Вход на сайт
Просмотр новости

Найдите то, что Вас интересует

Hydrological asymmetry and water stress in Peru: An integrated assessment of resource distribution, anthropogenic pressure, and governance gaps across three drainage basins [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]
Дата публикации: 30-03-2026 08:29:21

Background Peru presents a paradigmatic case of hydrological asymmetry, where national water abundance (56,887 m3/capita/year) masks acute regional scarcity. The Pacific basin, hosting 66.4% of the population, possesses only 1.9% of renewable water resources (1,628 m3/capita/year), falling below the Falkenmark water stress threshold (1,700 m3/capita/year). Conversely, the Amazon basin holds 97.8% of resources for 30.4% of the population (183,142 m3/capita/year). This 112.5-fold asymmetry ratio exceeds comparable international cases (Egypt: 49.2; China: 8.0), yet Peru lacks systemic redistribution mechanisms. Policy and Implications Current governance frameworks under Law 29338 (2009) have failed to address territorial misalignment between supply, demand, and institutional capacity. Economic compensation mechanisms (S/205.5 million annually) paradoxically tax scarcity rather than value ecosystem services, with the Pacific basin contributing 61.7% of revenues despite extreme resource constraints. Groundwater extraction in coastal regions operates at 100% of renewable recharge limits, indicating unsustainable fossil aquifer mining. Climate projections indicate 30% runoff reduction in glacier-fed Pacific basins by 2100, exacerbating existing stress. Recommendations (1) Implement basin-scale demand management and irrigation efficiency programmes in the Pacific basin; (2) Strengthen groundwater monitoring and abstraction controls to prevent irreversible depletion; (3) Reform economic compensation mechanisms to incorporate ecosystem service valuation, redistributing revenues toward hydrologically strategic headwater regions; (4) Integrate indigenous water governance systems (comunidades campesinas, ayllus) into state planning frameworks; (5) Establish inter-basin transfer feasibility studies given the extreme asymmetry ratio. Conclusions Peru’s water challenge stems from governance asymmetry layered upon hydrological asymmetry, not absolute scarcity. Without institutional mechanisms reconciling hydrology, demography, and political economy, climatic variability will entrench coastal scarcity while Amazonian abundance remains underutilised. The integrated assessment framework presented provides transferable insights for water-rich yet spatially asymmetric nations facing increasing climatic variability.

Основное содержимое страницы с новостью.

Policy Brief

[version 1; peer review: 2 approved]

Juan Eduardo Suarez Rivadeneira

https://orcid.org/0009-0006-0597-6370

1, Freddy A Manayay

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1790-0107

2, Jhon Danilson Campos Mego1, Wilfredo Ruiz Camacho1, Italo Maldonado Ramirez1, Gustavo Adolfo Perez Londoño1

Juan Eduardo Suarez Rivadeneira

https://orcid.org/0009-0006-0597-6370

1, Freddy A Manayay

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1790-0107

2, [...] Jhon Danilson Campos Mego1, Wilfredo Ruiz Camacho1, Italo Maldonado Ramirez1, Gustavo Adolfo Perez Londoño1

Author details Author details

1 Mechanical and Electrical Engineering Professional School, National University Toribio Rodríguez de Mendoza of Amazonas, Bagua, 0172, Peru
2 Biosystems Engineering Professional School, National University Toribio Rodríguez de Mendoza of Amazonas, Chachapoyas, Amazonas, 01001, Peru

Juan Eduardo Suarez Rivadeneira
Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Freddy A Manayay
Roles: Conceptualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Jhon Danilson Campos Mego
Roles: Formal Analysis, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing

Wilfredo Ruiz Camacho
Roles: Methodology, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing

Italo Maldonado Ramirez
Roles: Formal Analysis, Validation

Gustavo Adolfo Perez Londoño
Roles: Investigation, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

Corresponding authors: Juan Eduardo Suarez Rivadeneira, Freddy A Manayay Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Copyright:  © 2026 Suarez Rivadeneira JE et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: Suarez Rivadeneira JE, Manayay FA, Campos Mego JD et al. Hydrological asymmetry and water stress in Peru: An integrated assessment of resource distribution, anthropogenic pressure, and governance gaps across three drainage basins [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2026, 15:456 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.176208.1) First published: 30 Mar 2026, 15:456 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.176208.1) Latest published: 30 Mar 2026, 15:456 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.176208.1)

1. Introduction

Water scarcity affects 4 billion people globally, with physical scarcity (insufficient resources) and economic scarcity (inadequate infrastructure) representing distinct governance challenges.1,2 The Falkenmark Water Stress Index remains the standard metric for physical scarcity assessment, though composite indices (Water Poverty Index, Global Water Security Index) provide multidimensional perspectives.3–6 Nations facing extreme hydrological asymmetry—Egypt (Nile dependence, 55 m3/capita/year renewable resources), Israel (arid climate, 230 m3/capita/year), and China (North-South disparity, 8-fold difference)—have implemented diverse governance responses7–9: inter-basin transfers, desalination, and virtual water trade.7,10

Peru’s hydrological configuration presents a unique case: national abundance (56,887 m3/capita/year) coexists with regional scarcity (1,628 m3/capita/year in Pacific basin).11,12 This “scarcity amidst abundance” paradox distinguishes Peru from uniformly water-stressed nations and demands tailored governance approaches.12,13

Peru’s territory (1,285,216 km2) encompasses three major drainage basins: Pacific (278,482 km2, 21.7%), Amazon (957,823 km2, 74.5%), and Titicaca (48,911 km2, 3.8%).14,15 The 2025 population (34,038,457) is distributed highly unevenly: 66.4% in the Pacific basin, 30.4% in Amazon, 3.2% in Titicaca.16 This demographic pattern inverts hydrological endowment: the Pacific basin possesses 1.9% of water resources; the Amazon basin holds 97.8%.17,18

The Pacific basin’s per capita availability (1,628 m3/capita/year) falls below the water stress threshold (1,700 m3/capita/year), positioning it alongside traditionally water-scarce regions.19,20 However, the Amazon basin’s abundance (183,142 m3/capita/year) creates national average availability (56,887 m3/capita/year) that masks critical regional stress.19,21

Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM), formalised at the 1992 Dublin and Rio conferences, emphasises cross-sectoral coordination and multi-level governance.22,23 Peru’s Law No. 29338 (2009) established the National Water Authority (ANA) as the IWRM implementing institution, with subsequent regulations addressing hydraulic infrastructure, economic compensation, and watershed councils.17,22

Despite institutional development, implementation gaps persist. Groundwater remains inadequately characterised (only 31% of 159 aquifers studied).14,18 Economic compensation mechanisms collect S/. 205.5 million annually but distribute revenues inequitably.24,25 Climate change projections indicate 30% runoff reduction in the Pacific basin by 2100 due to glacier retreat.26

This study addresses four research questions: 1. What is the magnitude and uncertainty of hydrological disparities across Peru’s basins? 2. How do these disparities compare internationally? 3. What governance mechanisms have failed to address the asymmetry? And 4. What policy interventions can achieve hydrological equity?

2. Materials and methods
2.1 Study area and data sources

Pacific Basin: Arid coastal region (precipitation: 0–200 mm/year in lowlands, 1,000–2,000 mm in Andean headwaters). Population: 22,601,357 (2025). Water resources: 36,804 million hm3/year.

Amazon Basin: Tropical rainforest (precipitation: 2,000–3,000 mm/year). Population: 10,336,549. Water resources: 1,893,055 million hm3/year.

Titicaca Basin: High-altitude plateau (3,600–4,500 m elevation). Population: 1,100,551. Water resources: 6,468 million hm3/year.

Data sources: ANA hydrological records (2024), INEI census (2017) and projections (2025), SNIRH monitoring network.

2.2 Analytical methods

Falkenmark Water Stress Index (WSI):

WSIi=TRWRiPiX106

Where WSIi = Water Stress Index for basin i (m3/capita/year), TRWRi = Total Renewable Water Resources (hm3/year), Pi = Population.

Uncertainty Quantification: Monte Carlo simulation (n = 10,000 iterations) with parameter distributions:

  • • Population: Normal distribution, σ = 2% of mean (census uncertainty)

  • • Water resources: Triangular distribution, ±15% range (measurement error)

  • • Extraction rates: Uniform distribution, ±10% range

Degree of Pressure (DP):

DPi=∑sUi,sTRWRiX100

Where Ui,s Water use in sector s (agricultural, industrial, population, energy) in basin i .

Mann-Kendall Trend Test: Applied to time series data (1990–2025) to detect monotonic trends in water stress indicators27:

S=∑i=1n−1∑j=i+1nsgn(xj−xi)

Where sgn() is the sign function, x = annual WSI values.

Comparative Analysis: International comparison using standardised metrics:

  • • Asymmetry Ratio: AR=WSImaxWSImin across subnational units

  • • Water Poverty Index (WPI) components28,29

2.3 Political ecology framework

Governance failure analysis employed the “hydrosocial cycle” concept, examining how political and economic power relations shape water distribution.30 Key dimensions:

  • • Accumulation by dispossession: Historical concentration of water rights in export agriculture and mining

  • • Scalar politics: Mismatch between watershed boundaries and administrative jurisdictions

  • • Knowledge politics: Exclusion of indigenous water management systems from state planning

3. Results
3.1 Hydrological disparities with uncertainty quantification

Monte Carlo simulations reveal significant uncertainty ranges ( Table 1). The Pacific basin WSI (1,628 m3/capita/year) has 95% CI of 1,512-1,744, confirming water stress conditions even under optimistic scenarios. The Amazon basin WSI (183,142 m3/capita/year, 95% CI: 155,171-211,113) maintains abundance across all simulations.

Table 1. Water stress indicators with uncertainty ranges (2025).BasinWSI mean95% CI lower95% CI upperDP mean (%)95% CI DP Falkenmark statusPacific1,6281,5121,74475.872.3–79.4ScarcityAmazon183,142155,171211,1130.50.4–0.6No stressTiticaca5,8774,9956,7597.06.3–7.7No stress

The WSI distribution of the Pacific basin ( Figure 1A) shows a mean of 1,628 with a 95% confidence interval between 1,512 and 1,744. This indicates that the majority of simulations (>95%) exceed the 1,000 scarcity threshold, and there is uncertainty regarding whether the stress condition crosses the critical 1,700 threshold, as the upper portion of the distribution reaches values higher than this limit.

7d3a3211-8bcc-4240-b855-1d41948f5806_figure1.gif

Figure 1. Water stress index probability distributions with uncertainty quantification.

(A) Monte Carlo simulation (n = 10,000) showing WSI probability distributions for Pacific (red), Amazon (green), and Titicaca (orange) basins with 95% confidence intervals. Dashed vertical lines indicate Falkenmark thresholds: scarcity (1,000 m3/capita/year), stress (1,700 m3/capita/year), and no stress (4,000 m3/capita/year). Pacific basin mean WSI: 1,628 (95% CI: 1,512–1,744). Amazon basin mean WSI: 183,142 (95% CI: 155,171–211,113). (B) Water Poverty Index components by basin (0–100 scale, higher = better). Pacific basin shows low Resources scores (15) but high Access (75); Amazon basin shows inverse pattern with high Resources (95) but lower Access (35).

3.2 International comparative analysis

Peru’s asymmetry ratio (AR = 112.5) exceeds comparable cases ( Table 2):

Table 2. International comparison of hydrological asymmetry.CountryBasins/RegionsWSI range (m3/capita/year)Asymmetry ratio Primary responsePeruPacific/Amazon1,628/183,142112.5None implementedEgyptNile/Desert650/32,000*49.2Virtual water importChinaNorth/South500/4,0008.0South-North Water TransferSpainEbro/Segura2,500/15,0006.0Inter-basin transfersUSAColorado/Mississippi1,200/8,5007.1Colorado River Compact

Peru’s AR is 2.3× Egypt’s, 14× China’s, and 19× Spain’s. Unlike these nations, Peru has not implemented major inter-basin transfer infrastructure or comprehensive demand management programmes.

The Water Poverty Index (WPI) components reveal divergent challenges ( Figure 1B). The Pacific basin scores poorly on “Resources” (physical availability) but well on “Access” (infrastructure); the Amazon basin shows inverse patterns. This suggests that water poverty in Peru is driven by physical scarcity in the Pacific and economic scarcity (infrastructure deficits) in the Amazon.

3.3 Temporal trends (1990–2025)

Mann-Kendall tests reveal significant deteriorating trends in Pacific basin indicators ( Table 3):

Table 3. Temporal trend analysis (1990–2025).IndicatorBasinKendall’s τp-value Trend direction Sen’s slopeWSIPacific−0.78<0.001Decreasing−18.4 m3/capita/yearWSIAmazon−0.120.342No trend—DPPacific+0.84<0.001Increasing+1.2% per yearDPAmazon+0.080.521No trend—

The Pacific basin WSI declined from 2,450 m3/capita/year (1990) to 1,628 m3/capita/year (2025), a 33.6% reduction. At current trends (Sen’s slope: −18.4/year), absolute scarcity (<1,000) will be reached by 2059 (95% CI: 2048–2071).

3.4 Sectoral allocation and efficiency

National water consumption (96,593 hm3/year) shows sectoral distribution ( Figure 2A):

  • • Energy (non-consumptive): 59,936 hm3/year (62.1%)

  • • Agriculture (consumptive): 32,011 hm3/year (33.1%)

  • • Industry (consumptive): 2,753 hm3/year (2.9%)

  • • Domestic (consumptive): 1,887 hm3/year (2.0%)

7d3a3211-8bcc-4240-b855-1d41948f5806_figure2.gif

Figure 2. National water use distribution and conjunctive surface-groundwater analysis.

(A) Sectoral water use distribution (total 96,593 hm3/year). Energy use dominates (62.1%, non-consumptive), followed by agriculture (33.1%, consumptive), industry (2.9%), and domestic use (2.0%). (B) Conjunctive water use by basin showing surface water (runoff ), groundwater recharge, and groundwater extraction. Pacific basin extraction/recharge ratio: 100% (unsustainable). Amazon basin ratio: 1% (sustainable). Titicaca basin ratio: 44%.

Agricultural water productivity (AWP) shows minimal inter-basin variation (Pacific: 76.0 ha/million m3; Amazon: 78.5; Titicaca: 79.6), suggesting that efficiency differences do not drive pressure disparities. Instead, the absolute resource constraint in the Pacific basin (36,804 hm3 vs. 1,893,055 hm3 in Amazon) creates stress despite similar productivity.

Groundwater-surface water interactions reveal conjunctive use patterns ( Figure 2B). The Pacific basin extracts 4,844 hm3/year groundwater recharge (100% of renewable recharge), indicating unsustainable mining of fossil aquifers in coastal areas. The Amazon basin utilises only 1.5% of rechargeable groundwater.

3.5 Economic compensation analysis

Economic compensation collections (S/205.5 million) show inequitable distribution ( Table 4):

Table 4. Economic compensation by Basin and Category (S/2024).BasinAgrarianNon-Agrarian GroundwaterDischargeTotal% NationalS/per hm3 availablePacific17.97 M66.31 M24.30 M18.23 M126.81 M61.7%3.45Amazon1.39 M44.71 M7.93 M22.42 M76.45 M37.2%0.04Titicaca0.22 M1.08 M0.27 M0.68 M2.25 M1.1%0.35

The Pacific basin generates 86× more compensation per unit of water availability than the Amazon basin (S/3.45 vs. S/0.04 per hm3). This inverse relationship between resource abundance and economic contribution indicates that compensation mechanisms tax scarcity rather than value ecosystem services.

Groundwater charges (S/32.5 million) are concentrated in the Pacific basin (74.8%), reflecting unsustainable extraction. Discharge fees (S/41.3 million) are split between Pacific (44.1%) and Amazon (54.2%), indicating pollution externalities in both basins.

3.6 Governance failure mechanisms

Political ecology analysis reveals three structural barriers:

Accumulation by Dispossession: Historical water rights allocation (1930s–1970s) concentrated 68% of Pacific basin surface water rights in 12 large agricultural export enterprises (sugar, rice, asparagus), whilst 450,000 smallholders share 23%.31 This legacy constrains current reallocation options.

Scalar Mismatch: Watershed boundaries (159 hydrological units) intersect with 25 administrative regions and 1,874 municipal districts. The ANA’s basin-scale authority conflicts with regional government jurisdiction over infrastructure investment, creating coordination failures.32

Knowledge Exclusion: Indigenous water management systems (comunidades campesinas, ayllus) maintain parallel governance structures in 34% of Andean watersheds. State IWRM planning excludes these systems, reducing implementation legitimacy.33

4. Discussion

This study demonstrates that Peru’s water crisis is not characterised by national scarcity but by extreme hydrological asymmetry. While national renewable availability exceeds 56,000 m3/capita/year, the Pacific basin remains below the Falkenmark water stress threshold (1,700 m3/capita/year), with Monte Carlo simulations confirming structural stress even under optimistic scenarios. This confirms that aggregated national indicators obscure subnational vulnerability, a limitation previously identified in global water security assessments.1,7,19

The asymmetry ratio calculated for Peru (AR = 112.5) substantially exceeds comparable international cases, including Egypt, China, Spain and the United States. Countries facing lower asymmetry ratios have implemented large-scale structural responses such as inter-basin transfers (China’s South–North Water Transfer), virtual water trade (Egypt), or binding allocation compacts (Colorado River Compact).10,28,31 Peru, by contrast, has not adopted a systemic redistribution strategy. This absence is particularly notable given that hydroclimatic studies project significant runoff reductions in glacier-fed Pacific basins under climate change scenarios.23,26 Without structural intervention, current declining trends in the Pacific basin WSI suggest that absolute scarcity (<1,000 m3/capita/year) could be reached within decades.

The Water Poverty Index (WPI) results further nuance this diagnosis. The Pacific basin scores poorly on the “Resources” component but relatively well on “Access”, reflecting infrastructure concentration. Conversely, the Amazon basin exhibits abundant physical resources but weaker infrastructure and service provision. This duality aligns with conceptual distinctions between physical and economic water scarcity.1,3 It also highlights that IWRM implementation in Peru has focused more strongly on allocation and regulation than on territorial equity and infrastructure balancing.7,34

Groundwater dynamics intensify these concerns. The Pacific basin currently exploits 100% of estimated renewable recharge, suggesting mining of fossil aquifers in coastal zones. Recent satellite gravimetry studies confirm long-term groundwater depletion trends in Peru’s arid basins.31 This pattern is emblematic of what hydrosocial cycle scholarship describes as the socio-political production of scarcity: institutional arrangements and economic priorities shape patterns of extraction beyond hydrological limits.30 In contrast, the Amazon basin utilises only a fraction of its renewable groundwater, reflecting infrastructural constraints rather than hydrological deficit.

Economic compensation mechanisms reveal a further structural paradox. The Pacific basin generates 86 times more compensation revenue per unit of available water than the Amazon basin. Current pricing instruments therefore internalise scarcity costs but fail to recognise ecosystem service provision. Payment for ecosystem services (PES) schemes implemented in Andean headwaters, such as those in the Santa River basin, illustrate how upstream conservation can be economically valued.33 However, these initiatives remain geographically limited and financially marginal relative to national compensation flows. Aligning compensation schemes with ecosystem service valuation principles could reduce territorial inequities while strengthening adaptive capacity.

The governance barriers identified—accumulation by dispossession, scalar mismatch, and knowledge exclusion—are consistent with documented limitations in Peruvian IWRM implementation.7,14,35 Historical water rights concentration constrains redistribution; overlapping administrative jurisdictions undermine basin-scale coordination; and indigenous governance systems remain insufficiently integrated into state planning frameworks.33 These structural constraints help explain why Peru, despite formal adoption of IWRM principles since 2009, has not achieved hydrological equity.

Taken together, the findings suggest that Peru’s water challenge is a governance asymmetry layered upon a hydrological asymmetry. Addressing it requires moving beyond infrastructure-centric responses toward integrated demand management, groundwater regulation, ecosystem service valuation, and multi-scalar institutional reform. Without such recalibration, climatic variability and demographic concentration will further entrench coastal scarcity while leaving Amazonian abundance underutilised and undervalued.

5. Conclusions

This study provides the first uncertainty-quantified, internationally benchmarked assessment of hydrological asymmetry in Peru. Four principal conclusions emerge:

  • 1. Extreme subnational asymmetry: Peru exhibits one of the highest recorded asymmetry ratios globally (AR = 112.5), with the Pacific basin structurally water-stressed despite national abundance.

  • 2. Divergent scarcity typologies: The Pacific basin experiences physical scarcity, whereas the Amazon basin faces economic and infrastructural scarcity, consistent with global water poverty frameworks.1,3,28

  • 3. Unsustainable groundwater exploitation: Full utilisation of renewable recharge in the Pacific basin signals long-term depletion risks, corroborated by recent geodetic evidence.31

  • 4. Misaligned economic instruments: Current compensation mechanisms disproportionately tax scarcity without valuing ecosystem services, reinforcing territorial inequities.

Policy implications follow directly from these findings. First, basin-scale demand management and irrigation efficiency improvements are imperative in the Pacific basin. Second, groundwater monitoring and abstraction control must be strengthened to prevent irreversible depletion. Third, compensation mechanisms should incorporate ecosystem service valuation principles, redistributing revenues toward hydrologically strategic headwater regions. Finally, effective IWRM requires institutional integration across administrative scales and recognition of indigenous water governance systems.

Peru’s case illustrates a broader lesson for water-rich yet spatially uneven nations: aggregate abundance does not guarantee water security. Without institutional mechanisms that reconcile hydrology, demography, and political economy, asymmetry becomes a driver of chronic stress. Future research should prioritise high-resolution groundwater mapping, climate scenario modelling, and evaluation of compensation redistribution impacts to support evidence-based reform.

Data availability statement

All data supporting this study are publicly available from:

The project contains the following underlying data:

  • ○ Table 1_Water_supply_population_by_sources.xlsx (Population distribution and water resources by basin: Pacific, Amazon, and Titicaca; INEI Census 2017 and 2025 projections)

  • ○ Table 2_Hydrological_cycle_parameters.xlsx (Hydrological cycle parameters: precipitation, evapotranspiration, aquifer recharge, and runoff by basin)

  • ○ Table 3_Sectoral_water_use_pressure.xlsx (Sectoral water use: agricultural, industrial, population, and energy; degree of pressure on water resources)

  • ○ Table 4_Economic_compensation_water.xlsx (Economic compensation for water use by basin and category: agrarian, non-agrarian, groundwater, and discharge)

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero “No rights reserved” data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).36

Acknowledgements

We thank Universidad Nacional Toribio Rodríguez de Mendoza de Amazonas for institutional support and We acknowledge the National Water Authority (ANA) and National Institute of Statistics (INEI) for open data provision.

References
  • 1.  Mekonnen MM, Hoekstra AY: Four billion people facing severe water scarcity. Sci. Adv. 2016; 2: e1500323. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
  • 2.  Ercin AE, Hoekstra AY: Water footprint scenarios for 2050: A global analysis. Environ. Int. 2014; 64: 71–82. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 3.  Shalamzari MJ, Zhang W: Assessing Water Scarcity Using the Water Poverty Index (WPI) in Golestan Province of Iran. Water. 2018; 10(10). Publisher Full Text
  • 4.  Komnenic V, Ahlers R, van der Zaag P : Assessing the usefulness of the water poverty index by applying it to a special case: Can one be water poor with high levels of access?. Phys. Chem. Earth. 2009; 34: 219–224. Publisher Full Text
  • 5.  Allan JA: Virtual water: A strategic resource: Global solutions to regional deficits. Ground Water. 1998; 36: 546. Publisher Full Text
  • 6.  Jemmali H, Sullivan CA: Multidimensional Analysis of Water Poverty in MENA Region: An Empirical Comparison with Physical Indicators. Soc. Indic. Res. 2014; 115: 253–277. Publisher Full Text
  • 7.  Droogers P, Immerzeel WW, Terink W, et al.: Water resources trends in Middle East and North Africa towards 2050. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2012; 16: 3101–3114. Publisher Full Text
  • 8.  Shapland G, Wheeler K, Cascão AE: The Nile Basin Climate change, water and future cooperation, London.2025. (accessed February 9, 2026). Reference Source
  • 9.  Arab Forum for Environmental and Development, Arab Environment: Climate Change: Impact of Climate Change on Arab Countries. Beirut, Lebanon: Chemaly & Chemaly; 2009. (accessed February 9, 2026). Reference Source
  • 10.  Yang H, Reichert P, Abbaspour KC, et al.: A water resources threshold and its implications for food security. Environmental Science & Technology American Chemical Society. 2003; 37: 3048–3054. Publisher Full Text
  • 11.  Rau P, Bourrel L, Labat D, et al.: Regionalization of rainfall over the Peruvian Pacific slope and coast. Int. J. Climatol. 2016; 37: 143–158. Publisher Full Text
  • 12.  Rau P, Bourrel L, Labat D, et al.: Hydroclimatic change disparity of Peruvian Pacific drainage catchments. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 2018; 134: 139–153. Publisher Full Text
  • 13.  Lavado Casimiro WS, Ronchail J, Labat D, et al.: Basin-scale analysis of rainfall and runoff in Peru (1969–2004): Pacific, Titicaca and Amazonas drainages. Hydrol. Sci. J. 2012; 57: 625–642. Publisher Full Text
  • 14.  Guevara-Pérez E: Synthetic analysis of the debate on the integrated management of water resources in Peru. Revista INGENIERÍA UC. 2018; 25. (accessed February 10, 2026). Reference Source
  • 15.  Leon B, Young KR: Aquatic plants of Peru: Diversity, distribution and conservation. Biodivers. Conserv. 1996; 5: 1169–1190. Publisher Full Text
  • 16.  INEI: Resultados Definitivos de los Censos Nacionales 2017 – Censos Nacionales 2017. Lima: 2018. (accessed September 23, 2025). Reference Source
  • 17.  CEPAL, Peru: The Water-Energy-Food Security Nexus Country Profi le. Berlin; 2018. (accessed February 10, 2026). Reference Source
  • 18.  Dextre RM, Eschenhagen ML, Camacho Hernández M, et al.: Payment for ecosystem services in Peru: Assessing the socio-ecological dimension of water services in the upper Santa River basin. Ecosyst. Serv. 2022; 56: 101454. Publisher Full Text
  • 19.  Sanchez-Matos J, Andrade EP, Vázquez-Rowe I: Revising regionalized water scarcity characterization factors for selected watersheds along the hyper-arid Peruvian coast using the AWARE method. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2023; 28: 1447–1465. Publisher Full Text
  • 20.  MediaCompany GmbH: Climate Finance Readiness Programme, Water stress in a booming economy City of millions on a glaCier-fed drip, Germany.2014.
  • 21.  Armijos E, Crave A, Espinoza JC, et al.: Rainfall control on Amazon sediment flux: Synthesis from 20 years of monitoring. Environ Res Commun. 2020; 2: 051008. Publisher Full Text
  • 22.  Gil AG, Cisneros LN: Del dicho al hecho hay mucho trecho: Sobre la gestión integrada del agua en el Perú. Derecho & Sociedad. 2018; 59–69. Publisher Full Text
  • 23.  Eda LEH, Chen W: Integrated Water Resources Management in Peru. Procedia Environ. Sci. 2010; 2: 340–348. Publisher Full Text
  • 24.  Decreto Supremo N.° 015–2024-MIDAGRI - Normas y documentos legales - Ministerio de Desarrollo Agrario y Riego - Plataforma del Estado Peruano: n.d. (accessed February 10, 2026). Reference Source
  • 25.  OECD: OECD Economic Surveys: Peru 2025. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2025. Publisher Full Text
  • 26.  Escanilla-Minchel R, Alcayaga H, Soto-Alvarez M, et al.: Evaluation of the Impact of Climate Change on Runoff Generation in an Andean Glacier Watershed. Water. 2020; 12(12). Publisher Full Text
  • 27.  Bernet T, Herve D, Lehmann B: Improving land use by slope farmers in the Andes: an economic assessment of small-scale sprinkler irrigation for milk production. Mt. Res. Dev. 2002; 22: 375–382. Publisher Full Text
  • 28.  Isayed A, Menendez-Aguado JM, Jemmali H, et al.: Water Poverty Index over the Past Two Decades: A Comprehensive Review and Future Prospects—The Middle East as a Case Study. Water. 2024; 16(16). Publisher Full Text
  • 29.  Sullivan C: Calculating a water poverty index. World Dev. 2002; 30: 1195–1210. Publisher Full Text
  • 30.  Chávez C, Limón-Jiménez I, Espinoza-Alcántara B, et al.: Water-Use Efficiency and Productivity Improvements in Surface Irrigation Systems. Agronomy. 2020; 10(10). Publisher Full Text
  • 31.  Gonzales E, Alvarez V, Gonzales K: Two Decades of Groundwater Variability in Peru Using Satellite Gravimetry Data. Appl. Sci. 2025; 15(15). Publisher Full Text
  • 32.  Eduardo K, García-Nauto N, Laqui-Estaña J, et al.: Sustainable watersheds management in Peru: Challenges and perspectives. Sci Agropecu. 2024; 15: 581–592. Publisher Full Text
  • 33.  Boelens R, Guevara-Gil A, Panfichi A: Indigenous water rights in the Andes: Struggles over resources and legitimacy. J Water Law. 2009; 20: 268–277. (accessed February 11, 2026). Reference Source
  • 34.   UNESCO World Water Assessment Programme, Partnerships and cooperation for water. Paris: 2023. (accessed February 11, 2026). Reference Source
  • 35.  Damonte G: Limited state governance and institutional hybridization in alluvial ASM in Peru. Res. Policy. 2021; 72: 102118. Publisher Full Text
  • 36.  Manayay Llaguento FA: Hydrological Asymmetry and Water Stress in Peru: Integrated Assessment of Pacific, Amazon and Titicaca Basins (ANA Official Datasets 2017-2025). Zenodo. 2026. Publisher Full Text

Grant information

The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Copyright

© 2026 Suarez Rivadeneira JE et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status: ?

Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE

ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 30 Mar 2026

Reviewer Report 08 Aug 2026

Elmer Calizaya, Universidad Nacional del Altiplano, Puno, Puno, Peru 

Approved

VIEWS 0

  • Does the paper provide a comprehensive overview of the policy and the context of its implementation in a way which is accessible to a general reader?

    Yes

  • Is the discussion on the implications clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

    Yes

  • Are the recommendations made clear, balanced, and justified on the basis of the presented arguments?

    Partly

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Hydrology, Water Resources, Geomatics, Geographic Information System, Climate Change.

Close

Reviewer Report 30 Jul 2026

Edgar Virgilio Bedoya Justo, Universidad Nacional de Moquegua, Perane, Moquegua, Peru 

Approved

VIEWS 0

  • Does the paper provide a comprehensive overview of the policy and the context of its implementation in a way which is accessible to a general reader?

    Yes

  • Is the discussion on the implications clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

    Yes

  • Are the recommendations made clear, balanced, and justified on the basis of the presented arguments?

    Yes

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Environment and sustainable development

Close

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 30 Mar 2026

Comment

Схожие новости

#Наименование новостиТональностьИнформативностьДата публикации
1Communication strategies of the Cañariaco Project and the Environmental Perception of Citizens in a District of the Ferreñafe Province, Perú [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 not approved]09.308-08-2026
2Associations between offense categories and police recorded crime patterns across Peruvian departments [version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]07.1701-08-2026
3Management of community representation in the mediation of social conflicts by the vice-governors in a district of La Libertad, Peru. [version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]06.3225-07-2026
4From Polders to Palafitos: A Buoyancy-Engineering and Social-Acceptance Framework for Transferring Dutch Amphibious Housing to Peru's Flood-Prone Settlements0515-07-2026
5The Global Water Cycle Is Critical Infrastructure09.8915-05-2026
6A Hierarchical Hydro-Economic Modeling Framework for Policy Support and Impact Assessment: the case of a highly anthropized Mediterranean Semi-Arid Alpine Basin0517-07-2026
7Wildfire-induced disruptions to evapotranspiration, runoff, and water-balance closure across California's water supply watersheds010.9915-07-2026
8 El 14,6 % del territorio está en emergencia por escasez de agua y el 27,4 %, en alerta 017.3109-12-2023
9Beyond the 100-year flood: probabilistic flood hazard assessment for King and Pierce Counties under future climate scenarios0813-07-2026

Классификация: . Схожих патентов: 0. Схожих новостей: 9. Тональность: 0. Информативность: 14.9. Источник: f1000research.com.