New approaches to ensure the resilience of urban water supply are urgently needed. This requires moving beyond managing water scarcity through infrastructural measures to understanding resilience as an outcome of complex interactions between people, water resources, and technological infrastructure. We conducted expert interviews and a household survey in a water scarcity ‘hotspot’ and found that water experts emphasize water system deficits and inefficiencies, while citizens complement public water service deficits through (unaccounted-for) coping mechanisms. This leads to uncertainties regarding the outcomes of management interventions. We suggest that integrating different stakeholder perspectives into water management strategies could enhance urban water resilience.

There is limited understanding of how to address the complex dynamics shaping the resilience of increasingly water-scarce cities, globally. By conceptualizing urban water systems as social–ecological–technological systems (SETS) and analysing their interactions from different stakeholder perspectives, we create a pluralistic, yet systematic, understanding of SETS interactions. We conducted expert interviews (N = 19) and a household survey (N = 300) in Amman, one of the world’s water scarcity hotspots, and analysed the data in three steps: (1) We analysed the SETS through the lens of its different actor groups, and, inspired by frame analysis, interpreted each group's system perspective – local experts focus on deficits of SETS elements and aim to increase available resources, while international experts emphasize the efficiency of SETS interactions. Households cope with deficient water supplies by mobilizing adaptive strategies. (2) Combining these three perspectives, we derived uncertainties resulting from different (and unrecognized) stakeholder views, missing knowledge, and unpredictable system dynamics. (3) We identified and characterized new SETS interactions for an urban, resource-constrained environment, which contributes to a typology aiming for better comparability across SETS. Our results have implications for resilience-oriented urban water management and governance in terms of what to manage (fast/slow variables, connectivity), how (learning/experimenting), and by whom (broad participation).

Addressing uncertainty by reframing resilience-oriented urban water management with complementary system perceptions.