In recent weeks, people all over the world have been settling into a 'new normal' of restricted mobility, online working, social distancing and enhanced hand hygiene. As part of the global fight against the spread of COVID-19 (the illness caused by SARS-CoV-2), we are repeatedly reminded by public health authorities that frequent and thorough hand-washing with soap and water is one of the best ways of limiting transmission. The rationale behind this is clear: washing regularly and thoroughly physically degrades and removes viral particles from hands, and therefore lowers the likelihood of infection transmission. Many health agencies are recommending washing hands for a minimum of 20 seconds up to 8-10 times per day. If washed in running water, the average hand basin tap uses 2-3 litres per minute, which implies a total water requirement of 8-10 litres of clean water per person per day, as well as appropriate soap and drying facilities (i.e. not a reused and possibly contaminated towel or rag).Achieving clean hands is not difficult in wealthier households that have long enjoyed water services so reliable that they have stopped thinking much about it. But if handwashing is so important to the fight against COVID-19, what does this mean for the many people around the world who do not have access to a sufficient and secure supply of safe water to support this life-critical activity? According to UNICEF and WHO (2019), as many as one in three of the world's people do not enjoy access to safe and reliable water services, and 3 billion people across the world do not have basic hand-washing facilities (soap and water) in their home. Research published by the Household Water Insecurity Experiences (HWISE) Research Coordination Network shows that rates of household water insecurity vary greatly between and within developing nations, with urban and rural areas often faring quite differently (Young et al., 2019). This research also reveals that many households depend on multiple sources of water, including tap stands CONTACT C.

Scholars and practitioners have been working on methodologies to measure water security at a variety of scale and focus. In this paper, we critically examine the landscape of water security metrics, discussing the progress and gaps of this rich scholarship. We reviewed a total of 107 publications consisting of 17 conceptual papers and 90 methodological papers that propose 80 metrics to measure water security and observed that there are two dominant research clusters in this field: experiential scale‐based metrics and resource‐based metrics. The former mainly focus on measuring the water experiences of households and its impact on human well‐being, while the majority of the latter assess freshwater availability or water resources security. We compare their approaches and the arguments used to develop them. We posit that the more local the scale and the more specific the water domain, the more meaningful results that the metrics can provide. Acknowledging the interrelationship between different water domains (e.g., water resources and water hazards) is important, but their aggregation for measurement may be problematic. We offer our views on future work in this field relating to topics beyond water, the need to conduct validation tests, and collaboration among academics and with other stakeholders. This article is categorized under: Human Water > Human Water

This paper presents an analysis of the evolution of flood policy in a city in the developing world. Jakarta was selected in order to analyse the role of colonialisation on water policy. Drawing data from historical sources and interviews of key informants, we mapped the history of flood-related investments made in the city for the past 400 years. Using analysis informed by historical institutionalism, we argue that Jakarta's flood management institutions have been locked-in to infrastructural measures. Some major flood events were able to create critical junctures, resulting in the implementation of old policies and the instigation of flood research. However, they were not able to introduce institutional changes. The persistence of engineering-driven solutions to cope with flooding can be explained by the positive feedback mechanisms taking place after major floods. Infrastructure, albeit expensive, provides a fast relief to flooding, which is ideal to short political cycles. Scientific knowledge introduced by the colonial government plays an important role in sustaining this persistence. The current massive seawall proposal to alleviate increasing flood risks due to land subsidence and sea level rise exacerbates the path dependency of infrastructural measures.

Amid its massive increase in energy demand, Southeast Asia has pledged to increase its use of renewable energy by up to 23% by 2025. Geospatial technology approaches that integrate statistical data, spatial models, earth observation satellite data, and climate modeling can be used to conduct strategic analyses for understanding the potential and efficiency of renewable energy development. This study aims to create the first spatial model of its kind in Southeast Asia to develop multi-renewable energy from solar, wind, and hydropower, further broken down into residential and agricultural areas. The novelty of this study is the development of a new priority model for renewable energy development resulting from the integration of area suitability analysis and the estimation of the amount of potential energy. Areas with high potential power estimations for the combination of the three types of energy are mostly located in northern Southeast Asia. Areas close to the equator, have a lower potential than the northern countries, except for southern regions. Solar photovoltaic (PV) plant construction is the most area-intensive type of energy generation among the considered energy sources, requiring 143,901,600 ha (61.71%), followed by wind (39,618,300 ha; 16.98%); a combination of solar PV and wind (37,302,500 ha; 16%); hydro (7,665,200 ha; 3.28%); a combination of hydro and solar PV (3,792,500 ha; 1.62%); and a combination of hydro and wind (582,700 ha; 0.25%). This study is timely and important because it will inform policies and regional strategies for transitioning to renewable energy, with consideration of the different characteristics present in Southeast Asia.

No abstract