Tracing invisible policy impacts on water demand

Tracing invisible policy impacts on water demand | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Analysis Tracing invisible policy impacts on water demand Claire Hoolohan, Leilai Immel-Parkinson, Ella Foggitt, Alison Browne This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8700096/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Policies have impacts beyond their intended scope. Tracing the implications of ‘non-water’ policies for water demand can prevent them undermining strategies to reduce water demand and ensure that diverse policy agendas are resilient to water scarcity. This paper presents a framework for analysing policy impacts on water demand and interpreting the degree to which impacts are visible within policy objectives, implementation, and monitoring. The framework examines four policy arenas in England: housing and planning; energy and decarbonisation; health and social care; and the economy. Policy analysis, practitioner consultation, and social science perspectives identify three forms of negative impact: increased demand, altered timing and location of demand (contributing to water demand peaks), and unrealised potential to reduce water demand due to the scope or direction of policy. The analysis renders visible typically unseen impacts and identifies opportunities to reduce demand within proximate policy agendas. Social science/Environmental studies Earth and environmental sciences/Environmental social sciences/Environmental impact Introduction Water scarcity ranks amongst the most critical and widespread impacts of population growth, urbanisation and climate change. Inadequate clean water availability poses profound risks to human health, ecosystem functioning and production of vital resources including energy and food. Already, 55% of the global population experience water scarcity one month per year 1 and a third of large cities are located in water-scarce regions 2 . Throughout the global north, policy-making has been predicated on assumptions that water will remain sufficiently abundant to enable wide-ranging objectives 3 . Even within water policy, silos compromise the achievement of sustainability and resilience objectives 4 . Beyond water, policies rarely undergo evaluation for their water-related impacts, whether social (health, poverty, growth), environmental (biodiversity, pollution, emissions), or resource-based (energy, waste) 5,6 . Policy incoherence creates competition and contradiction between policy domains 6,7 . Yet impact assessments typically evaluate how water policies affect other sectors, rather than the reverse, remaining limited in their capacity to account for long-term, distributed impacts on water systems. The consequent invisibility of cross-sectoral impacts risks undermining whole-system benefits. This paper examines horizontal interdependencies between policy arenas, specifically how ‘non-water’ policies – developed independently and without prioritising water systems or services – affect water demand in England. Non-water policies are distinct from water policies; the suite of strategies, plans, and legislative mechanisms explicitly designed to govern water systems. We analyse developments in four non-water policy fields, housing and planning, energy and decarbonisation, economy and labour, and health and social care. These fields were selected to illustrate the variety and visibility of impacts in domains more commonly (energy, housing) and less commonly (economy, health) associated with water. For each, we map nascent policy developments, using critical analysis and practitioner consultation to investigate possible impacts on water demand. Possibilistic thinking of this manner is recommended to enable pre-emptive planning in complex policy fields 8 . Terms such as 'unknowns' and 'uncertainties' are familiar in policy-making communities yet poorly capture how gaps between actor networks limit policy evaluation 8 . Rather than framing gaps as oversights, which belittles the socio-cultural processes involved in policy development, we present 'invisibility' as a collaborative diagnostic tool 9 . We build on evidence that non-water policies have co-evolved with a modern hydraulic paradigm 3,10,11 ; a sociotechnical imaginary constructing water as available without constraint to support social and economic development. This paradigm renders water visible only when infrastructures fail 12–14 and fragments policy-practitioner communities –shaping what is knowable, measurable, and governable. England provides an important case, having introduced a legally binding objective to reduce the volume of water supplied by at least 20% by 2038 (relative to 2019/20), with demand reduction to contribute substantially in the short-term 15 . Water scarcity is an increasing problem in England as climate change, ageing infrastructure, population growth and industrial activity combine with regulations to protect water environments. Consequently, a deficit of 5,000 Megalitres of public water supply per day is projected by 2050-2055 15 , approximately one third of water presently supplied for public consumption. Water Resources Management Plans (WRMPs) increasingly focus on demand reduction 16 , such that per capita consumption is anticipated to reduce. However, the pace and extent of change is uncertain, given the shortcomings of water efficiency activities 17,18 and that water policy alone is insufficient to counteract societal trends that escalate consumption 19,20 . Water policy in England is increasingly coherent 4,21 , however, this has yet to extend to cross-sectoral integration. This paper establishes a framework to trace connections and critically analyse the implications of non-water policy fields for water demand. Results This section describes the observed water demand implications of four non-water policy domains. Four dimensions of impact are identified. Firstly, some policies increase demand by creating new demands for water or increasing existing demand. Secondly, some policies exacerbate existing extremities, contributing to temporal ‘peakiness’ of water demand or regional disparities in supply-demand balance. Thirdly, some policies hold unrealised potential to reduce demand, due to the scope or direction of the policy. Finally, some policies contribute toward demand reduction, either by reducing demand or by flattening peaks. The first three are analysed in the proceeding sections, the fourth is reported in Tables 1-4 but otherwise beyond the scope of this paper. Increasing the visibility of these impacts enables transparency and multi-sector dialogue and provides initial foundations for assessment and monitoring 8 . We therefore also assess the degree of invisibility of water within non-water policies using the following qualitative framework. Impacts are classified as invisible where water demand considerations are absent from policy objectives, scope, implementation and monitoring; partially visible where water demand is acknowledged in limited or general terms, but with weakly articulated implications and not embedded in implementation or monitoring; and visible where water demand implications are explicitly stated and accompanied by defined mitigation measures and mechanisms for implementation, even where oversight, enforcement or responsibility remains unclear. Taken together, the categorisation of demand impacts and their degree of visibility, provides a comprehensive framework to understand policy impacts and identify opportunities to reduce water demand within non-water policy agendas. Housing and local planning There are many intersections between water and housing, and increasing collaboration between sectors to ensure water scarcity does not compromise development 22 . However, policy fragmentation continues to restrict water demand reduction. New homes require connection to water supply and sewerage systems, increasing demand, as do the non-residential buildings, amenities and services that support communities. There are also indirect implications, as new houses and developments embody ideas about residential life that have evolved with the modern water paradigm, in which everyday life is unconstrained by water 11,23 . 30 housing and planning policies and guidance documents were reviewed to assess their impacts on water demand. Table 1 summarises identified impacts, which are explored in detail below. Table 1. Impacts of housing and planning policies on water demand illustrating the dimension and mechanism of each impact with exemplar policies, and degree of invisibility. Dimension of impact Exemplar policies Mechanism(s) of potential impact Visibility of demand Increased water demand New household connections; maintenance of community spaces; construction of new developments. Plan for Change; Planning and infrastructure Act 2025 Partially visible: water supply assumed, precedence for water in building regulations. Greening provides opportunities for recreation with possible post-activity water use; irrigation of blue/green spaces. Environment Act 2021 Schedule 7A (Biodiversity Net Gain); Green Infrastructure Framework Invisible: unmonitored and unintended impacts. Increased post-activity washing and laundry associated with active travel. National Policy Planning Framework; Active Travel England documentation Invisible: unmonitored and unintended impacts. Exacerbated variations Geographic concentration of demand in growth areas (including those that are already water-stressed). Oxford-Cambridge Growth Corridor Partially visible : partially acknowledged through supply-side considerations. Unrealised potential to reduce demand Fixtures-and-fittings approach no consideration of broader home design or water-using practices. Future Homes Standard Partially visible: water efficiency approach prioritised over demand management. To embed whole system approaches e.g., water reuse, water neutrality. National Policy Planning Framework Partially visible: water acknowledged but implications not fully realised. Local plans could enable place-based demand management. Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 Partially visible: Varied. Inclusion of water demand not mandatory. Lack of community-scale water infrastructures. National Policy Planning Framework Partially visible: Water acknowledged but demand management not embedded. Reduced water demand Blue/green spaces offer cooling benefits, potentially offset water-reliant cooling practices. Environment Act 2021 Schedule 7A; Green Infrastructure Framework Invisible : unmonitored and unintended impacts. Improved water efficiency of appliances, fixtures and fittings in new homes. The Building Regulations 2010 Part G Optional Requirement Visible Opportunities to integrate SuDS with water reuse systems. Flood and Water Management Act 2010 Schedule 3 (SuDS) Invisible: water demand implications out of scope. New homes create additional demands for water and wastewater services, as do the non-residential properties that service communities. The scale of development is reflected in the UK Government’s commitment to build 1.5 million homes before 2029, delivered through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill and the Plan for Change. Water demand within new homes is regulated by Building Regulations Part G with a requirement of 125 litres person -1 day -1 (l/p/d) and optional target of 110 l/p/d for local authorities in water stressed regions. However, uptake of the optional requirement remains limited, and actual water use exceeds standards 22 . Water is highly visible in this policy, with housing developers responsible for delivery and local authority building control for enforcement. However, Building Regulations are exceptional, and water is less visible in other housing and planning policies. Building Regulations are also limited to new build properties with retrofitting of existing homes directed by decarbonisation policies and energy efficiency schemes, creating an important policy gap to be discussed in Energy and Decarbonisation . Housing development and resultant impacts on water demand are unevenly distributed. Half of the planned development will occur in the South East and Oxford–Cambridge Growth Corridor, and therefore intensify demand in ‘seriously water-stressed' regions 24 . Opposition to new housing developments in Greater Cambridge on the grounds of water supply concerns has resulted in developers, urban planners and local governments interacting with water resource planning, however, this co-dependency is yet to be acknowledge in housing and planning policies. Efforts to increase climate resilience and protect watercourses require abstraction to be reduced by up to 60% by 2035 (e.g., 101 Megalitres/day to 40 Megalitres/day in the River Lee Catchment), resulting in persistent long-term water stress despite proposals for new reservoirs 25 . Additionally, a focus on supply-side infrastructure risks obscuring the water stress associated with escalating water demands and expected long-term changes to rainfall patterns, undermining the urgency, and highlighting the invisibility, of demand-side responses. The existing suite of housing policy mechanisms misses opportunities to increase water demand reduction. Building Regulations and Product Standards focus on improving the efficiency of fixtures and fittings, but no policies attend to the cultural transitions that affect how water use is designed into ordinary rooms, homes, and neighbourhoods 26 . For example, decisions on the number and design of bathroom spaces reproduce infrastructural ideals steeped in notions of abundance, and increasingly involve water use in the achievement of luxury and relaxation rather than hygiene 27 . Furthermore, interacting policy domains introduce priorities that could counteract water demand reduction. For example, policies that increase active travel, an important feature of low-carbon, healthy neighbourhoods, could increase water demand given the entanglement of physical activity, cleanliness, freshness and water use 26 , indicating there are missed opportunities for integrated policy planning across environmental objectives. No policies identified consider the how material design of homes and communities affect long term water use patterns. Existing evidence shows systemic changes to offset the benefits of water efficient appliances 28 , and leaving these linkages unacknowledged and unmonitored limits the extent to which such changes can be anticipated or addressed, preventing cross-sectoral innovation that might address multiple challenges concurrently. Co-benefits for water demand may be delivered through the statutory requirement for biodiversity net gain set out in the Environment Act 2021, alongside National Policy Planning Framework (NPPF) requirements for sustainable drainage systems (SuDS). SuDS became mandatory in Wales in 2019 but remains non-statutory in England, and could provide cooling benefits and opportunities for localised water reuse 29 . However, water demand impacts are beyond monitoring requirements, as these policies prioritise ecological outcomes and flood risk mitigation 26 . Rainwater or greywater reuse integrated with SuDS could reduce sewer loads and offer alternative water sources, but while permitted in Building Regulations, such technologies are not required or incentivised. Additionally, the NPPF, which directs local infrastructure provision, does not explicitly regulate communal water services such as public toilets, pools or laundrettes, which offer opportunities to relocate water use from private residences, economies of scale for water efficiency and opportunities for novel technologies such as recirculating systems 30 . The interplay between water demand, buildings and infrastructure are under-acknowledged in housing policy and planning documents. A period of intensive housing construction presents a window of opportunity to deploy joined-up thinking on water demand to enable sustainable patterns of water use and ensure housing policy remains resilient to water scarcity. Energy and decarbonisation Research well-attends the water-energy nexus 31 , however, water demand receives limited attention in energy and decarbonisation policies, either as climate mitigation strategy or as being impacted by energy and decarbonisation strategy. Energy and climate policies introduce new industrial demands for water and reinforce a focus on technical efficiency measures in the residential sector that are already commonplace in water resource management without raising ambition on water demand reduction. This approach contrasts with broader system-wide energy and decarbonisation strategy, such as those seen around mobility, and misses opportunities for more integrated policy options. 20 energy and decarbonisation policies were reviewed. Their impacts are summarised in Table 2 and discussed below. Table 2. Impacts on water demand of energy and decarbonisation policies, illustrating the dimension and mechanism of each impact with exemplar documents and an assessment of impact invisibility. Dimension of impact Exemplar policies Mechanism(s) of potential impact Visibility of demand Increased demand Clean Power Action Plan; Energy Act; UK Battery Strategy Water demand for construction, operation and maintenance of clean energy infrastructure. Partial visibility: Demand increasingly acknowledged but demand-side responses remain limited. Exacerbated extremities Clean Power Action Plan; Energy Act Geographic concentration of industrial demand in development hotspots (often in water stressed regions). Partial visibility: Demand increasingly acknowledged but demand-side responses remain limited. Unrealised potential to reduce demand Climate Change Act; Carbon Budgets Energy-water nexus underacknowledged; focus on technological solutions limits opportunities for demand reduction. Invisible: Water-energy interactions largely absent from policy frameworks Retrofitting e.g., Warm Homes Grant, Energy Company Obligation scheme Retrofits prioritise energy efficiency, weaker incentives for water demand reduction than in new builds. Invisible: water demand largely excluded from retrofit policy design. Energy and decarbonisation policies create additional water demands, given their prioritisation of industrial developments. The UK faces combined pressures of a projected 40-60% increase in electricity demand by 2035 32 and commitments, set out in the Sixth Carbon Budget, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 81% over the same period. To achieve these goals, UK energy and decarbonisation policies are prioritising carbon capture and storage, hydrogen production and expansion of renewable and nuclear energy generation 33 . Total water demand for UK decarbonisation projects could reach 730-1020 Megalitres/day by 2050, and is geographically concentrated around important industrial clusters 34 . Furthermore, decarbonisation relies on the electrification of energy systems, and the UK is onshoring battery production (via UK Battery Strategy) in support of this objective. The upstream water impacts of lithium mining are widely examined, however, there remains uncertainty regarding the scale of demand for de-ionised water for manufacturing 35 . The large-scale industrial developments needed to support these activities create localised demand, often in already seriously water stressed regions 24 . Demand arises both during the construction phase, associated with building activities and the accommodation of workers, and during operation, through industrial processes and labour services 36 . For example, potable water demand during the construction of Sizewell C nuclear reactor is expected to peak at 4 Megalitres/day 37 , equivalent to demand in a medium-sized town. Initially supplied by a desalination plant, ongoing operational needs of this development (2.2 Megalitres/day) are accounted for in regional water resource planning 38 . Water demands associated with clean energy infrastructure are increasingly acknowledged in research, regulatory assessments 33,39,40 and regional water resource planning; however, demand-side responses within energy and decarbonisation policy remain limited, indicating partial visibility rather than integration. Aside from energy production, there are overlooked opportunities to incorporate water in energy demand reduction policies. Residential water demand accounts for ~6% of total UK greenhouse gas emissions, with the majority (94%) resulting from residential water use, largely from heating water 41 . Despite the scale of emissions, frameworks like Climate Change Act, the Seventh Carbon Budget (2038-2042) and Warm Homes Plan reference few measures to reduce hot water demand, demonstrating the relative invisibility of water-energy interactions within core climate governance frameworks. Mechanisms to reduce residential energy demand take a fabric-first approach, which prioritises improvements to the thermal efficiency of homes (e.g. insulation, glazing) and installation of low-carbon heating systems, rather than reducing energy use (e.g. though hot water use). Previously, the Sixth Carbon Budget proposed the installation of low-flow showerheads and other water efficient fixtures, better recognising this connection. However, these measures have been a longstanding feature of demand reduction efforts in the water sector 16 , with mixed results and uncertainties over the scale and pace of demand reduction that should be expected from continued effort. The realised demand reduction of these measures falls short of modelled impacts and erodes over time 42,43 , there is also evidence of rebound effects as residents use appliances for longer or more frequently, offsetting potential efficiency benefits 18 . Energy and decarbonisation policy therefore largely avoids intervening in the underlying drivers of demand, a missed opportunity to reconfigure intensive consumption practices. Failing to adopt comprehensive climate change mitigation strategies will accelerate the frequency, severity and extent of water-related climate hazards. These hazards, including flooding, water scarcity and degraded water quality, will in turn reshape patterns and levels of water demand. Yet, siloes between energy and decarbonisation policies and water policies create gaps that hinder the achievement of objectives in both fields. Health and social care Water plays multifaceted roles in maintaining and improving public health (physical and mental), ranging from the role of water and sanitation systems in managing infectious disease, to the therapeutic benefits of water in homes and local environments. An increasing body evidences the interplay between water, health and societal wellbeing 44,45 , however, there is less oversight of how developments in health and social care policies affect water demand. 24 health and social care policies and related guidance documents were reviewed. Table 3 categorises their impacts, and two major developments are discussed below; the management of infectious disease and increased social prescribing. Table 3. Impacts on water demand of health policies, illustrating the dimension and mechanism of each impact with exemplar documents and an assessment of impact invisibility. Dimension of impact Exemplar policies Mechanism(s) of potential impact Visibility of demand Increased water demand NICE infection prevention and control guidelines Water demands for increased personal hygiene practices Invisible: No recognition of water, either water demand implications, or risk water scarcity to healthcare practices. NICE pain management guidelines Therapeutic water practices increase demand (e.g., hot-cold bathing, hydrotherapy) NHS Better Health campaign; Mind selfcare guidance Post-activity water-use; water-reliant selfcare practices (e.g., bathing). NHS Long Term Plan; Green Social Prescribing Toolkit Post-activity water use; water demand for green/ blue space maintenance. Exacerbated extremities UK Government COVID-19 regulations, NHS England pandemic response guidelines Relocation of water demand to domestic spaces. Partially visible: Growing evidence base, Covid-19 increased visibility of impacts, yet to be integrated in healthcare policies. Decreased water demand NHS Long Term Plan; Green Social Prescribing Toolkit Changing values and meanings associated with water demand. Invisible: Demand reduction pathways indirect and not monitored. Social prescribing prioritises non-clinical services for holistic health and wellbeing to prevent, as well as to treat, sickness 46 , and there are various ways these policies interact with water. The Green Social Prescribing Programme aims to improve mental health by increasing access to nature, and demonstrates how green and blue spaces feature in holistic care 47 . For example, ‘wild’ swimming – bathing in open water – is associated with a greater sense of wellbeing than swimming in open-air pools 48 . The successful provision of such activities relies on the maintenance of green and blue spaces, including irrigation of allotments and parks and the preservation of access, quality and water level in waterbodies. Water scarcity compromises the long-term viability of these options, with existing evidence on the impacts of drought on health, particularly for at-risk groups that access these social prescribing models 44 . Despite the fundamental role of water in the delivery of blue and green social prescribing, the associated water demands remain invisible within health policies and programme monitoring. As social prescribing is extended, with over one million referrals in the UK annually 49 , the resultant increased participation in physical activity could generate additional water demand in both homes (showering, laundry, hydration) and non-residential spaces (leisure centres, gyms). Meanwhile, the NHS Long Term Plan aims to expand healthcare delivery in domestic and community settings, reducing reliance on hospital-based care. In combination with the needs of an aging population, and wider impacts of austerity governance on everyday infrastructures 50 , this policy relocates water-intensive care practices for cleaning, comfort, pain-management, mental health (particularly water-related needs for cooling during heat waves) into domestic spaces. This potential relocation of water use to domestic settings occurs without explicit recognition in guidance or policy, reinforcing the invisibility of health-related household water demand. Health policies can also affect the timing and location of demand. For example, policies and healthcare guidance introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the role of water in maintaining hygiene and wellbeing. The combined effects of stay-at-home orders, extensive working-from-home and Government guidance to the public to increase personal hygiene practices (especially hand washing) to control the spread of infection substantially increased residential water demand 51 . Peak household consumption was 35% higher during May 2020 compared to pre-lockdown levels 52 . The pandemic also changed the timing of water use, creating more diffuse patterns of water use 51 . In contrast to routine health guidance, the pandemic rendered health-related water demands partially visible, as previously unanticipated changes to the character of water use translated rapidly into measurable impacts on demand. Climate change increases the risk of disease and of extreme weather events with health impacts (e.g., heatwaves) 53 , making the interactions between water, health and social care policies increasingly important. Maintaining and improving public health requires water for sanitation and hygiene, therapeutic use, wellbeing, and thermal comfort. However, changing water availability compromises the provision of health and social care, and health and social care policies create additional demands and can affect the timing and location of demand. Recognising the intersections between these policy agendas contributes to more resilient policy design in both domains, and the effective prioritisation of resources during times of health or water crisis. Economy and employment Economic growth is the UK Government’s primary policy objective at the time of writing, underwritten by Plan for Change. Historically, water infrastructures and policies have been developed to support economic growth, following a modern market environmental mode of governance 11 , however contemporary water scarcity compromises a growth agenda 54 . 26 policies and guidance documents were reviewed. Despite water enabling industrial processes and core services that underpin economic growth, these services are inconsistently recognised and frequently overlooked in economic policy frameworks, obscuring system interdependencies and leading to weak assessment of water demand requirements. The interactions between economy and employment policies and water demand are summarised in Table 4 and discussed in the following paragraphs. Fundamentally, UK policy landscape is underwritten by the UK Government’s growth objectives, which manifest in plans for housing and industrial investment, and delimits the scope of policies in healthcare, climate and energy. It is important that this dynamic is recognised, as any change in overall UK Government priorities could open up alternative directions for integrative policy planning 55 . Table 4. Impacts on water demand of economy and employment policies, illustrating the dimension and mechanism of each impact with exemplar documents and an assessment of impact invisibility. Dimension of impact Exemplar policies Mechanism(s) of potential impact Visibility of demand. Increased water demand Kickstarting Economic Growth; National Wealth Fund; AI Opportunities Action Plan Water demands for expansion of industrial activity, digital services and associated living standard increases Invisible: water’s enabling role in economic growth not acknowledged in policy Exacerbated extremities AI Opportunities Action Plan; Oxford-Cambridge Growth Corridor Geographic concentration of demand alongside development hotspots (often in water-stressed regions). Invisible: spatial demand implications not acknowledged Flexible working policy; Get Britian Working white paper Relocation of demand to domestic spaces; reshaping of daily demand profiles Invisible : demand shifts not acknowledged Unrealised potential to reduce demand Local Growth Plans Place-based governance enables contextualised water demand reduction Partially visible: Varied. Inclusion of water demand not mandatory. Supply-side economics stimulate growth by expanding productive capacity through investment, deregulation and accelerated planning processes 56 . As impacting energy policy as discussed previously, these priorities underpin multinational investment and large-scale industrial expansion in infrastructure such as data centres, gigafactories and green steel facilities, all of which have implications for water demand. For example, policies such as the AI Opportunities Action Plan position digitalisation and artificial intelligence as central to growth, a transition framed as the ‘fourth industrial revolution’. However, the potentially substantial water demands of enabling infrastructure, such as data centres, are uncertain, with estimates modelled on data centres in geographical contexts outside the UK 57 . Meanwhile, better quantified impacts of primary production industries, such as green steel, receive less attention across media and campaign groups, leaving cumulative and cross-sectoral water demand effects largely unexamined. Economic growth is concentrated in corridors of innovation, technology and industry, and like housing, many of these exist in already water stressed regions 24 , including the Oxford-Cambridge Growth Corridor. Additionally, industrial priorities change the profile of employment across sectors and can affect the location, timing, and intensity of water demand. For example, the flexible home working policies in firms located in knowledge economy cities like London are changing the character of water demand in both residential and commercial sectors 51 . Demand is relocated to suburban areas that may fall into different water resource management zones, and temporally distributed throughout the day. This has complex and varied implications for demand depending on regional resource conditions, however these impacts are unrecognised in economy policies. Local Growth Plans, part of the government's devolved economic strategy, are intended to ensure economic policies reflect regional opportunities (e.g. key sectors for growth) and constrains. Their place-based approach offers potential for more water sensitive economic strategy, however they are limited in their explicit assessment of how water supply-demand constraints on economic development, reducing capacity to address water scarcity in economic planning. This evidence shows that despite the vital services it provides in facilitating economic growth, water typically remains invisible in economic policy, and the intersections with employment are unacknowledged. Discussion and conclusion It is well recognised that water demand is affected by actors and actions that extend beyond water systems 20 . However, there have been few efforts to trace the long-term, distributed impacts of non-water policies on water demand. Tracing connections between water demand and non-water policies reveals the underpinning role water plays in, for example, economic growth, energy and decarbonisation, housing development, thermal comfort in a changing climate, and managing infectious disease. Without integrative policy planning, pursuit of these outcomes adds pressure to already stressed water systems, and in turn water scarcity could impede the achievement of non-water policy objectives. Mitigating the impacts of non-water policies on water ensures that water systems and services are protected, and that policy outcomes in non-water domains are resilient to water scarcity. A heuristic framework is presented to examine multiple dimensions of impact between policy fields, characterising four types of impact: increased demand, exacerbated extremities (contributing to temporal peaks in demand or regional disparities in supply-demand balance), unrealised potential for demand reduction and positive contribution to demand reduction, either by reducing demand or by flattening peaks. This framework increases confidence that efforts have been made to pre-empt complex interactions between policy fields and to identify tensions between agendas. In this paper, the framework was used to trace the interactions between non-water policies and water demand, however, it could be applied to explore other interactive policy fields. Our investigation shows how nascent developments in four non-water policy arenas correspond with these types of impact. We demonstrate that there are important gaps between policy domains that contribute to escalating water demand, intensification of peaks and regional variations, and miss opportunities to support water demand reduction objectives. Left unresolved, these interactions create increasingly challenging conditions in which water scarcity is likely to hinder the achievement of policy goals. However, if these interactions are better recognised and mobilised, there is potential to reduce water demand and more rapidly achieve policy objectives in adjacent sectors. This cross-sectoral mobilisation requires well-resourced cross-departmental collaborations, enhanced water literacy among policy-practitioner communities, and government departments with capacity and mandate to oversee policy connections that impact water. Invisibility is presented as a collaborative diagnostic tool to enable working between policy fields that have become fragmented in a modern hydraulic society. Invisibility reflects how historical policy-making practices have obscured the connections between policy agendas as developments in different sectors have followed different historical trajectories, with different stakeholders, discourses and practices involved in their evolution. Recognising invisibility enables interactions between policy fields to be observed with a degree of agnosticism that can enable productive collaboration and trust building amongst the complex actor networks involved in the design and implement policies. This dialogue is essential to accounting for, monitoring and eventually resolving negative outcomes of seemingly positive actions 8 . England's water industry faces unprecedented scrutiny from regulators, researchers, and media 58 . The coincidence of multiple infrastructural failures is drawing a spotlight onto privatisation in the water sector, however, the siloes between policy sectors are deeply rooted due to more than a century of modern hydraulic politics. Efforts to address contemporary demand reduction targets require extending water resource management to the multi-sectoral developments that drive rising demand. Though rescoping water policy and regulation is essential, greater scrutiny of how adjacent sector policies impact water systems is needed. Methods A multi-stage qualitative process was undertaken with the aim of identifying, characterising and critically assessing policy areas lying adjacent to water demand, and their potential impacts on water. A combination of interpretive analysis, professional consultation and desk-based research was used. Firstly, a comprehensive scoping exercise identified policy domains outside of the water sector that plausibly influence water demand across residential, service and industrial sectors. Interpretative analysis was used to identify policy spillovers 9 that are typically underacknowledged in sectoral policymaking. The final four policy domains taken forward for further analysis (Housing and Community Services, Energy and Decarbonisation, Health, and Economy and Employment) were selected to illustrate the variety of potential impacts of policies on water demand, and the degrees to which these impacts are visible within policy. Secondly, for each domain identified, a targeted grey-literature review was conducted to generate an inventory of policies, their stated objectives and implementation mechanisms. Documents were prioritised based on their prominence in the policy domain in question and their potential impacts on water demand. Findings from this review were synthesised into structured summaries of policy intent and delivery, which were used to inform the subsequent expert analysis. Thirdly, a critical analysis of the evidence base was undertaken to (i) identify and characterise the types of potential policy impacts on water demand (ii) examine the mechanisms through which such impacts arise, (iii) assess the extent to which impacts are rendered visible or invisible. The degree of visibility was qualitatively evaluated and classified using three categories: visible, partially visible or invisible. This stage of analysis was conducted during two workshops with an interdisciplinary team of academic experts, drawing on theoretical concepts from social sciences and interdisciplinary academic literature. The final stage formed a roundtable consultation with fourteen policy experts, water sector professionals and government representatives. This roundtable was convened to sense-check and triangulate findings from the preceding stages, and to incorporate practitioner perspectives on the plausibility, relevance and completeness of the analysis. During the structured session, the project team presented synthesised findings from the desk-based review and expert analysis, before facilitating a guided discussion. Participants were invited to reflect on firstly, what they perceived to be the most concerning areas of policy development for water demand and secondly, the extent to which water demand is already considered in adject policy domains. Findings from the roundtable were used to contextualise and triangulate earlier analysis. References Jones, E. R., Bierkens, M. F. P. & van Vliet, M. T. H. Current and future global water scarcity intensifies when accounting for surface water quality. Nat. Clim. Chang. 14 , 629–635 (2024). He, C., Liu, Z., Wu, J., Pan, X., Fang, Z., Li, J. & Bryan, B. Future global urban water scarcity and potential solutions. Nat. Commun. 12 , 46–67 (2021). Bell, S. Renegotiating urban water. Prog. Plann. 96 , 1–28 (2015). Leonard, A., Amezaga, J., Blackwell, R., Lewis, E. & Kilsby, C. The Changing Landscape of Water Resources Planning in England. Water Resour. Manag. 39 , 2401–2418 (2025). Lukat, E., Lenschow, A., Dombrowsky, I., Meergans, F., Schütze N., Stein U. & Pahl-Wostl, C. Governance towards coordination for water resources management: The effect of governance modes. Environ. Sci. Policy 141 , 50–60 (2023). Foden, M., Browne, A. L., Evans, D. M., Sharp, L. & Watson, M. The water–energy–food nexus at home: New opportunities for policy interventions in household sustainability. Geogr. J. 185 , 406–418 (2019). Sharmina, M., Hoolohan, C., Bows-Larkin, A., Burgess, P., Colwill, J., Gilbert, P., Howard, D., Knox, J. & Anderson, K . A nexus perspective on competing land demands: Wider lessons from a UK policy case study. Environ. Sci. Policy 59 , 74–84 (2016). Suckling, J., Hoolohan, C., Soutar, I. & Druckman, A. Unintended Consequences: Unknowable and Unavoidable, or Knowable and Unforgivable? Front. Clim. 3 , (2021). Cox, E., Royston, S. & Selby, J. From exports to exercise: How non-energy policies affect energy systems. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 55 , 179–188 (2019). Sofoulis, Z. Big Water, Everyday Water: A Sociotechnical Perspective. Continuum 19 , 445–463 (2005). Taylor, V. & Trentmann, F. Liquid politics: water and the politics of everyday life in the modern city. Past Present 211 , 199–241 (2011). Hoolohan, C. & Browne, A. L. Encountering water: Sensitivities and practices for moving beyond ‘Big Water’ interventions In Water, Creativity and Meaning (eds. Roberts, L. & Phillips, K) 204–218 (Routledge, 2018). Usher, M., Huck, J., Clay, G., Shuttleworth, E. & Astbury, J. Broaching the brook: Daylighting, community and the ‘stickiness’ of water. Environ. Plan. E: Nat. Space 4 , 1487–1514 (2021). Robins, S. ‘Day Zero’, Hydraulic Citizenship and the Defence of the Commons in Cape Town: A Case Study of the Politics of Water and its Infrastructures (2017–2018). J. South. Afr. Stud. 45 , 5–29 (2019). Environment Agency. National Framework for Water Resources 2025: water for growth, nature and a resilient future. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-framework-for-water-resources-2025-water-for-growth-nature-and-a-resilient-future (2025). Environment Agency. A summary of England’s revised draft regional and water resources management plans. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/a-review-of-englands-draft-regional-and-water-resources-management-plans/a-summary-of-englands-draft-regional-and-water-resources-management-plans (2024). Butler, D. & Memon, F. Water Demand Management . (IWA Publishing, 2006). Fielding, K. S., Russell, S., Spinks, A. & Mankad, A. Determinants of household water conservation: The role of demographic, infrastructure, behavior, and psychosocial variables. Water Resour. Res. 48 , (2012). Cahill, J., Hoolohan, C. & Browne, A. L. Social practice theory and household water demand: A review of literature and research evidence. WIREs Water e1719 (2024). Browne, A., Medd, W., Pullinger, M. & Anderson, B. Distributed demand and the sociology of water efficiency In Water Efficiency in the Built Environment: A Review of Practice and Theory (eds. Medd, W. & Shove, E.) 74–87 (John Wiley & Sons, 2014). Robins, L., Burt, T. P., Bracken, L. J., Boardman, J. & Thompson, D. B. A. Making water policy work in the United Kingdom: A case study of practical approaches to strengthening complex, multi-tiered systems of water governance. Environ. Sci. Policy 71 , 41–55 (2017). Lees, J. & Homewood, S. Building regulations water efficiency review. WRc for Waterwise (2024). Kaika, M. Interrogating the geographies of the familiar: domesticating nature and constructing the autonomy of the modern home. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 28 , 265–286 (2004). Environment Agency. Water stressed areas – 2021 classification. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/water-stressed-areas-2021-classification (2021). Thames Water. Water Resources Management Plan 2024. https://www.thameswater.co.uk/media-library/pq3emxzv/environment.pdf (2023). Hoolohan, C., Foggitt, E. & Browne, A. L. A people-centred perspective on enabling water smart communities: understanding public and professional perspectives on the future of water and housing. University of Manchester for Enabling Water Smart Communities https://www.ewsc.org.uk/project-reports/people-centred-perspective-on-enabling-water-smart-communities (2025). Quitzau, M.-B. & Røpke, I. Bathroom Transformation: From Hygiene to Well-Being? Home Cult. 6 , 219–242 (2009). Kuijer, L. & Bakker, C. Of chalk and cheese: behaviour change and practice theory in sustainable design. Int. J. Sustain. Eng. 8 , 219–230 (2015). Sefton, C., Sharp, L., Quinn, R., Stovin, V. & Pitcher, L. The feasibility of domestic raintanks contributing to community-oriented urban flood resilience. Clim. Risk Manag. 35 , 100390 (2022). Fredenham, E., Longshaw, M., Ballinger, S. & Stephenson, S. Independent review of the costs and benefits of rainwater harvesting and grey water recycling options in the UK. Ricardo Energy & Environment for Waterwise https://www.susdrain.org/files/resources/evidence/Ricardo_Independent-review-of-costs-and-benefits-of-RWH-and-GWR-Final-Report.pdf (2020). Weitz, N., Strambo, C., Kemp-Benedict, E. & Nilsson, M. Closing the governance gaps in the water-energy-food nexus: Insights from integrative governance. Glob. Environ. Change 45 , 165–173 (2017). Environment Agency. Taking action on water for energy: National framework for water resources 2025. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-framework-for-water-resources-2025-water-for-growth-nature-and-a-resilient-future/7-taking-action-on-water-for-energy-national-framework-for-water-resources-2025 (2025). UK Government. Energy Act 2023. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/52/notes/division/3/index.htm (2023). Mathias, S., Smallbone A., Worrall, F., Corfield, N., March, N., Barker, R. Impact of decarbonisation on water availability in the UK. Sustain. Water Resour. Manag. 11 , 105 (2025). Yuan, C., Cao, H., Shen, K., Deng, Y., Zeng, D., Dong, Y. & Hauschild, M. Water-based manufacturing of lithium ion battery for life cycle impact mitigation. CIRP Annals 70 , 25–28 (2021). Ali, B. & Kumar, A. Development of water demand coefficients for power generation from renewable energy technologies. Energy Convers. Manag. 143 , 470–481 (2017). Sizewell C. Sizewell C Plan for Water. https://www.sizewellc.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/sizewellc_plan_for_water_explained_final.pdf (2024). Northumbrian Water Group. Northumbrian water resources management plan 2024. https://www.nwg.co.uk/globalassets/wrmp/nwg/october-24/nwl/nw-wrmp24-main-report-final-18-october-2024.pdf (2024). Rosa, L., Sanchez, D. L., Realmonte, G., Baldocchi, D. & D’Odorico, P. The water footprint of carbon capture and storage technologies. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 138 , 110511 (2021). Griffiths, S., Sovacool, B. K., Kim, J., Bazilian, M. & Uratani, J. M. Industrial decarbonization via hydrogen: A critical and systematic review of developments, socio-technical systems and policy options. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 80 , 102208 (2021). Waterwise. Net zero and the role of water efficiency. https://database.waterwise.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Net-Zero-and-the-role-of-Water-Efficiency-9-2-21.pdf (2021). Russell, S. V. & Knoeri, C. Exploring the psychosocial and behavioural determinants of household water conservation and intention. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 36 , 940–955 (2020). Hargreaves, T., Nye, M. & Burgess, J. Making energy visible: A qualitative field study of how householders interact with feedback from smart energy monitors. Energy Policy 38 , 6111–6119 (2010). Bryan, K., Ward, S., Roberts, L., White, M.P., Landeg, O., Taylor, T. & McEwan, L. The health and well-being effects of drought: assessing multi-stakeholder perspectives through narratives from the UK. Clim. Change 163 , 2073–2095 (2020). Afentou, N., Moore, P., Hull, K., Shepherd, J., Elliott, S. & Frew, E. Inland Waterways and Population Health and Wellbeing: A Cross-Sectional Study of Waterway Users in the UK. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 19 , 13809 (2022). Handayani, N. H., Wanat, M. & Tierney, S. Experiences of social prescribing in the UK: a qualitative systematic review. Br. J. Gen. Pract. 75 , e203–e210 (2025). Office for National Statistics. Health benefits from recreation, natural capital, UK. https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/bulletins/healthbenefitsfromrecreationnaturalcapitaluk/2022 (2022). Groeneveld, W., Krainz, M., White, M.P., Heske, A., Elliott, L.R., Bratman, G.N., Fleming, L., Grellier, J., McDougall, C.W., Nieuwenhuijsen, M., Ojala, A., Pahl, S., Roiko, A., van den Bosch, M. & Wheeler, B.W. The psychological benefits of open-water (wild) swimming: Exploring a self-determination approach using a 19-country sample. J. Environ. Psychol. 102 , 102558 (2025). Bu, F., Burton, A., Launders, N., Taylor, A., Richards-Bell, A., Tierney, S., Osborn, D., Fancourt, D. National roll-out of social prescribing in England’s primary care system: a longitudinal observational study using Clinical Practice Research Datalink data. The Lancet Public Health 10 , e903–e911 (2025). Sou, G. & Steele, C. Climate adaptation under austerity: Declining everyday infrastructures amid extreme heat. Geoforum 165 , 104369 (2025). Cahill, J., Hoolohan, C., Lawson, R. & Browne, A. L. COVID-19 and water demand: A review of literature and research evidence. WIREs Water 9 , e1570 (2022). Alda-Vidal, C., Smith, R., Lawson, R. & Browne, A. L. Understanding changes in household water consumption associated with Covid-19. Artesia Consulting (2020). Mitchell, D., Lo, Y.T.E., Ball, E., Godwin, J.L., Andrews, O., et al Expert judgement reveals current and emerging UK climate-mortality burden. The Lancet Planetary Health 8, e684–e694 (2024). Public First. The cost of water scarcity. https://www.publicfirst.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/The-Cost-of-Water-Scarcity-by-Public-First.pdf (2025). Savelli, E., Mazzoleni, M., Di Baldassarre, G., Cloke, H. & Rusca, M. Urban water crises driven by elites’ unsustainable consumption. Nat. Sustain. 6 , 929–940 (2023). Minford, L. & Meenagh, D. Supply-Side Policy and Economic Growth: A Case Study of the UK. Open. Econ. Rev. 31 , 159–193 (2020). Mytton, D. Data centre water consumption. npj Clean Water 4 , 11 (2021). Ford, A. T., Singer, A. C., Hammond, P. & Woodward, J. Water industry strategies to manufacture doubt and deflect blame for sewage pollution in England. Nat. Water 3 , 231–243 (2025). Additional Declarations There is NO Competing Interest. Supplementary Files SupplementaryMaterial.docx Supplementary Material 1 Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8700096","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Analysis","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":580736817,"identity":"2c428951-daa3-4cac-b178-091f2e48908e","order_by":0,"name":"Claire Hoolohan","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research,","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Claire","middleName":"","lastName":"Hoolohan","suffix":""},{"id":580736818,"identity":"73ce2f8d-dd03-4d7c-b90f-1a1914ec4c48","order_by":1,"name":"Leilai Immel-Parkinson","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Civil Engineering Management, Faculty of Science and Engineering, University of Manchester, Oxford Rd, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Leilai","middleName":"","lastName":"Immel-Parkinson","suffix":""},{"id":580736819,"identity":"f680f015-828c-48e1-bb45-834d4a61263b","order_by":2,"name":"Ella Foggitt","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Civil Engineering Management, Faculty of Science and Engineering, University of Manchester, Oxford Rd, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ella","middleName":"","lastName":"Foggitt","suffix":""},{"id":580736820,"identity":"2973356e-3c47-4cb8-984f-56381f541bd5","order_by":3,"name":"Alison Browne","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Geography, School of Environment, Education and Development, University of Manchester, Oxford Rd, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Alison","middleName":"","lastName":"Browne","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-01-26 12:16:10","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8700096/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8700096/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":103507320,"identity":"adb0ff18-4669-4002-8c17-0ac96aa8a2e6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-26 13:40:59","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":988444,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8700096/v1/4f70ad99-078c-409b-9929-5aa5e100828a.pdf"},{"id":103424720,"identity":"d52fd802-4687-46a5-885b-61a94ad8af1e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-25 14:01:41","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":24003,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"Supplementary Material 1","description":"","filename":"SupplementaryMaterial.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8700096/v1/653718c52d93bae6afd9d637.docx"}],"financialInterests":"There is \u003cb\u003eNO\u003c/b\u003e Competing Interest.","formattedTitle":"Tracing invisible policy impacts on water demand","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eWater scarcity ranks amongst the most critical and widespread impacts of population growth, urbanisation and climate change. Inadequate clean water availability poses profound risks to human health, ecosystem functioning and production of vital resources including energy and food. Already, 55% of the global population experience water scarcity one month per year\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003e and a third of large cities are located in water-scarce regions\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThroughout the global north, policy-making has been predicated on assumptions that water will remain sufficiently abundant to enable wide-ranging objectives\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e. Even within water policy, silos compromise the achievement of sustainability and resilience objectives\u003csup\u003e4\u003c/sup\u003e. Beyond water, policies rarely undergo evaluation for their water-related impacts, whether social (health, poverty, growth), environmental (biodiversity, pollution, emissions), or resource-based (energy, waste)\u003csup\u003e5,6\u003c/sup\u003e. Policy incoherence creates competition and contradiction between policy domains\u003csup\u003e6,7\u003c/sup\u003e. Yet impact assessments typically evaluate how water policies affect other sectors, rather than the reverse, remaining limited in their capacity to account for long-term, distributed impacts on water systems. The consequent invisibility of cross-sectoral impacts risks undermining whole-system benefits. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis paper examines horizontal interdependencies between policy arenas, specifically how ‘non-water’ policies – developed independently and without prioritising water systems or services – affect water demand in England. Non-water policies are distinct from water policies; the suite of strategies, plans, and legislative mechanisms explicitly designed to govern water systems. We analyse developments in four non-water policy fields, housing and planning, energy and decarbonisation, economy and labour, and health and social care. These fields were selected to illustrate the variety and visibility of impacts in domains more commonly (energy, housing) and less commonly (economy, health) associated with water. For each, we map nascent policy developments, using critical analysis and practitioner consultation to investigate possible impacts on water demand. Possibilistic thinking of this manner is recommended to enable pre-emptive planning in complex policy fields\u003csup\u003e8\u003c/sup\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTerms such as 'unknowns' and 'uncertainties' are familiar in policy-making communities yet poorly capture how gaps between actor networks limit policy evaluation\u003csup\u003e8\u003c/sup\u003e. Rather than framing gaps as oversights, which belittles the socio-cultural processes involved in policy development, we present 'invisibility' as a collaborative diagnostic tool\u003csup\u003e9\u003c/sup\u003e. We build on evidence that non-water policies have co-evolved with a modern hydraulic paradigm\u003csup\u003e3,10,11\u003c/sup\u003e; a sociotechnical imaginary constructing water as available without constraint to support social and economic development. This paradigm renders water visible only when infrastructures fail\u003csup\u003e12–14\u003c/sup\u003e and fragments policy-practitioner communities –shaping what is knowable, measurable, and governable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEngland provides an important case, having introduced a legally binding objective to reduce the volume of water supplied by at least 20% by 2038 (relative to 2019/20), with demand reduction to contribute substantially in the short-term\u003csup\u003e15\u003c/sup\u003e. Water scarcity is an increasing problem in England as climate change, ageing infrastructure, population growth and industrial activity combine with regulations to protect water environments. Consequently, a deficit of 5,000 Megalitres of public water supply per day is projected by 2050-2055\u003csup\u003e15\u003c/sup\u003e, approximately one third of water presently supplied for public consumption. Water Resources Management Plans (WRMPs) increasingly focus on demand reduction\u003csup\u003e16\u003c/sup\u003e, such that per capita consumption is anticipated to reduce. However, the pace and extent of change is uncertain, given the shortcomings of water efficiency activities\u003csup\u003e17,18\u003c/sup\u003e and that water policy alone is insufficient to counteract societal trends that escalate consumption\u003csup\u003e19,20\u003c/sup\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWater policy in England is increasingly coherent\u003csup\u003e4,21\u003c/sup\u003e, however, this has yet to extend to cross-sectoral integration. This paper establishes a framework to trace connections and critically analyse the implications of non-water policy fields for water demand.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis section describes the observed water demand implications of four non-water policy domains. Four dimensions of impact are identified. Firstly, some policies increase demand by creating new demands for water or increasing existing demand. Secondly, some policies exacerbate existing extremities, contributing to temporal ‘peakiness’ of water demand or regional disparities in supply-demand balance. Thirdly, some policies hold unrealised potential to reduce demand, due to the scope or direction of the policy. Finally, some policies contribute toward demand reduction, either by reducing demand or by flattening peaks. The first three are analysed in the proceeding sections, the fourth is reported in Tables 1-4 but otherwise beyond the scope of this paper. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIncreasing the\u0026nbsp;visibility\u0026nbsp;of these impacts enables transparency and multi-sector dialogue and provides initial foundations for assessment and monitoring\u003csup\u003e8\u003c/sup\u003e. We therefore also assess the degree of invisibility of water within non-water policies using the following qualitative framework. Impacts are classified as \u003cem\u003einvisible\u003c/em\u003e where water demand considerations are absent from policy objectives, scope, implementation and monitoring; \u003cem\u003epartially visible\u003c/em\u003e where water demand is acknowledged in limited or general terms, but with weakly articulated implications and not embedded in implementation or monitoring; and \u003cem\u003evisible\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ewhere water demand implications are explicitly stated and accompanied by defined mitigation measures and mechanisms for implementation, even where oversight, enforcement or responsibility remains unclear.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTaken together, the categorisation of demand impacts and their degree of visibility, provides a comprehensive framework to understand policy impacts and identify opportunities to reduce water demand within non-water policy agendas.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHousing and local planning\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThere are many intersections between water and housing, and increasing collaboration between sectors to ensure water scarcity does not compromise development\u003csup\u003e22\u003c/sup\u003e. However, policy fragmentation continues to restrict water demand reduction. New homes require connection to water supply and sewerage systems, increasing demand, as do the non-residential buildings, amenities and services that support communities. There are also indirect implications, as new houses and developments embody ideas about residential life that have evolved with the modern water paradigm, in which everyday life is unconstrained by water\u003csup\u003e11,23\u003c/sup\u003e. 30 housing and planning policies and guidance documents were reviewed to assess their impacts on water demand. Table 1 summarises identified impacts, which are explored in detail below.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 1. Impacts of housing and planning policies on water demand illustrating the dimension and mechanism of each impact with exemplar policies, and degree of invisibility.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"652\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDimension of impact\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eExemplar policies\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMechanism(s) of potential impact\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eVisibility of demand\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIncreased water demand\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNew household connections; maintenance of community spaces; construction of new developments.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePlan for Change; Planning and infrastructure Act\u0026nbsp;2025\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePartially visible:\u003c/strong\u003e water supply assumed, precedence for water in building regulations.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGreening provides opportunities for recreation with possible post-activity water use; irrigation of blue/green spaces.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEnvironment Act 2021 Schedule 7A (Biodiversity Net Gain); Green Infrastructure Framework\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInvisible:\u003c/strong\u003e unmonitored and unintended impacts.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIncreased post-activity washing and laundry associated with active travel.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNational Policy Planning Framework; Active Travel England documentation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInvisible:\u003c/strong\u003e unmonitored and unintended impacts.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eExacerbated variations\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGeographic concentration of demand in growth areas (including those that are already water-stressed).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOxford-Cambridge Growth Corridor\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePartially visible\u003c/strong\u003e: partially acknowledged through supply-side considerations.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"4\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eUnrealised potential to reduce demand\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFixtures-and-fittings approach no consideration of broader home design or water-using practices.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFuture Homes Standard\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePartially visible:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ewater efficiency approach prioritised over demand management.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTo embed whole system approaches e.g., water reuse, water neutrality.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNational Policy Planning Framework\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePartially visible:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ewater acknowledged but implications not fully realised.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLocal plans could enable place-based demand management.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNeighbourhood Planning Act 2017\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePartially visible:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eVaried.\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eInclusion of water demand not mandatory.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLack of community-scale water infrastructures.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNational Policy Planning Framework\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePartially visible:\u003c/strong\u003e Water acknowledged but demand management not embedded.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eReduced water demand\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBlue/green spaces offer cooling benefits, potentially offset water-reliant cooling practices.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEnvironment Act 2021 Schedule 7A; Green Infrastructure Framework\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInvisible\u003c/strong\u003e: unmonitored and unintended impacts.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eImproved water efficiency of appliances, fixtures and fittings in new homes.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe Building Regulations 2010 Part G Optional Requirement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eVisible\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOpportunities to integrate SuDS with water reuse systems.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFlood and Water Management Act 2010 Schedule 3 (SuDS)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInvisible:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ewater demand implications out of scope.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNew homes create additional demands for water and wastewater services, as do the non-residential properties that service communities. The scale of development is reflected in the UK Government’s commitment to build 1.5 million homes before 2029, delivered through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill and the Plan for Change. Water demand within new homes is regulated by Building Regulations Part G with a requirement of 125 litres person\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e day\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e (l/p/d) and optional target of 110 l/p/d for local authorities in water stressed regions. However, uptake of the optional requirement remains limited, and actual water use exceeds standards\u003csup\u003e22\u003c/sup\u003e. Water is highly visible in this policy, with housing developers responsible for delivery and local authority building control for enforcement. However, Building Regulations are exceptional, and water is less visible in other housing and planning policies. Building Regulations are also limited to new build properties with retrofitting of existing homes directed by decarbonisation policies and energy efficiency schemes, creating an important policy gap to be discussed in \u003cem\u003eEnergy and Decarbonisation\u003c/em\u003e. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHousing development and resultant impacts on water demand are unevenly distributed. Half of the planned development will occur in the South East and Oxford–Cambridge Growth Corridor, and therefore intensify demand in ‘seriously water-stressed' regions\u003csup\u003e24\u003c/sup\u003e.\u0026nbsp;Opposition to new housing developments in Greater Cambridge on the grounds of water supply concerns has resulted in developers, urban planners and local governments interacting with water resource planning, however, this co-dependency is yet to be acknowledge in housing and planning policies. Efforts to increase climate resilience and protect watercourses\u0026nbsp;require abstraction to be reduced by up to 60% by 2035 (e.g., 101\u0026nbsp;Megalitres/day to 40\u0026nbsp;Megalitres/day in the River Lee Catchment), resulting in persistent long-term water stress despite proposals for new reservoirs\u003csup\u003e25\u003c/sup\u003e. Additionally, a focus on supply-side infrastructure risks obscuring the water stress associated with escalating water demands and expected long-term changes to rainfall patterns, undermining the urgency, and highlighting the invisibility, of demand-side responses.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe existing suite of housing policy mechanisms misses opportunities to increase water demand reduction. Building Regulations and Product Standards focus on improving the efficiency of fixtures and fittings, but no policies attend to the cultural transitions that affect how water use is designed into ordinary rooms, homes, and neighbourhoods\u003csup\u003e26\u003c/sup\u003e. For example, decisions on the number and design of bathroom spaces reproduce infrastructural ideals steeped in notions of abundance, and increasingly involve water use in the achievement of luxury and relaxation rather than hygiene\u003csup\u003e27\u003c/sup\u003e. Furthermore, interacting policy domains introduce priorities that could counteract water demand reduction. For example, policies that increase active travel, an important feature of low-carbon, healthy neighbourhoods, could increase water demand given the entanglement of physical activity, cleanliness, freshness and water use\u003csup\u003e26\u003c/sup\u003e, indicating there are missed opportunities for integrated policy planning across environmental objectives. No policies identified consider the how material design of homes and communities affect long term water use patterns. Existing evidence shows systemic changes to offset the benefits of water efficient appliances\u003csup\u003e28\u003c/sup\u003e, and leaving these linkages unacknowledged and unmonitored limits the extent to which such changes can be anticipated or addressed, preventing cross-sectoral innovation that might address multiple challenges concurrently.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCo-benefits for water demand may be delivered through the statutory requirement for biodiversity net gain set out in the Environment Act 2021, alongside National Policy Planning Framework (NPPF) requirements for sustainable drainage systems (SuDS). SuDS became mandatory in Wales in 2019 but remains non-statutory in England, and \u0026nbsp;could provide cooling benefits and opportunities for localised water reuse\u003csup\u003e29\u003c/sup\u003e. However, water demand impacts are beyond monitoring requirements, as these policies prioritise ecological outcomes and flood risk mitigation\u003csup\u003e26\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.\u003c/strong\u003e Rainwater or greywater reuse integrated with SuDS could reduce sewer loads and offer alternative water sources, but while permitted in Building Regulations, such technologies are not required or incentivised. Additionally, the NPPF, which directs local infrastructure provision, does not explicitly regulate communal water services such as public toilets, pools or laundrettes, which offer opportunities to relocate water use from private residences, economies of scale for water efficiency and opportunities for novel technologies such as recirculating systems\u003csup\u003e30\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe interplay between water demand, buildings and infrastructure are under-acknowledged in housing policy and planning documents. A period of intensive housing construction presents a window of opportunity to deploy joined-up thinking on water demand to enable sustainable patterns of water use and ensure housing policy remains resilient to water scarcity.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEnergy and decarbonisation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eResearch well-attends the water-energy nexus\u003csup\u003e31\u003c/sup\u003e, however, water demand receives limited attention in energy and decarbonisation policies, either as climate mitigation strategy or as being impacted by energy and decarbonisation strategy. Energy and climate policies introduce new industrial demands for water and reinforce a focus on technical efficiency measures in the residential sector that are already commonplace in water resource management without raising ambition on water demand reduction. This approach contrasts with broader system-wide energy and decarbonisation strategy, such as those seen around mobility, and misses opportunities for more integrated policy options. 20 energy and decarbonisation policies were reviewed. Their impacts are summarised in Table 2 and discussed below.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 2.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eImpacts on water demand of energy and decarbonisation policies, illustrating the dimension and mechanism of each impact with exemplar documents and an assessment of impact invisibility.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"609\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDimension of impact\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eExemplar policies\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMechanism(s) of potential impact\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eVisibility of demand\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIncreased demand\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eClean Power Action Plan; Energy Act; UK Battery Strategy\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWater demand for construction, operation and maintenance of clean energy infrastructure.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePartial visibility:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e Demand increasingly acknowledged but demand-side responses remain limited.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eExacerbated extremities\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eClean Power Action Plan; Energy Act\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGeographic concentration of industrial demand in development hotspots (often in water stressed regions).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePartial visibility:\u003c/strong\u003e Demand increasingly acknowledged but demand-side responses remain limited.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eUnrealised potential to reduce demand\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eClimate Change Act; Carbon Budgets\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEnergy-water nexus underacknowledged; focus on technological solutions limits opportunities for demand reduction.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInvisible:\u003c/strong\u003e Water-energy interactions largely absent from policy frameworks\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRetrofitting e.g., Warm Homes Grant, Energy Company Obligation scheme\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRetrofits prioritise energy efficiency, weaker incentives for water demand reduction than in new builds.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInvisible:\u003c/strong\u003e water demand largely excluded from retrofit policy design.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEnergy and decarbonisation policies create additional water demands, given their prioritisation of industrial developments. The UK faces combined pressures of a projected 40-60% increase in electricity demand by 2035\u003csup\u003e32\u003c/sup\u003e and commitments, set out in the Sixth Carbon Budget, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 81% over the same period. \u003cstrong\u003eTo achieve these goals, UK energy and decarbonisation policies are\u003c/strong\u003e prioritising carbon capture and storage, hydrogen production and expansion of renewable and nuclear energy generation\u003csup\u003e33\u003c/sup\u003e. Total water demand for UK decarbonisation projects could reach 730-1020 Megalitres/day by 2050, and is geographically concentrated around important industrial clusters\u003csup\u003e34\u003c/sup\u003e. Furthermore, decarbonisation relies on the electrification of energy systems, and the UK is onshoring battery production (via UK Battery Strategy) in support of this objective. The upstream water impacts of lithium mining are widely examined, however, there remains uncertainty regarding the scale of demand for de-ionised water for manufacturing\u003csup\u003e35\u003c/sup\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe large-scale industrial developments needed to support these activities create localised demand, often in already seriously water stressed regions\u003csup\u003e24\u003c/sup\u003e. Demand arises both during the construction phase, associated with building activities and the accommodation of workers, and during operation, through industrial processes and labour services\u003csup\u003e36\u003c/sup\u003e. For example, potable water demand during the construction of Sizewell C nuclear reactor is expected to peak at 4 Megalitres/day\u003csup\u003e37\u003c/sup\u003e, equivalent to demand in a medium-sized town. Initially supplied by a desalination plant, ongoing operational needs of this development (2.2 Megalitres/day) are accounted for in regional water resource planning\u003csup\u003e38\u003c/sup\u003e. Water demands associated with clean energy infrastructure are increasingly acknowledged in research, regulatory assessments\u003csup\u003e33,39,40\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026nbsp; and regional water resource planning; however, demand-side responses within energy and decarbonisation policy remain limited, indicating partial visibility rather than integration.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAside from energy production, there are overlooked opportunities to incorporate water in energy demand reduction policies. Residential water demand accounts for ~6% of total UK greenhouse gas emissions, with the majority (94%) resulting from residential water use, largely from heating water\u003csup\u003e41\u003c/sup\u003e. Despite the scale of emissions, frameworks like Climate Change Act, the Seventh Carbon Budget (2038-2042) and Warm Homes Plan reference few measures to reduce hot water demand, demonstrating the relative invisibility of water-energy interactions within core climate governance frameworks. Mechanisms to reduce residential energy demand take a fabric-first approach, which prioritises improvements to the thermal efficiency of homes (e.g. insulation, glazing) and installation of low-carbon heating systems, rather than reducing energy use (e.g. though hot water use). Previously, the Sixth Carbon Budget proposed the installation of low-flow showerheads and other water efficient fixtures, better recognising this connection. However, these measures have been a longstanding feature of demand reduction efforts in the water sector\u003csup\u003e16\u003c/sup\u003e, with mixed results and uncertainties over the scale and pace of demand reduction that should be expected from continued effort. The realised demand reduction of these measures falls short of modelled impacts and erodes over time\u003csup\u003e42,43\u003c/sup\u003e, there is also evidence of rebound effects as residents use appliances for longer or more frequently, offsetting potential efficiency benefits\u003csup\u003e18\u003c/sup\u003e. Energy and decarbonisation policy therefore largely avoids intervening in the underlying drivers of demand, a missed opportunity to reconfigure intensive consumption practices.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFailing to adopt comprehensive climate change mitigation strategies will accelerate the frequency, severity and extent of water-related climate hazards. These hazards, including flooding, water scarcity and degraded water quality, will in turn reshape patterns and levels of water demand. \u0026nbsp; Yet, siloes between energy and decarbonisation policies and water policies create gaps that hinder the achievement of objectives in both fields.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHealth and social care\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWater plays multifaceted roles in maintaining and improving public health (physical and mental), ranging from the role of water and sanitation systems in managing infectious disease, to the therapeutic benefits of water in homes and local environments. An increasing body evidences the interplay between water, health and societal wellbeing\u003csup\u003e44,45\u003c/sup\u003e,\u0026nbsp;however, there is less oversight of how developments in health and social care policies affect water demand. 24 health and social care policies and related guidance documents were reviewed. Table 3 categorises their impacts, and two major developments are discussed below; the management of infectious disease and increased social prescribing.\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 3.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eImpacts on water demand of health policies, illustrating the dimension and mechanism of each impact with exemplar documents and an assessment of impact invisibility.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"604\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDimension of impact\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eExemplar policies\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMechanism(s) of potential impact\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eVisibility of demand\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"4\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIncreased water demand\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNICE infection prevention and control guidelines\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWater demands for increased personal hygiene practices\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"4\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInvisible:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eNo recognition of water, either water demand implications, or risk water scarcity to healthcare practices.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNICE pain management guidelines\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTherapeutic water practices increase demand (e.g., hot-cold bathing, hydrotherapy)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNHS Better Health campaign; Mind selfcare guidance\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePost-activity water-use; water-reliant selfcare practices (e.g., bathing).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNHS Long Term Plan; Green Social Prescribing Toolkit\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePost-activity water use; water demand for green/ blue space maintenance.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eExacerbated extremities\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUK Government COVID-19 regulations, NHS England pandemic response guidelines\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRelocation of water demand to domestic spaces.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePartially visible:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eGrowing evidence base, Covid-19 increased visibility of impacts, yet to be integrated in healthcare policies.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDecreased water demand\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNHS Long Term Plan; Green Social Prescribing Toolkit\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eChanging values and meanings associated with water demand.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInvisible:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eDemand reduction pathways indirect and not monitored.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSocial prescribing prioritises non-clinical services for holistic health and wellbeing to prevent, as well as to treat, sickness\u003csup\u003e46\u003c/sup\u003e, and there are various ways these policies interact with water. The Green Social Prescribing Programme aims to improve mental health by increasing access to nature, and demonstrates how green and blue spaces feature in holistic care\u003csup\u003e47\u003c/sup\u003e. For example, ‘wild’ swimming – bathing in open water – is associated with a greater sense of wellbeing than swimming in open-air pools\u003csup\u003e48\u003c/sup\u003e. The successful provision of such activities relies on the maintenance of green and blue spaces, including irrigation of allotments and parks and the preservation of access, quality and water level in waterbodies. Water scarcity compromises the long-term viability of these options, with existing evidence on the impacts of drought on health, particularly for at-risk groups that access these social prescribing models\u003csup\u003e44\u003c/sup\u003e. Despite the fundamental role of water in the delivery of blue and green social prescribing, the associated water demands remain invisible within health policies and programme monitoring.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs social prescribing is extended, with over one million referrals in the UK annually\u003csup\u003e49\u003c/sup\u003e, the resultant increased participation in physical activity could generate additional water demand in both homes (showering, laundry, hydration) and non-residential spaces (leisure centres, gyms). Meanwhile, the NHS Long Term Plan aims to expand healthcare delivery in domestic and community settings, reducing reliance on hospital-based care. In combination with the needs of an aging population, and wider impacts of austerity governance on everyday infrastructures\u003csup\u003e50\u003c/sup\u003e, this policy relocates water-intensive care practices for cleaning, comfort, pain-management, mental health (particularly water-related needs for cooling during heat waves) into domestic spaces. This potential relocation of water use to domestic settings occurs without explicit recognition in guidance or policy, reinforcing the invisibility of health-related household water demand.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHealth policies can also affect the timing and location of demand. For example, policies and healthcare guidance introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the role of water in maintaining hygiene and wellbeing. The combined effects of stay-at-home orders, extensive working-from-home and Government guidance to the public to increase personal hygiene practices (especially hand washing) to control the spread of infection substantially increased residential water demand\u003csup\u003e51\u003c/sup\u003e. Peak household consumption was 35% higher during May 2020 compared to pre-lockdown levels\u003csup\u003e52\u003c/sup\u003e. The pandemic also changed the timing of water use, creating more diffuse patterns of water use\u003csup\u003e51\u003c/sup\u003e. In contrast to routine health guidance, the pandemic rendered health-related water demands partially visible, as previously unanticipated changes to the character of water use translated rapidly into measurable impacts on demand.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eClimate change increases the risk of disease and of extreme weather events with health impacts (e.g., heatwaves)\u003csup\u003e53\u003c/sup\u003e, making the interactions between water, health and social care policies increasingly important. Maintaining and improving public health requires water for sanitation and hygiene, therapeutic use, wellbeing, and thermal comfort. However, changing water availability compromises the provision of health and social care, and health and social care policies create additional demands and can affect the timing and location of demand. Recognising the intersections between these policy agendas contributes to more resilient policy design in both domains, and the effective prioritisation of resources during times of health or water crisis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEconomy and employment\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEconomic growth is the UK Government’s primary policy objective at the time of writing, underwritten by \u003cem\u003ePlan for Change.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eHistorically, water infrastructures and policies have been developed to support economic growth, following a modern market environmental mode of governance\u003csup\u003e11\u003c/sup\u003e, however contemporary water scarcity compromises a growth agenda\u003csup\u003e54\u003c/sup\u003e. 26 policies and guidance documents were reviewed. Despite water enabling industrial processes and core services that underpin economic growth, these services are inconsistently recognised and frequently overlooked in economic policy frameworks, obscuring system interdependencies and leading to weak assessment of water demand requirements. The interactions between economy and employment policies and water demand are summarised in Table 4 and discussed in the following paragraphs. Fundamentally, UK policy landscape is underwritten by the UK Government’s growth objectives, which manifest in plans for housing and industrial investment, and delimits the scope of policies in healthcare, climate and energy. It is important that this dynamic is recognised, as any change in overall UK Government priorities could open up alternative directions for integrative policy planning\u003csup\u003e55\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 4.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eImpacts on water demand of economy and employment policies, illustrating the dimension and mechanism of each impact with exemplar documents and an assessment of impact invisibility.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"593\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDimension of impact\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eExemplar policies\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMechanism(s) of potential impact\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eVisibility of demand.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIncreased water demand\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKickstarting Economic Growth; National Wealth Fund; AI Opportunities Action Plan\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWater demands for expansion of industrial activity, digital services and associated living standard increases\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInvisible:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ewater’s enabling role in economic growth not acknowledged in policy\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eExacerbated extremities\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAI Opportunities Action Plan; Oxford-Cambridge Growth Corridor\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGeographic concentration of demand alongside development hotspots (often in water-stressed regions).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInvisible:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003espatial demand implications not acknowledged\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFlexible working policy; Get Britian Working white paper\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRelocation of demand to domestic spaces; reshaping of daily demand profiles\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInvisible\u003c/strong\u003e: demand shifts not acknowledged\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eUnrealised potential to reduce demand\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLocal Growth Plans\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePlace-based governance enables contextualised water demand reduction\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePartially visible:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eVaried.\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eInclusion of water demand not mandatory.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSupply-side economics stimulate growth by expanding productive capacity through investment, deregulation and accelerated planning processes\u003csup\u003e56\u003c/sup\u003e. As impacting energy policy as discussed previously, these priorities underpin multinational investment and large-scale industrial expansion in infrastructure such as data centres, gigafactories and green steel facilities, all of which have implications for water demand. For example, policies such as the AI Opportunities Action Plan position digitalisation and artificial intelligence as central to growth, a transition framed as the ‘fourth industrial revolution’. However, the potentially substantial water demands of enabling infrastructure, such as data centres, are uncertain, with estimates modelled on data centres in geographical contexts outside the UK\u003csup\u003e57\u003c/sup\u003e. Meanwhile, better quantified impacts of primary production industries, such as green steel, receive less attention across media and campaign groups, leaving cumulative and cross-sectoral water demand effects largely unexamined.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEconomic growth is concentrated in corridors of innovation, technology and industry, and like housing, many of these exist in already water stressed regions\u003csup\u003e24\u003c/sup\u003e, including the Oxford-Cambridge Growth Corridor. Additionally, industrial priorities change the profile of employment across sectors and can affect the location, timing, and intensity of water demand. For example, the flexible home working policies in firms located in knowledge economy cities like London are changing the character of water demand in both residential and commercial sectors\u003csup\u003e51\u003c/sup\u003e. Demand is relocated to suburban areas that may fall into different water resource management zones, and temporally distributed throughout the day. This has complex and varied implications for demand depending on regional resource conditions, however these impacts are unrecognised in economy policies. Local Growth Plans, part of the government's devolved economic strategy, are intended to ensure economic policies reflect regional opportunities (e.g. key sectors for growth) and constrains. Their place-based approach offers potential for more water sensitive economic strategy, however they are limited in their explicit assessment of how water supply-demand constraints on economic development, reducing capacity to address water scarcity in economic planning.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis evidence shows that despite the vital services it provides in facilitating economic growth, water typically remains invisible in economic policy, and the intersections with employment are unacknowledged.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\n\n\n\n"},{"header":"Discussion and conclusion ","content":"\u003cp\u003eIt is well recognised that water demand is affected by actors and actions that extend beyond water systems\u003csup\u003e20\u003c/sup\u003e. However, there have been few efforts to trace the long-term, distributed impacts of non-water policies on water demand. Tracing connections between water demand and non-water policies reveals the underpinning role water plays in, for example, economic growth, energy and decarbonisation, housing development, thermal comfort in a changing climate, and managing infectious disease.\u0026nbsp;Without integrative policy planning, pursuit of these outcomes adds pressure to already stressed water systems, and in turn water scarcity could impede the achievement of non-water policy objectives. Mitigating the impacts of non-water policies on water ensures that water systems and services are protected, and that policy outcomes in non-water domains are resilient to water scarcity.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA heuristic framework is presented to examine multiple dimensions of impact between policy fields, characterising four types of impact: increased demand, exacerbated extremities (contributing to temporal peaks in demand or regional disparities in supply-demand balance), unrealised potential for demand reduction and positive contribution to demand reduction, either by reducing demand or by flattening peaks. This framework increases confidence that efforts have been made to pre-empt complex interactions between policy fields and to identify tensions between agendas. In this paper, the framework was used to trace the interactions between non-water policies and water demand, however, it could be applied to explore other interactive policy fields. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOur investigation shows how nascent developments in four non-water policy arenas correspond with these types of impact. We demonstrate that there are important gaps between policy domains that contribute to escalating water demand, intensification of peaks and regional variations, and miss opportunities to support water demand reduction objectives. Left unresolved, these interactions create increasingly challenging conditions in which water scarcity is likely to hinder the achievement of policy goals. However, if these interactions are better recognised and mobilised, there is potential to reduce water demand and more rapidly achieve policy objectives in adjacent sectors. This cross-sectoral mobilisation requires well-resourced cross-departmental collaborations, enhanced water literacy among policy-practitioner communities, and government departments with capacity and mandate to oversee policy connections that impact water.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eInvisibility is presented as a collaborative diagnostic tool to enable working between policy fields that have become fragmented in a modern hydraulic society. Invisibility reflects how historical policy-making practices have obscured the connections between policy agendas as developments in different sectors have followed different historical trajectories, with different stakeholders, discourses and practices involved in their evolution. Recognising invisibility enables interactions between policy fields to be observed with a degree of agnosticism that can enable productive collaboration and trust building amongst the complex actor networks involved in the design and implement policies. This dialogue is essential to accounting for, monitoring and eventually resolving negative outcomes of seemingly positive actions\u003csup\u003e8\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEngland's water industry faces unprecedented scrutiny from regulators, researchers, and media\u003csup\u003e58\u003c/sup\u003e. The coincidence of multiple infrastructural failures is drawing a spotlight onto privatisation in the water sector, however, the siloes between policy sectors are deeply rooted due to more than a century of modern hydraulic politics. Efforts to address contemporary demand reduction targets require extending water resource management to the multi-sectoral developments that drive rising demand. Though rescoping water policy and regulation is essential, greater scrutiny of how adjacent sector policies impact water systems is needed.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eA multi-stage qualitative process was undertaken with the aim of identifying, characterising and critically assessing policy areas lying adjacent to water demand, and their potential impacts on water. A combination of interpretive analysis, professional consultation and desk-based research was used.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFirstly, a comprehensive scoping exercise identified policy domains outside of the water sector that plausibly influence water demand across residential, service and industrial sectors. Interpretative analysis was used to identify policy spillovers\u003csup\u003e9\u003c/sup\u003e that are typically underacknowledged in sectoral policymaking. The final four policy domains taken forward for further analysis (Housing and Community Services, Energy and Decarbonisation, Health, and Economy and Employment) were selected to illustrate the variety of potential impacts of policies on water demand, and the degrees to which these impacts are visible within policy.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSecondly, for each domain identified, a targeted grey-literature review was conducted to generate an inventory of policies, their stated objectives and implementation mechanisms. Documents were prioritised based on their prominence in the policy domain in question and their potential impacts on water demand. Findings from this review were synthesised into structured summaries of policy intent and delivery, which were used to inform the subsequent expert analysis.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThirdly, a critical analysis of the evidence base was undertaken to (i) identify and characterise the types of potential policy impacts on water demand (ii) examine the mechanisms through which such impacts arise, (iii) assess the extent to which impacts are rendered visible or invisible. The degree of visibility was qualitatively evaluated and classified using three categories: visible, partially visible or invisible. This stage of analysis was conducted during two workshops with an interdisciplinary team of academic experts, drawing on theoretical concepts from social sciences and interdisciplinary academic literature.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe final stage formed a roundtable consultation with fourteen policy experts, water sector professionals and government representatives. This roundtable was convened to sense-check and triangulate findings from the preceding stages, and to incorporate practitioner perspectives on the plausibility, relevance and completeness of the analysis. During the structured session, the project team presented synthesised findings from the desk-based review and expert analysis, before facilitating a guided discussion. Participants were invited to reflect on firstly, what they perceived to be the most concerning areas of policy development for water demand and secondly, the extent to which water demand is already considered in adject policy domains. Findings from the roundtable were used to contextualise and triangulate earlier analysis.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJones, E. R., Bierkens, M. F. P. \u0026amp; van Vliet, M. T. H. Current and future global water scarcity intensifies when accounting for surface water quality. \u003cem\u003eNat. Clim. Chang.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e14\u003c/strong\u003e, 629\u0026ndash;635 (2024).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHe, C., Liu, Z., Wu, J., Pan, X., Fang, Z., Li, J. \u0026amp; Bryan, B. Future global urban water scarcity and potential solutions. \u003cem\u003eNat. Commun.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e12\u003c/strong\u003e, 46\u0026ndash;67 (2021).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBell, S. Renegotiating urban water. \u003cem\u003eProg. Plann.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e96\u003c/strong\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;28 (2015).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLeonard, A., Amezaga, J., Blackwell, R., Lewis, E. \u0026amp; Kilsby, C. The Changing Landscape of Water Resources Planning in England. \u003cem\u003eWater Resour. Manag.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e39\u003c/strong\u003e, 2401\u0026ndash;2418 (2025).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLukat, E., Lenschow, A., Dombrowsky, I., Meergans, F., Sch\u0026uuml;tze N., Stein U. \u0026amp; Pahl-Wostl, C. Governance towards coordination for water resources management: The effect of governance modes. \u003cem\u003eEnviron. Sci. Policy\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e141\u003c/strong\u003e, 50\u0026ndash;60 (2023).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFoden, M., Browne, A. L., Evans, D. M., Sharp, L. \u0026amp; Watson, M. The water\u0026ndash;energy\u0026ndash;food nexus at home: New opportunities for policy interventions in household sustainability. \u003cem\u003eGeogr. J.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e185\u003c/strong\u003e, 406\u0026ndash;418 (2019).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSharmina, M., Hoolohan, C., Bows-Larkin, A., Burgess, P., Colwill, J., Gilbert, P., Howard, D., Knox, J. \u0026amp; Anderson, K\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e A nexus perspective on competing land demands: Wider lessons from a UK policy case study. \u003cem\u003eEnviron. Sci. Policy\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e59\u003c/strong\u003e, 74\u0026ndash;84 (2016).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSuckling, J., Hoolohan, C., Soutar, I. \u0026amp; Druckman, A. Unintended Consequences: Unknowable and Unavoidable, or Knowable and Unforgivable? \u003cem\u003eFront. Clim.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e3\u003c/strong\u003e, (2021).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCox, E., Royston, S. \u0026amp; Selby, J. From exports to exercise: How non-energy policies affect energy systems. \u003cem\u003eEnergy Res. Soc. Sci.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e55\u003c/strong\u003e, 179\u0026ndash;188 (2019).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSofoulis, Z. Big Water, Everyday Water: A Sociotechnical Perspective. \u003cem\u003eContinuum\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e19\u003c/strong\u003e, 445\u0026ndash;463 (2005).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTaylor, V. \u0026amp; Trentmann, F. Liquid politics: water and the politics of everyday life in the modern city. \u003cem\u003ePast Present\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e211\u003c/strong\u003e, 199\u0026ndash;241 (2011).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHoolohan, C. \u0026amp; Browne, A. L. Encountering water: Sensitivities and practices for moving beyond \u0026lsquo;Big Water\u0026rsquo; interventions \u003cem\u003eIn\u003c/em\u003e Water, Creativity and Meaning (eds. Roberts, L. \u0026amp; Phillips, K) 204\u0026ndash;218 (Routledge, 2018).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUsher, M., Huck, J., Clay, G., Shuttleworth, E. \u0026amp; Astbury, J. Broaching the brook: Daylighting, community and the \u0026lsquo;stickiness\u0026rsquo; of water. \u003cem\u003eEnviron. Plan. E: Nat. Space\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e4\u003c/strong\u003e, 1487\u0026ndash;1514 (2021).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRobins, S. \u0026lsquo;Day Zero\u0026rsquo;, Hydraulic Citizenship and the Defence of the Commons in Cape Town: A Case Study of the Politics of Water and its Infrastructures (2017\u0026ndash;2018). \u003cem\u003eJ. South. Afr. Stud.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e45\u003c/strong\u003e, 5\u0026ndash;29 (2019).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEnvironment Agency. National Framework for Water Resources 2025: water for growth, nature and a resilient future. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-framework-for-water-resources-2025-water-for-growth-nature-and-a-resilient-future (2025).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEnvironment Agency. A summary of England\u0026rsquo;s revised draft regional and water resources management plans. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/a-review-of-englands-draft-regional-and-water-resources-management-plans/a-summary-of-englands-draft-regional-and-water-resources-management-plans (2024).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eButler, D. \u0026amp; Memon, F. \u003cem\u003eWater Demand Management\u003c/em\u003e. (IWA Publishing, 2006). \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFielding, K. S., Russell, S., Spinks, A. \u0026amp; Mankad, A. Determinants of household water conservation: The role of demographic, infrastructure, behavior, and psychosocial variables. \u003cem\u003eWater Resour. Res.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e48\u003c/strong\u003e, (2012).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCahill, J., Hoolohan, C. \u0026amp; Browne, A. L. Social practice theory and household water demand: A review of literature and research evidence. \u003cem\u003eWIREs Water\u003c/em\u003e e1719 (2024).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrowne, A., Medd, W., Pullinger, M. \u0026amp; Anderson, B. Distributed demand and the sociology of water efficiency \u003cem\u003eIn\u003c/em\u003e Water Efficiency in the Built Environment: A Review of Practice and Theory (eds. Medd, W. \u0026amp; Shove, E.) 74\u0026ndash;87 (John Wiley \u0026amp; Sons, 2014).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRobins, L., Burt, T. P., Bracken, L. J., Boardman, J. \u0026amp; Thompson, D. B. A. Making water policy work in the United Kingdom: A case study of practical approaches to strengthening complex, multi-tiered systems of water governance. \u003cem\u003eEnviron. Sci. Policy\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e71\u003c/strong\u003e, 41\u0026ndash;55 (2017).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLees, J. \u0026amp; Homewood, S. Building regulations water efficiency review. WRc for Waterwise (2024).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKaika, M. Interrogating the geographies of the familiar: domesticating nature and constructing the autonomy of the modern home. \u003cem\u003eInt. J. Urban Reg. Res.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e28\u003c/strong\u003e, 265\u0026ndash;286 (2004).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEnvironment Agency. Water stressed areas \u0026ndash; 2021 classification. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/water-stressed-areas-2021-classification (2021).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThames Water. Water Resources Management Plan 2024. https://www.thameswater.co.uk/media-library/pq3emxzv/environment.pdf (2023).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHoolohan, C., Foggitt, E. \u0026amp; Browne, A. L. A people-centred perspective on enabling water smart communities: understanding public and professional perspectives on the future of water and housing. University of Manchester for Enabling Water Smart Communities https://www.ewsc.org.uk/project-reports/people-centred-perspective-on-enabling-water-smart-communities (2025).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eQuitzau, M.-B. \u0026amp; R\u0026oslash;pke, I. Bathroom Transformation: From Hygiene to Well-Being? \u003cem\u003eHome Cult.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e6\u003c/strong\u003e, 219\u0026ndash;242 (2009).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKuijer, L. \u0026amp; Bakker, C. Of chalk and cheese: behaviour change and practice theory in sustainable design. \u003cem\u003eInt. J. Sustain. Eng.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e8\u003c/strong\u003e, 219\u0026ndash;230 (2015).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSefton, C., Sharp, L., Quinn, R., Stovin, V. \u0026amp; Pitcher, L. The feasibility of domestic raintanks contributing to community-oriented urban flood resilience. \u003cem\u003eClim. Risk Manag.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e35\u003c/strong\u003e, 100390 (2022).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFredenham, E., Longshaw, M., Ballinger, S. \u0026amp; Stephenson, S. Independent review of the costs and benefits of rainwater harvesting and grey water recycling options in the UK. Ricardo Energy \u0026amp; Environment for Waterwise https://www.susdrain.org/files/resources/evidence/Ricardo_Independent-review-of-costs-and-benefits-of-RWH-and-GWR-Final-Report.pdf (2020).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWeitz, N., Strambo, C., Kemp-Benedict, E. \u0026amp; Nilsson, M. Closing the governance gaps in the water-energy-food nexus: Insights from integrative governance. \u003cem\u003eGlob. Environ. Change\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e45\u003c/strong\u003e, 165\u0026ndash;173 (2017).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEnvironment Agency. Taking action on water for energy: National framework for water resources 2025. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-framework-for-water-resources-2025-water-for-growth-nature-and-a-resilient-future/7-taking-action-on-water-for-energy-national-framework-for-water-resources-2025 (2025).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUK Government. Energy Act 2023. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/52/notes/division/3/index.htm (2023).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMathias, S., Smallbone A., Worrall, F., Corfield, N., March, N., Barker, R. Impact of decarbonisation on water availability in the UK. \u003cem\u003eSustain. Water Resour. Manag.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e11\u003c/strong\u003e, 105 (2025).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYuan, C., Cao, H., Shen, K., Deng, Y., Zeng, D., Dong, Y. \u0026amp; Hauschild, M. Water-based manufacturing of lithium ion battery for life cycle impact mitigation. \u003cem\u003eCIRP Annals\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e70\u003c/strong\u003e, 25\u0026ndash;28 (2021).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAli, B. \u0026amp; Kumar, A. Development of water demand coefficients for power generation from renewable energy technologies. \u003cem\u003eEnergy Convers. Manag.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e143\u003c/strong\u003e, 470\u0026ndash;481 (2017).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSizewell C. Sizewell C Plan for Water. https://www.sizewellc.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/sizewellc_plan_for_water_explained_final.pdf (2024).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNorthumbrian Water Group. Northumbrian water resources management plan 2024. https://www.nwg.co.uk/globalassets/wrmp/nwg/october-24/nwl/nw-wrmp24-main-report-final-18-october-2024.pdf (2024).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRosa, L., Sanchez, D. L., Realmonte, G., Baldocchi, D. \u0026amp; D\u0026rsquo;Odorico, P. The water footprint of carbon capture and storage technologies. \u003cem\u003eRenew. Sustain. Energy Rev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e138\u003c/strong\u003e, 110511 (2021).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGriffiths, S., Sovacool, B. K., Kim, J., Bazilian, M. \u0026amp; Uratani, J. M. Industrial decarbonization via hydrogen: A critical and systematic review of developments, socio-technical systems and policy options. \u003cem\u003eEnergy Res. Soc. Sci.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e80\u003c/strong\u003e, 102208 (2021).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWaterwise. Net zero and the role of water efficiency. https://database.waterwise.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Net-Zero-and-the-role-of-Water-Efficiency-9-2-21.pdf (2021).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRussell, S. V. \u0026amp; Knoeri, C. Exploring the psychosocial and behavioural determinants of household water conservation and intention. \u003cem\u003eInt. J. Water Resour. Dev.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e36\u003c/strong\u003e, 940\u0026ndash;955 (2020).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHargreaves, T., Nye, M. \u0026amp; Burgess, J. Making energy visible: A qualitative field study of how householders interact with feedback from smart energy monitors. \u003cem\u003eEnergy Policy\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e38\u003c/strong\u003e, 6111\u0026ndash;6119 (2010).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBryan, K., Ward, S., Roberts, L., White, M.P., Landeg, O., Taylor, T. \u0026amp; McEwan, L. The health and well-being effects of drought: assessing multi-stakeholder perspectives through narratives from the UK. \u003cem\u003eClim. Change\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e163\u003c/strong\u003e, 2073\u0026ndash;2095 (2020).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAfentou, N., Moore, P., Hull, K., Shepherd, J., Elliott, S. \u0026amp; Frew, E. Inland Waterways and Population Health and Wellbeing: A Cross-Sectional Study of Waterway Users in the UK. \u003cem\u003eInt. J. Environ. Res. Public Health\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e19\u003c/strong\u003e, 13809 (2022).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHandayani, N. H., Wanat, M. \u0026amp; Tierney, S. Experiences of social prescribing in the UK: a qualitative systematic review. \u003cem\u003eBr. J. Gen. Pract.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e75\u003c/strong\u003e, e203\u0026ndash;e210 (2025).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOffice for National Statistics. Health benefits from recreation, natural capital, UK. https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/bulletins/healthbenefitsfromrecreationnaturalcapitaluk/2022 (2022).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGroeneveld, W., Krainz, M., White, M.P., Heske, A., Elliott, L.R., Bratman, G.N., Fleming, L., Grellier, J., McDougall, C.W., Nieuwenhuijsen, M., Ojala, A., Pahl, S., Roiko, A., van den Bosch, M. \u0026amp; Wheeler, B.W. The psychological benefits of open-water (wild) swimming: Exploring a self-determination approach using a 19-country sample. \u003cem\u003eJ. Environ. Psychol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e102\u003c/strong\u003e, 102558 (2025).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBu, F., Burton, A., Launders, N., Taylor, A., Richards-Bell, A., Tierney, S., Osborn, D., Fancourt, D. National roll-out of social prescribing in England\u0026rsquo;s primary care system: a longitudinal observational study using Clinical Practice Research Datalink data. \u003cem\u003eThe Lancet Public Health\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e10\u003c/strong\u003e, e903\u0026ndash;e911 (2025).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSou, G. \u0026amp; Steele, C. Climate adaptation under austerity: Declining everyday infrastructures amid extreme heat. \u003cem\u003eGeoforum\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e165\u003c/strong\u003e, 104369 (2025).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCahill, J., Hoolohan, C., Lawson, R. \u0026amp; Browne, A. L. COVID-19 and water demand: A review of literature and research evidence. \u003cem\u003eWIREs Water\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e9\u003c/strong\u003e, e1570 (2022).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlda-Vidal, C., Smith, R., Lawson, R. \u0026amp; Browne, A. L. Understanding changes in household water consumption associated with Covid-19. Artesia Consulting (2020).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMitchell, D., Lo, Y.T.E., Ball, E., Godwin, J.L., Andrews, O., \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e Expert judgement reveals current and emerging UK climate-mortality burden. \u003cem\u003eThe Lancet Planetary Health\u003c/em\u003e 8, e684\u0026ndash;e694 (2024).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePublic First. The cost of water scarcity. https://www.publicfirst.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/The-Cost-of-Water-Scarcity-by-Public-First.pdf (2025).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSavelli, E., Mazzoleni, M., Di Baldassarre, G., Cloke, H. \u0026amp; Rusca, M. Urban water crises driven by elites\u0026rsquo; unsustainable consumption. \u003cem\u003eNat. Sustain.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e6\u003c/strong\u003e, 929\u0026ndash;940 (2023).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMinford, L. \u0026amp; Meenagh, D. Supply-Side Policy and Economic Growth: A Case Study of the UK. \u003cem\u003eOpen. Econ. Rev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e31\u003c/strong\u003e, 159\u0026ndash;193 (2020).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMytton, D. Data centre water consumption. \u003cem\u003enpj Clean Water\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e4\u003c/strong\u003e, 11 (2021).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFord, A. T., Singer, A. C., Hammond, P. \u0026amp; Woodward, J. Water industry strategies to manufacture doubt and deflect blame for sewage pollution in England. \u003cem\u003eNat. Water\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e3\u003c/strong\u003e, 231\u0026ndash;243 (2025).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"nature-portfolio","isNatureJournal":true,"hasQc":false,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"Nature Portfolio","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":false,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"ejp","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8700096/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8700096/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"Policies have impacts beyond their intended scope. Tracing the implications of ‘non-water’ policies for water demand can prevent them undermining strategies to reduce water demand and ensure that diverse policy agendas are resilient to water scarcity. This paper presents a framework for analysing policy impacts on water demand and interpreting the degree to which impacts are visible within policy objectives, implementation, and monitoring. The framework examines four policy arenas in England: housing and planning; energy and decarbonisation; health and social care; and the economy. Policy analysis, practitioner consultation, and social science perspectives identify three forms of negative impact: increased demand, altered timing and location of demand (contributing to water demand peaks), and unrealised potential to reduce water demand due to the scope or direction of policy. The analysis renders visible typically unseen impacts and identifies opportunities to reduce demand within proximate policy agendas.","manuscriptTitle":"Tracing invisible policy impacts on water demand","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-02-25 14:01:37","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8700096/v1","editorialEvents":[],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"nature-water","isNatureJournal":true,"hasQc":false,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"natwater","sideBox":"Learn more about [Nature Water](https://www.nature.com/natwater/)","snPcode":"44221","submissionUrl":"https://mts-natwater.nature.com/cgi-bin/main.plex","title":"Nature Water","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"ejp","reportingPortfolio":"Nature Research","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"cd07b590-2ce7-4fae-88be-83663e69c691","owner":[],"postedDate":"February 25th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[{"id":61779839,"name":"Social science/Environmental studies"},{"id":61779840,"name":"Earth and environmental sciences/Environmental social sciences/Environmental impact"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-03-16T09:43:17+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-02-25 14:01:37","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8700096","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8700096","identity":"rs-8700096","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}