Hazard- vs. Risk-based paradigms in agricultural water reuse: A global comparative analysis of regulatory frameworks
Abstract
Irrigation with reclaimed wastewater is key for addressing water scarcity, but managing its environmental and health-related risks requires effective regulatory frameworks. As reuse policies expand globally, risk management approaches remain highly diverse due to differing socio-economic contexts. This review provides a comparative analysis of nine internationally influential agricultural water reuse policies (including European Union Regulation 2020/741, ISO 16075 standards, California Water Recycling Criteria, and Israel Inbar Regulations), examining how their design is shaped by the underlying risk management paradigms. The analysis distinguishes between hazard-based, risk-based, and hybrid regulatory approaches, including the use of fixed prescriptive standards, multiple-barrier strategies, and use restrictions based on water quality. This paper analyzes how risk management approaches dictate treatment requirements, quality thresholds, monitoring intensity, and implementation costs. Results demonstrate that regulatory outcomes are driven primarily by risk management philosophy and socio-economic context, rather than uniform scientific evidence. The review highlights that regulatory effectiveness depends on balancing safety standards with feasibility and practical enforceability. Overly restrictive, end-of-pipe compliance frameworks increase infrastructure costs and, by exceeding local feasibility, may inadvertently drive hazardous, unplanned reuse practices. Conversely, too flexible, fully-risk-based approaches are difficult to enforce and may fail to build public trust. Recent policy developments reveal a convergence toward hybrid regulatory approaches that combine baseline quality benchmarks with flexible, field-level risk mitigation measures such as subsurface drip irrigation and crop restriction. By clarifying how risk management paradigms shape agricultural water reuse regulations, this work provides insights to support the design of realistic and context-appropriate reuse policies.
Related
- Regulatory frameworks need to distinguish persistent from transient plastic fragments
- Towards regulatory readiness: evaluating frameworks for microplastic health risk assessment
- Humidity-dependent formaldehyde adsorption on porous frameworks: A comparative study of MOFs, zeolites, and activated carbon
- Comparative evaluation of halloysite nanotubes and zirconium oxide nanoparticles for agricultural drainage wastewater treatment
- Emerging Paradigms in Electrochemical Water Treatment: Advanced Electrode Materials, Resource Recovery, and Machine Learning
BibTeX
@article{gomezlucena2026hazard,
title = {{Hazard- vs. Risk-based paradigms in agricultural water reuse: A global comparative analysis of regulatory frameworks}},
author = {Ignacio Gómez-Lucena and Nassim Ait-Mouheb and Emilio Camacho and Juan Antonio Rodríguez-Díaz},
journal = {Agricultural Water Management},
year = {2026},
month = sep,
doi = {10.1016/j.agwat.2026.110724},
url = {https://hal.science/hal-05735631v1},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Hazard- vs. Risk-based paradigms in agricultural water reuse: A global comparative analysis of regulatory frameworks
AU - Ignacio Gómez-Lucena
AU - Nassim Ait-Mouheb
AU - Emilio Camacho
AU - Juan Antonio Rodríguez-Díaz
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/09/02
JO - Agricultural Water Management
DO - 10.1016/j.agwat.2026.110724
UR - https://hal.science/hal-05735631v1
AB - Irrigation with reclaimed wastewater is key for addressing water scarcity, but managing its environmental and health-related risks requires effective regulatory frameworks. As reuse policies expand globally, risk management approaches remain highly diverse due to differing socio-economic contexts. This review provides a comparative analysis of nine internationally influential agricultural water reuse policies (including European Union Regulation 2020/741, ISO 16075 standards, California Water Recycling Criteria, and Israel Inbar Regulations), examining how their design is shaped by the underlying risk management paradigms. The analysis distinguishes between hazard-based, risk-based, and hybrid regulatory approaches, including the use of fixed prescriptive standards, multiple-barrier strategies, and use restrictions based on water quality. This paper analyzes how risk management approaches dictate treatment requirements, quality thresholds, monitoring intensity, and implementation costs. Results demonstrate that regulatory outcomes are driven primarily by risk management philosophy and socio-economic context, rather than uniform scientific evidence. The review highlights that regulatory effectiveness depends on balancing safety standards with feasibility and practical enforceability. Overly restrictive, end-of-pipe compliance frameworks increase infrastructure costs and, by exceeding local feasibility, may inadvertently drive hazardous, unplanned reuse practices. Conversely, too flexible, fully-risk-based approaches are difficult to enforce and may fail to build public trust. Recent policy developments reveal a convergence toward hybrid regulatory approaches that combine baseline quality benchmarks with flexible, field-level risk mitigation measures such as subsurface drip irrigation and crop restriction. By clarifying how risk management paradigms shape agricultural water reuse regulations, this work provides insights to support the design of realistic and context-appropriate reuse policies.
SN - 0378-3774
ER -