposes. 4.  How does your jurisdiction currently charge for residential water use? Please select all that apply. Flat rate charge, volumetric charge 5.  In the past year (2020), estimate the percentage of residents who were late in paying bills?  Strongly agree; Somewhat agree; Neither agree nor disagree; Somewhat disagree; Strongly disagree; Don't know 6.  These are possible reasons residents were late in paying their water bills. Please rank them from 1\u20135 (1 being less important and 5 being more important).  - the means of payment is challenging, water bills are not affordable, they do not have time to go and pay, bills do not reflect the amount of water consumed, and delayed bill notice. 7.  How strongly do you agree or disagree with the statement that residential water metering and billing can ensure equity in water provision? Strongly agree; Somewhat agree; Neither agree nor disagree; Somewhat disagree; Strongly disagree; and Don't know.   8.  Which of the following statements best describes your understanding of equity in water provision? Please rank your choices from 1 \u2013 5 (1 being worst to 5 being best description):  Billing and paying for water according to the amount they consume; participating in the decisions about water metering and billing; billing and paying for water according to one's income; Cities assisting people who cannot afford to pay for and access water.      197 Appendix C2: Sample Interview Consent Form THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Institute for Resources, Environment, and Sustainability Faculty of Science, Vancouver Campus.  AERL Building, 429-2202 Main Mall Vancouver, BC Canada V6T 1Z4.  Email: info@ires.ubc.ca  CONSENT FORM Project Title: Advancing Social Equity in Water Demand Management  Principal Investigator (PI): Dr. Leila Harris (Professor) Contact: [redacted] Co-Investigator (Co-I): Mr. Vincent Chireh (Ph.D. Student) Contact: [redacted] As part of graduate studies, I (Mr. Vincent Chireh) am conducting research under the supervision of Dr. Leila Harris to examine how residential water metering affects water access and affordability in British Columbia. The research team is also interested in discussing water demand management (WDM) measures and practices, including metering. This information will help the research team and municipal planners better understand how water demand management can conserve and supply adequate, equitable, and affordable water to all residents.  You are being invited to take part in this study because you are a municipal staff with water management responsibilities. If you agree to be interviewed, we will ask about your opinion, experience, and role in regulating water demand and use in your jurisdiction. Among other things, if relevant, we would like to know how your jurisdiction decided on, and implemented some of the measures, including residential metering. We will also ask how metering affects water access, pricing\/billing, and affordability for various social groups in the community. We also are interested in information on how residents and other stakeholders were involved in implementing the metering program. Only the PI, Dr. Leila Harris and Co-I, Mr. Vincent Chireh, and any project Research Assistant, will have access to this information you will provide. Your decision to participate, refuse or withdraw from the process is purely voluntary and has no negative consequences. We will work to ensure that the information you provide is kept confidential and your identity anonymized. The results of this study will be reported in a Ph.D. dissertation and peer-reviewed manuscript(s) and placed in an institutional or disciplinary repository that can be freely accessed. Journals can also offer open access to the peer-reviewed manuscript(s) from this study on their websites. After the research data has been processed and made public, participants      198 cannot withdraw from the study. We are also able to share the research results with interested participants. This interview will last approximately 30 minutes, but you can decide to end the interview anytime. It is voluntary to participate in the research, so you can refuse, withdraw, or abstain from answering some of the questions. We do not think there is anything in this research that could harm you. Please let one of us know if you have any questions. If you agree to partake, you do not give away any rights to legal recourse if you suffer any harm for participating. We will assign codes to all personal information so that no one can link your responses to you unless you prefer to be identified. You have the option to decide how you want to be referred to in the interviews and publications. Zoom participants can log on using only a nickname or substitute name, turn off their camera (we don\u2019t need it), and mute their microphones when not in use.  We will write notes and record the conversation during the interview if you permit us to do so. All the research data will be encrypted and stored on the Co-I, Mr. Vincent Chireh\u2019s laptop, which is password-secured. When necessary, the PI, Dr. Leila Harris, or project Research Assistants, may also have access to the interview data after signing a form of non-disclosure and confidentiality. All the research materials, including the consent forms and interview transcripts, will be locked and keyed in the PI, Dr. Leila Harris\u2019 office at the IRES, UBC, for five (5) years before discarding them. Before this time, we may use part of this information in future research following the guidelines for human behavioural research. We cannot compensate for your participation, but the study results can support municipal planners to improve metering programs in future.  Again, your participation in this research is entirely voluntary. If you have any concerns or complaints about your rights as a participant or experiences while participating in this study, please contact the Research Participant Complaint Line in the UBC Office of Research Ethics at (604)-822-8598, 1-877-8598 (toll-free) or via mail at RSIL@ors.ubc.ca.  For further inquiries regarding this interview or the research in general, please contact Co-I, Mr. Vincent Chireh, via [redacted) or Dr. Leila Harris, [redacted] Thank you for your time and help to understand how metering influences water access and affordability in BC. Your contribution is truly appreciated!   Your consent means that:  \u00de    You understand the information about the above research contained in the attached document      199 \u00de    You are satisfied with the answers to all your questions about this study \u00de    You understand what the study is about and what you will be doing \u00de    You understand that you are free to withdraw from the study within six months of your interview date without reason and that doing so will not affect you now or in the future.  Please tick what you agree with:  \u0000 I agree to be audio-recorded during the interview  \u0000 I agree to the use of direct quotations of my responses \u0000 I agree to the use of my title and name in publications resulting from this study  \u0000 I agree to make available metering policy documents and records \u0000 I want to receive the final product of this research Can Co-I, Mr. Vincent Chireh, contact you for a follow-up interview to clarify questions in this research? Yes No  Your signature:  A copy of this Informed Consent Form has been given to me for my records.   ______________________________                                               _______________________ Signature of Participant                                                                            Date             200 Appendix C3: Semi-structured interview guides (2x)  A. Interview Guide for Metered Jurisdictions  Now that you have read, understood, and consented to answer our interview questions, we can start. I want to repeat that your participation in this interview is purely voluntary, and you can withdraw your consent or refuse to answer some of the questions. The questions are about how your jurisdiction has implemented the residential water metering program, including decision-making, water pricing\/billing, and the effect on water access and affordability. There are also questions about your understanding of equity and how the city considers them in metering planning.  1) Can you tell me how your jurisdiction decided on implementing residential water metering?  \u2022 What was the motivation to meter residential water supply? \u2022 How was this decision taken, and who were involved?  \u2022 As an (e.g., Mayor, CAO, Manager of Utilities), what was your role in making this decision? \u2022 Would you say your jurisdiction has engaged with the concerned stakeholders in making this decision (e.g., residents, civil society, etc.)? How was this engagement done? Can you provide some documents as evidence (e.g., feedback survey, town hall minutes, etc.)? 2) After deciding to implement residential metering, how did your jurisdiction go about the implementation?  \u2022 What role did you play in the implementation?  \u2022 Who else was part of the implementation process?  \u2022 Were other people outside of the administration part of the implementation? (e.g., residents, civil society, NGOs). What were their roles as well? Can you provide some documents as evidence (e.g., feedback survey, town hall minutes, etc.)? \u2022 What was the (initial) reaction of residents to residential metering? Do you think the way the town\/city implemented metering accounted for this reaction?  \u2022 How did the use of this strategy influence the rate of adoption or uptake?  3) Please can you share with me what challenges the city\/municipality encountered in implementing the metering program?  \u2022 Were there challenges such as financial, personnel, resident\u2019s resistance, etc.?  \u2022 How did the city\/town address these challenges?  \u2022 Are there any lessons you could share for other cities planning to meter residential water? 4) How did metering affect water supply, pricing\/billing, and bill payments in your jurisdiction?      201 \u2022 Did water prices increase, decrease, or remain unchanged after the implementation? \u2022 How do these price changes affect bill payments in the city\/municipality?  \u2022 Were there issues with delays or non-payment of water bills among residents?  \u2022 Has your jurisdiction put in place measures to support residents facing financial challenges resulting in delays or non-payments? \u2022 How does the city identify water users to benefit from such programs?  \u2022 How does metering affect water supply and access by low-income households, immigrants, BIPOC, and other minority\/marginalized in the city?  5) As an (e.g., Mayor, CAO, Public Works Officer), what is your understanding of equity concerning water provision? \u2022 How do you think about and approach equity in your work? How important is equity for the work that you do?  \u2022 Do you consider equity (or equality) in planning and implementing metering decisions? If so, how do you do it? \u2022 Can you tell me any barriers your organization faces in incorporating equity considerations in metering plans and programs? How did your jurisdiction resolve those challenges or barriers?  6. Looking at how metering was done, is there anything you could have done differently? Any advice to other municipalities considering metering residential water supply?  7. Is there anything about residential water metering programs you would like to share     202 B. Interview Guide for Non-metered Jurisdictions  Now that you have read, understood, and consented to answer our interview questions, we can start. I want to repeat that your participation in this interview is purely voluntary, and you can withdraw your consent or refuse to answer some of the questions. We will discuss how your jurisdiction is managing residential water demand, including decision-making, pricing\/billing, access, and affordability.  1. Can you share with us what measures your jurisdiction has put in place to regulate residential water demand and use? \u2022 What motivated your jurisdiction to adopt this measure(s)? \u2022 How was the decision taken, and who were involved?  \u2022 As a (e.g., Mayor, CAO), what was your role in making this decision? \u2022 Would you say your jurisdiction has engaged with the concerned stakeholders in making this decision (mention residents, civil society, etc.)? How was this engagement done? Can you provide some documents as evidence (e.g., feedback survey, town hall minutes, etc.)? 2. How did your jurisdiction implement this water demand management measure (s) (mentioned above)?  \u2022 What role did you play in implementing these measure(s)?  \u2022 How did other stakeholders outside of this block participate in implementing this measure (e.g., residents, civil society, NGOs)? Can you provide some documents as evidence of their involvement? \u2022 What was the residents' reaction to the introduction of this measure or practice? Do you think the way or strategy used in introducing the measure accounted for such a response?  \u2022 Please can you share with me the challenges your jurisdiction faced in implementing this measure? \u2022 How were these challenges addressed?  \u2022 Are there any lessons you could share for other cities planning to implement this measure? 3. How does the implementation of this measure affect water supply, pricing, and bill payments in your jurisdiction? \u2022 Did water prices increase, decrease, or remain unchanged after the implementation?  \u2022 How do these changes affect bill payments by residents in the city\/municipality?  \u2022 Were there issues with delays or non-payment of water bills among residents?  \u2022 Has your jurisdiction put in place measures to support residents facing delays or non-payments? 4. As an (e.g., Mayor, CAO, Public works officer), what is your understanding of equity concerning water provision?       203 \u2022 How do you think about and approach equity in your work? How important is equity for the work that you do?  \u2022 Do you consider equity in planning and implementing water demand management decisions? If so, how do you do it? \u2022 Can you tell me any barriers your city\/municipality faces in considering equity in planning and implementing water demand management programs? How did your jurisdiction resolve those challenges or barriers?  5. The adoption of residential water metering has been on the rise in recent times. Do you think it's something your jurisdiction would want to consider?  \u2022 What do you think are the benefits of metering residential water supply? What could be the disadvantages or challenges? Do you think metering can increase water supply and make water affordable? If yes, how? If no, why?  \u2022 What advice or recommendations do you have for cities and municipalities that are now considering residential water metering? 6) Is there anything about managing residential water supply that you may want to share that we have not talked about?          204 Appendix C4: Anonymized Participants Identifiers No. Jurisdiction Type  Jurisdiction code Participant code  Participant Position 1.  Community\/Town jur#001 Interviewee_#001 Manager, Water Dept. 2.  Municipality  jur#002 Interviewee_#002 Chief Administrative Officer  3.  City  jur#003 Interviewee_#003 Dir of Planning & Engineering 4.  City  jur#004 Interviewee_#004 Director Utilities 5.  Municipality  jur#005 Interviewee_#005 Manager of Operations  6.  City  jur#006 Interviewee_#006 Chief Administrative Officer 7.  Municipality  jur#007 Interviewee_#007 Chief Administrative Officer 8.  Municipality  jur#008 Interviewee_#008 Chief Administrative Officer 9.  City  jur#009 Interviewee_#009 Manager of Utility services  10.  City  jur#0010 Interviewee_#010 Director of Operations  11.  Municipality  jur#0011 Interviewee_#011 Director of Public Works  12.  Village  jur#0012 Interviewee_#012 Mayor 13.  Municipality  jur#0013 Interviewee_#013 Superintendent of Public Works 14.  Municipality  jur#0014 Interviewee_#014 Manager of Infrastructure Planning  15.  Municipality  jur#0015 Interviewee_#015 Chief Administrative Officer 16.  Community\/Town jur#0016 Interviewee_#016 Mayor  17.  City  jur#0017 Interviewee_#017 Manager of Operations  18.  City  jur#0018 Interviewee_#018 Director of engineering  19.  Municipality  jur#0019 Interviewee_#019 Chief Administrative Officer 20.  Regional District  jur#0020 Interviewee_#020 Manager, Strategic Initiatives  21.  City  jur#0021 Intervewee_#021 Assistant Director of Engineering    ","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2009\/08\/skos-reference\/skos.html#note","classmap":"oc:AnnotationContainer"},"iri":"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2009\/08\/skos-reference\/skos.html#note","explain":"Simple Knowledge Organisation System; Notes are used to provide information relating to SKOS concepts. There is no restriction on the nature of this information, e.g., it could be plain text, hypertext, or an image; it could be a definition, information about the scope of a concept, editorial information, or any other type of information."}],"Genre":[{"label":"Genre","value":"Thesis\/Dissertation","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/hasType","classmap":"dpla:SourceResource","property":"edm:hasType"},"iri":"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/hasType","explain":"A Europeana Data Model Property; This property relates a resource with the concepts it belongs to in a suitable type system such as MIME or any thesaurus that captures categories of objects in a given field. It does NOT capture aboutness"}],"GraduationDate":[{"label":"Graduation Date","value":"2024-05","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/vivoweb.org\/ontology\/core#dateIssued","classmap":"vivo:DateTimeValue","property":"vivo:dateIssued"},"iri":"http:\/\/vivoweb.org\/ontology\/core#dateIssued","explain":"VIVO-ISF Ontology V1.6 Property; Date Optional Time Value, DateTime+Timezone Preferred "}],"IsShownAt":[{"label":"DOI","value":"10.14288\/1.0440125","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/isShownAt","classmap":"edm:WebResource","property":"edm:isShownAt"},"iri":"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/isShownAt","explain":"A Europeana Data Model Property; An unambiguous URL reference to the digital object on the provider\u2019s website in its full information context."}],"Language":[{"label":"Language","value":"eng","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/language","classmap":"dpla:SourceResource","property":"dcterms:language"},"iri":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/language","explain":"A Dublin Core Terms Property; A language of the resource.; Recommended best practice is to use a controlled vocabulary such as RFC 4646 [RFC4646]."}],"Program":[{"label":"Program (Theses)","value":"Resources, Environment and Sustainability","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#degreeDiscipline","classmap":"oc:ThesisDescription","property":"oc:degreeDiscipline"},"iri":"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#degreeDiscipline","explain":"UBC Open Collections Metadata Components; Local Field; Indicates the program for which the degree was granted."}],"Provider":[{"label":"Provider","value":"Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/provider","classmap":"ore:Aggregation","property":"edm:provider"},"iri":"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/provider","explain":"A Europeana Data Model Property; The name or identifier of the organization who delivers data directly to an aggregation service (e.g. Europeana)"}],"Publisher":[{"label":"Publisher","value":"University of British Columbia","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/publisher","classmap":"dpla:SourceResource","property":"dcterms:publisher"},"iri":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/publisher","explain":"A Dublin Core Terms Property; An entity responsible for making the resource available.; Examples of a Publisher include a person, an organization, or a service."}],"Rights":[{"label":"Rights","value":"Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International","attrs":{"lang":"*","ns":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/rights","classmap":"edm:WebResource","property":"dcterms:rights"},"iri":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/rights","explain":"A Dublin Core Terms Property; Information about rights held in and over the resource.; Typically, rights information includes a statement about various property rights associated with the resource, including intellectual property rights."}],"RightsURI":[{"label":"Rights URI","value":"http:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by-nc-nd\/4.0\/","attrs":{"lang":"*","ns":"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#rightsURI","classmap":"oc:PublicationDescription","property":"oc:rightsURI"},"iri":"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#rightsURI","explain":"UBC Open Collections Metadata Components; Local Field; Indicates the Creative Commons license url."}],"ScholarlyLevel":[{"label":"Scholarly Level","value":"Graduate","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#scholarLevel","classmap":"oc:PublicationDescription","property":"oc:scholarLevel"},"iri":"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#scholarLevel","explain":"UBC Open Collections Metadata Components; Local Field; Identifies the scholarly level of the author(s)\/creator(s)."}],"Supervisor":[{"label":"Supervisor","value":"Harris, Leila","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/contributor","classmap":"vivo:AdvisingRelationship","property":"dcterms:contributor"},"iri":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/contributor","explain":"A Dublin Core Terms Property; An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource.; Examples of a Contributor include a person, an organization, or a service."},{"label":"Supervisor","value":"Honey-Ros\u00e9s, Jordi","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/contributor","classmap":"vivo:AdvisingRelationship","property":"dcterms:contributor"},"iri":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/contributor","explain":"A Dublin Core Terms Property; An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource.; Examples of a Contributor include a person, an organization, or a service."}],"Title":[{"label":"Title ","value":"Advancing equity in water demand management among local governments in British Columbia, Canada","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/title","classmap":"dpla:SourceResource","property":"dcterms:title"},"iri":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/title","explain":"A Dublin Core Terms Property; The name given to the resource."}],"Type":[{"label":"Type","value":"Text","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/type","classmap":"dpla:SourceResource","property":"dcterms:type"},"iri":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/type","explain":"A Dublin Core Terms Property; The nature or genre of the resource.; Recommended best practice is to use a controlled vocabulary such as the DCMI Type Vocabulary [DCMITYPE]. To describe the file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource, use the Format element."}],"URI":[{"label":"URI","value":"http:\/\/hdl.handle.net\/2429\/87472","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#identifierURI","classmap":"oc:PublicationDescription","property":"oc:identifierURI"},"iri":"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#identifierURI","explain":"UBC Open Collections Metadata Components; Local Field; Indicates the handle for item record."}],"SortDate":[{"label":"Sort Date","value":"2024-12-31 AD","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/date","classmap":"oc:InternalResource","property":"dcterms:date"},"iri":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/date","explain":"A Dublin Core Elements Property; A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource.; Date may be used to express temporal information at any level of granularity. Recommended best practice is to use an encoding scheme, such as the W3CDTF profile of ISO 8601 [W3CDTF].; A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource.; Date may be used to express temporal information at any level of granularity. Recommended best practice is to use an encoding scheme, such as the W3CDTF profile of ISO 8601 [W3CDTF]."}]}