hierarchical approach for integrated water resources … · 2009-02-16 · hierarchical approach...

IISSLLAAMMIICC UUNNIIVVEERRSSIITTYY –– GGAAZZAA

FFAACCUULLTTYY OOFF EENNGGIINNEEEERRIINNGG

HHIIGGHHEERR EEDDUUCCTTIIOONN DDEEAANNSSHHIIPP

غزة- الجامعة االسالمية

كلية الهندسة

عمادة الدراسات العليا

HHIIEERRAARRCCHHIICCAALL AAPPPPRROOAACCHH FFOORR IINNTTEEGGRRAATTEEDD WWAATTEERR

RREESSOOUURRCCEESS PPLLAANNNNIINNGG AANNDD MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT

IINN TTHHEE GGAAZZAA SSTTRRIIPP

Prepared By

EEnngg.. MMaahhaa MMuuhhaaiisseenn

Supervised By

PPrrooff.. ZZaahheerr KKuuhhaaiill && DDrr.. KKhhaaiirryy EEll--JJaammeell

A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Master of Science in Infrastructure Engineering

The Islamic University of Gaza - Palestine

December, 2004

Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in the Gaza Strip

II

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيمبسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

::يقول ا تعاىل يقول ا تعاىل أولم ير الذين كفروا أن السماوات والأرض كانتا رتقا ففتقناهما أولم ير الذين كفروا أن السماوات والأرض كانتا رتقا ففتقناهما ””

ونمنؤي أفلا يء حياء كل شالم ا منلنعجوونمنؤي أفلا يء حياء كل شالم ا منلنعج٣٠٣٠(( و((““ ٣٠سورة األنبياء آية


III

ABSTRACT

This thesis focuses on the development of hierarchical approach for integrated water resources management

to be applicable in the Gaza strip situation. The developed approach depends on evaluation of current

situation and identification of the problem using Driving Force-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR)

model. Water management indicators bundled with criteria that affect selecting ample solutions, are

thoroughly identified.

The criteria being used was weighted by interviews with decision makers and experts in water sectors.

Thereafter, Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) is used for ranking the developed water management

alternatives. The application of the approach on the Gaza Strip situation showed that the priorities of projects

planning and implementation should be devoted to Reclaimed water, particularly wastewater treatment and

reuse. In addition to seawater desalination, which could contribute to solve the deficit in fresh water and

cover, the gap between water demand and supply. These resources should be developed parallel to natural

resources as rainwater harvesting and demand management options. All of the proposed alternatives should

be developed as long as the institutional polices will be applied.


IV

ملخص البحثل هذا البحث تم تطوير و استخدام طريقة متكاملة إلدارة و تخطيط مصادر المياه في قطاع من خال

هذه الطريقة تعتمد على تعريف المشكلة و تحديدها القتراح الحلول و تحديد المؤشرات و . غزة

.المعايير التي قد تؤثر في اختيار الحلول

اإلجابة –الحالة - الضغط–دافعة للوصول للصورة المتكاملة تم استخدام نموذج القوى ال (DPSIR)

تم االستعانة بصانعي القرار و خبراء في مجال المياه لتحديد التشكيل المشكلة و اقتراح الحلول، كم

وزن للمؤشرات و المعايير التي قد تؤثر على اتخاذ القرار، في حين تم استخدام طريقة اتخاذ

(MCDM)القرار متعدد المعايير .لويات لترتيب األو

و . هذه الطريقة طبقت عمليا على قطاع غزة لتحديد أولويات إلدارة و تخطيط قطاع المياه فيها

كانت أهم نتائج الدراسة تشير إلى أهمية معالجة مياه الصرف الصحي و إعادة استخدامها، باإلضافة

مقترحة يجب أن يتم إلى تحلية مياه البحر وذلك لمواجهة النقص في كمية المياه، كل هذه المصادر ال

.تطويرها بالتوازي مع استغالل مياه المطر و إدارة الطلب

هذه الحلول المقترحة يجب أن تدعم بتنمية لقدرات المؤسسات و تطوير السياسات و القوانين

. لتستطيع القيام بمهماتها على أكمل وجه


V

AKNOWLEDGMENTS

First, I owe thanks are due to Prof. Zaher & Dr Khairy to whom I would like to express my gratitude for their

invaluable guidance.

I would like to acknowledge all infrastructure master program lecturers and supporting staff at the Islamic

University. Special thanks go to all my classmates for their warm friendship.

I extend my sincere gratitude and thank, to my husband, son and daughter for their patience and dedication

in giving me their time to complete this research and bring it into reality. I would like to acknowledge my lovely parents, brothers, & sisters whose wisdom and love shaped me as I

grew up. Many thanks go to all of my friends and colleagues in Palestinian Water Authority (PWA) for their support

and help during my study. Thanks are due to my colleagues at the Environmental Quality Authority, for their discussions and valuable

information, I am grateful to the Welfare Association in general and Ms Maha Shawwa in particular for their support and

encouragement from the first time I worked with them. There have been numerous influences, big, small, that have helped me complete my thesis. I would like to

thank everyone.


VI

DEDICATION

I would like to dedicate this thesis to my Husband, Son, Daughter, Parents, and all my

family, for their unconditional, total support in any endeavor of my life.


VII

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES......................................................................................................... XII

LIST OF FIGURE S ..................................................................................................... XIV

GLOSSARY................................................................................................................. XVI

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVATIONS .....................................................................XVIII

CHAPTER ONE : Introduction..........................................................................................1

1.1 Introduction............................................................................................................1

1.2 Statement of The Problem ......................................................................................1

1.3 Thesis Goals and Objectives...................................................................................2

1.4 Research Methodology..........................................................................................2

1.5 Thesis Organization...............................................................................................4

CHAPTER TWO : Literature Review ................................................................................5

2.1 Master plans and strategic water management ........................................................5

2.1.1 Objectives of Water Resources Management Strategy ............................................5

2.1.2 Strategy Formulation in Context.............................................................................5

2.1.3 Overview of the Process of Strategy Formulation...................................................6

2.1.4 Strategy and Master Plan........................................................................................7

2.1.5 Defining and Implementing Water Resources Strategy Approach...........................7

2.1.6 The Scope Of Integrated Water Resources Management Strategy...........................9

2.2 Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) ..............................................10

2.2.1 Historical Developments ......................................................................................10

2.2.2 Principles and Theories In The IWRM .................................................................11

2.2.3 IWRM Definition.................................................................................................11

2.2.4 Dimensions of IWRM .........................................................................................11

2.2.5 Integrated Water Resources Management Characteristics .....................................12


VIII

2.2.6 Dublin Principles..................................................................................................14

2.2.7 Integrated Water Resources Management Components ........................................14

2.3 Models of Developing Indicators for Sustainable Water Management ..................18

2.3.1 Introduction.........................................................................................................18

2.3.2 Sustainability Indicators ......................................................................................19

2.3.3 Conceptual Frameworks for problem oriented approaches and use of indicators...20

2.3.4 Different International Sustainability indicators....................................................26

2.4 DECISION SUPPORT SystemS (DSS)................................................................28

2.4.1 MCDM Literature Review....................................................................................28

2.4.2 Uncertainties ........................................................................................................31

2.4.3 Sensitivity Analysis..............................................................................................32

CHAPTER THREE : Decision Making Process for Development of Conceptual Approach

for IWRM .....................................................................................................................33

3.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................33

3.2 General Heirarchial Approach for IWRM.............................................................33

3.3 Phase 1: Overviewing the Current Situation of the Water sector in the Gaza Strip.33

3.4 Phase 2: Structuring the Problem and Developing Water Management Indicators.34

3.5 Phase 3: Decision Making Process Usng Multi Criteria Decision Making ............36

3.٥.1 Problem Definition...............................................................................................38

3.5.2 Evaluation Criteria ...............................................................................................38

3.5.3 Selecting The Appropriate Evaluation Criteria .....................................................42

3.5.4 Development of Decision Matrix..........................................................................43

3.5.5 Weight of the Response Indicators According to Selected Evaluation Criteria......43

3.5.6 Standardization of The Scores: .............................................................................44

3.5.7 Evaluation of Alternative Management Options ..................................................44

3.5.8 Sensitivity Analysis.............................................................................................44


IX

3.6 MCDM Methods..................................................................................................44

3.6.1 ELECTRE II ........................................................................................................44

3.6.2 The Regime Method.............................................................................................51

3.6.3 Evamix Method...................................................................................................55

3.6.4 Weighted Summation Method .............................................................................57

3.6.5 Comparison Among ELECTRE, Regime, Evamix and Weighted Summation

Methods .....................................................................................................................57

3.7 Definite Software .................................................................................................59

CHAPTER FOUR: Hierarchical Approach for IWRM in Gaza Strip................................62

4.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................62

4.2 Background..........................................................................................................62

4.2.1 Location...............................................................................................................62

4.2.2 Population:..........................................................................................................63

4.2.3 Climate: ..............................................................................................................63

4.3 Phase I: Review of Current Sitution of Water Resources in The Gaza Strip ..........64

4.3.1 Surface Water ......................................................................................................64

4.3.2 Groundwater (Coastal Aquifer) ............................................................................64

4.3.3 Water Quality......................................................................................................66

4.4 Water Demand ....................................................................................................69

4.4.1 Domestic and Industrial Water Demand (D&I):...................................................70

4.4.2 Industrial Water Demand ....................................................................................71

4.4.3 Agricultural and Livestock Water Demand:........................................................71

4.4.4 Projected Water Demand......................................................................................72

4.5 Water Balance of the Gaza Coastal Aquifer..........................................................73

4.6 The Palestinian Water Sector and Instiutional Setup.............................................74

4.6.1 Regulations, Polices and Laws ............................................................................75


X

4.6.2 Institutional Framework .......................................................................................76

4.6.3 Regulatory Framework.........................................................................................76

4.6.4 Cost of service – Water Tariff: .............................................................................77

4.7 Summary of Existing Sitution ..............................................................................77

4.7.1 Municipal and Industrial Water Demand ..............................................................77

4.7.2 Agricultural Water demand ..................................................................................77

4.7.3 Water Conservation..............................................................................................78

4.7.4 Water Resources ..................................................................................................78

4.7.5 Resource Gap.......................................................................................................79

4.7.6 Water Supply Systems..........................................................................................79

4.7.7 Wastewater Management and Reuse ....................................................................79

4.7.8 Environment and Groundwater Contamination.....................................................80

4.7.9 Storm Water Drainage..........................................................................................80

4.8 Phase 2 : Structuring the Problem and Development of Water Management

Indicators .....................................................................................................................81

4.8.1 A Classification Based on Driving Forces ...........................................................81

4.8.2 A classification Based on Pressure .......................................................................82

4.8.3 State (Water Quantity, and Water Quality) ...........................................................83

4.8.4 Impact: (Ecosystem Integrity and Use Value).......................................................83

4.8.5 Response: Policy and Management Including Institutional Arrangement ..............84

4.9 Phase 3: Analysis Of the Indicators Using MCDA................................................87

4.9.1 Selection of Criteria ............................................................................................87

4.9.2 Scoring of the Indicators Based on Selected Criteria............................................90

4.9.3 Analysis ...............................................................................................................92

4.9.4 Interpretation of The Results .............................................................................103

CHAPTER FIVE : Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................107


XI

5.1 Concluaions .......................................................................................................107

5.2 Recommendations ..............................................................................................108

5.3 Recommended Studies .......................................................................................110

REFERENCES..............................................................................................................111

LIST OF APPENDICES................................................................................................125


XII

LIST OF TABLES

Table (2.1): Policy Stages and Indicators Requirements ..................................................24

Table (2.2): Example of Function – Issue Table ..............................................................25

Table (2.3): Similarities and Differences of Different Concepts ......................................26

Table (2.4): Differences among Attributes, Objectives, Goals and Criteria.....................29

Table (2.5): Summary of Advantages and Disadvantages of Multicriteria Methods..........30

Table (2.6): Strategies to Multi-Criteria Projects Approach .............................................30

Table (3.1): Water Resources Management Criteria ........................................................38

Table (3.2): Problem Definition Matrix............................................................................43

Table (3.3): Problem Definition Matrix of the Example ...................................................46

Table (3.4): Concordance Table of the Example...............................................................46

Table (3.5): Discordance Table of the Example................................................................47

Table (3.6): Strong Graph Table of the Example ..............................................................48

Table (3.7): Weak Graph Table of the Example ...............................................................49

Table (3.8): Concept of Weighting Options......................................................................50

Table (3.9): Comparison of ElectreII, Regime, Evamix, and Weighted Summation

Methods. .....................................................................................................57

Table (3.10): Definite Process, Which is Used in the Research ........................................59

Table (4.1): Summary of Agriculture Water Demand .......................................................71

Table (4.2): Summary of the Total Water Demand For all Sectors in the Gaza

Governorates for 2002 .................................................................................71

Table (4.3): Overall Projection Water Demand in Gaza Strip ...........................................72

Table (4.4) Water Resources Development in the Gaza Strip 2000 to 2020......................72

Table (4.5): Aquifer Balance............................................................................................74

Table (4.6): List of Criteria Affecting Water Management Options..................................88


XIII

Table (4.7) : Scores of The Policy and Management Options Which Correspond to The

Most Important Criteria: ..............................................................................91

Table (4.8): Weight of Each Criterion ..............................................................................92

Table (4.9): Specific Weight of Options and Their Uncertainty........................................94

Table (4.10): The Results of Sensitivity Analysis Using ELECTRE II .............................95

Table (4.11): The Score of Uncertainty ............................................................................96

Table (4.12): The Results of Sensitivity after Changed Score of Uncertainty....................96

Table (4.13): The Results of Sensitivity Analysis using the Regime Method ....................98

Table (4.14): The Results of Sensitivity Analysis using Evamix Method..........................99

Table (4.15): The Results of Sensitivity Analysis using Weighted Summation Method..101

Table (4.16): The Comparison between the Results of the Four Methods of MCA .........102


XIV

LIST OF FIGURE S

Figure (1.1): Outline of the Methodology...........................................................................3

Figure (2.1): The Strategic Planning Cycle ........................................................................6

Figure (2.2): Stages and the Main Critical Elements in the Process ...................................7

Figure (2.3): Dimensions of Integrated Water Resources Management ............................12

Figure (2.4): Flow Chart of Integrated Water Resource Management ...............................14

Figure (2.5): Component of IWRM..................................................................................15

Figure (2.6): Structure of IWRM......................................................................................16

Figure (2.7): P-S-R Concept............................................................................................21

Figure (2.8): DPSIR Concept ...........................................................................................23

Figure (2.9): Four Stages of the Policy-Life Cycle ..........................................................24

Figure (3.1): The DPSIR Framework for Water Resources Management..........................35

Figure (3.2): Proposed Decision Support System Process for IWRM for Gaza Strip.........37

Figure (3.3): Illustration of Graph Cycle ..........................................................................51

Figure (3.4): Illustration of Preference Graph...................................................................51

Figure (3.5): First Main Menu in Definite Software .........................................................60

Figure (3.6): Problem Definition Menu ............................................................................61

Figure (3.7): Multi-Criteria Analysis Menu......................................................................61

Figure (4.1) : Gaza Strip Location....................................................................................63

Figure (4.2) : Waterlevel Contour Map ............................................................................66

Figure (4.3): Chloride Concentration in Groundwater ......................................................67

Figure (4.4): Nitrate Concentration in Groundwater .........................................................69

Figure (4.5): Management Strategy for Water Sector ......................................................75

Figure (4.6): Inter-ministerial Co-ordination in Water Sector ...........................................76

Figure (4.7): DPSIR Framework For Gaza Strip ..............................................................86


XV

Figure (4.8): Ranking of Management Options Using ELECTRE II.................................93

Figure (4.9): Ranking of Management Options Using Regime Method ............................97

Figure (4.10): Ranking of Management Options Using Evamix Method ..........................99

Figure (4.11): Ranking of Management Options Using Weighted Summation Method...101

Figure (4.12): Comparison of the results of the four methods of MCDA ........................103

Figure (4.13): General Paradigm for the Integrated Water Resources Management in Gaza

Strip ..........................................................................................................106


XVI

GLOSSARY Aquifer A water-bearing stratum of permeable rock or soil able to hold or transmit water.

Assessment of water

resources An examination of the aspects of the supply and demand for water and of the factors

affecting the management of water resources.

Capacity building The process of building organizations, human resources and the legal and regulatory

framework needed for effective and efficient water resources management.

Demand

Water put into supply, amounting to consumption plus physical losses in the

transmission and distribution (including illegal and non-measured quantities)

provided that the customers have satisfied their needs.

Demand Management The use of price, quantitative restrictions and other devices to limit the demand for

water.

Dublin Statement The Dublin Statement on Water and Sustainable Development, adopted at the

International Conference on Water and the Environment (ICWE).

Ecosystem A complex system formed by the interaction of a community of organisms with its

environment.

Guidelines A set of (relatively generalized) instructions that analyze a strategy into actions

required set within specific a time framework.

Institutions

Organizational arrangements and the legal and regulatory framework (the enabling

environment) in which organizations operate. More broadly, institutions include

entities, processes and linkes between individual entities.

Paradigm

Paradigm describes a school of thought on prioritizing during the selection of policy

options, for the management of Water Resources. The dominant paradigm is the

current school of thought for each region; the shifting paradigm is an alternative

prioritizing of policy options, and respective actions, aiming at achieving integrated

water resources management. This is slowly becoming a necessity due to the

increasing challenges of managing water resources, particularly in water deficient

regions in a sustainable way.


XVII

Policy A declared intention and course of action adopted by government, party, for the

achievement of a goal

Program A definite plan of intended procedure.

Project A scheme or undertaking.

Sensitivity Analysis Assessment of the response of some factors as a result of changes in others

Sewage Liquid refuse or waste matter carried off by sewers.

Sewerage The removal and disposal of sewage and surface water by sewer systems.

Stakeholder An organization or individual that is concerned with or has an interest in water

resources that would be affected by decisions about water resources management.

Strategy A set of chosen short-, medium- and long-term actions to support the achievement of

development goals and to implement water-related policies.

Sustainable Yield of Aquifers

Quantity that can be extracted from an aquifer on a sustainable basis. Theoretically,

the sustainable yield is able to recharge but it is in most cases considered less than

recharge as it must also allow for adequate provision of water to sustain streams,

springs, wetlands and groundwater dependent ecosystems. Abstractions from

renewable groundwater are therefore considered to be unsustainable if the yearly

amount abstracted exceeds the amount of recharge multiplied by a factor that allows

for such needs.

UFW

Unaccounted-for water, water put into service, but not paid for by the consumers.

i.e., the volume of water lost through leakage or irregular practices between entering

a distribution system and reaching the users.

Unconventional Water

Resources The sum of desalinated water resources and reused treated wastewater.


XVIII

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVATIONS BOD Biological Oxygen Demand

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee International, Inc

Cl Chloride

CMWU Coastal Municipal Water Utility

CSD Committee for Sustainable Development

DMA District Meter Area

DPSIR Driving force-Pressure-State-Impact-Response

DSR Driving Force-State-Response

EEA European Environment Agency

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GNP Gross National Product

GWP Global Water Partnership

IAMP Integrated Aquifer Management Plan

ICWE International Conference on Water and Environment

IWRM Integrated Water Resources Management

LEKA Lyonnaise des Eaux - Khatib & Alami

M&E Metcalf & Eddy, Inc

M&I Municipal and Industrial

MCDM Multi Criteria Decision Making

MCM Million Cubic Meter

MOA Ministry of Agriculture

MOH Ministry of Health

MOPIC Ministry of Planning and International Cooperation

NGO Non-Governmental Organization

NO3 Nitrate

NWC National Water Council

O&M Operation and Maintenance

OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development

PA Palestinian Authority


XIX

PCBS Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics

PECDAR Palestinian Economic Council for Development and Reconstruction

PNA Palestinian National Authority

PSR Pressure-State-Response

PWA Palestinian Water Authority

RO Reverse Osmosis

SCOPE Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment.

SOE State of the Environment.

UFW Unaccounted-for water

UN United Nations

UN- SNA UN System of National Accounts.

UNCED United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Rio de Janeiro,

Brazil, 1992). Also known as The Earth Summit.

UNDP United Nations Development Program

UNEP United Nations Environment Program

US$ United States Dollars

USAID United States Agency for International Development

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

WHO World Health Organization

WSSPS Water Sector Strategic Planning Study

WWC World Water Council

WWTP Waste Water Treatment Plant for domestic and industrial effluents

Chapter (1) Introduction

-1-

CHAPTER ONE

11..11 IINNTTRROODDUUCCTTIIOONN

Water represents one of the primary and most valuable natural resources for life. This

irreplaceable resource of life and livelihood requires adequate management policies that

protect it from the ever-increasing risks and demands imposed by the growing population,

economic expansion and competition, multiple sources of pollution, over allocation, and

environmental hazards. Water resources management is ultimately about making decisions

that influence the future state of water resources. These are tools to promote efficient,

equitable and sustainable development.

The context of water resources management has evolved tremendously over the past

couple of decades. This evolution has been induced by increasing demands on limited

water resources imposed by the growing population, the increasing concern about the

degradation of local water supplies, the expansion of scientific data, the diversification of

governmental structures, and the greater determination on behalf of the public to be

involved in the resource management and the decision-making processes. All of the above-

mentioned factors have culminated in a management environment that now characterize by

increasing complexity, uncertainty, and conflict.

Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) is a process, which can assist countries

in their endeavor to deal with water issues in a cost-effective and sustainable way. It is a

participatory planning and implementation process based on sound science, which brings

together stakeholders to determine how to meet society's long-term needs for water and

coastal resources, while maintaining essential ecological services and economic benefits.

Such integrated water resources management can be supported by analyzing water quantity

and quality, their temporal and spatial distribution based on its physical and socio-

economic conditions, integrated with water demand and utilization multidisciplinary

analysis. In this context, decision support systems can assist in turning a management tools

into an integrated, interdisciplinary framework system.

11..22 SSTTAATTEEMMEENNTT OOFF TTHHEE PPRROOBBLLEEMM 1. Our region in general, and the Gaza strip in particular faces chronic problems in regards to sustaining its’

freshwater resources and the challenge has been heightened, as problems with freshwater quality and

availability have multiplied and changed in response to the growing population and economic activities.


-2-

2. The expectation of a steady increase in water demand in Gaza, and the ensuring gap between the existing

resources and predicted demand will necessitate mobilization of additional water resources.

3. All Water Management projects focuses on demand and supply without using proper scientific approach.

4. The current water management schemes doesn't reflect the scientific concepts for IWRM

11..33 TTHHEESSIISS GGOOAALLSS AANNDD OOBBJJEECCTTIIVVEESS The goal of this research is the development of an integrated water resources management approach, which

will be capable of analyzing, evaluating the situation and proposing the priorities for investment in water

sector. The proposed approach should be applicable to the Gaza Strip as a case study to indicate the direction of

investment in the coming years.

1. As a result, the following objectives have been set:

2. 1. Pinpoint the needs for the water sector and outline the problem directive.

3. 2. Indicate the appropriate criteria affecting management options.

4. 3. Identify and rank the alternatives for water management.

11..44 RREESSEEAARRCCHH MMEETTHHOODDOOLLOOGGYY The research started with a literary review focused on water management strategy and integrated water

resources management. The literature review presented general concepts and basics of IWRM. It also reviews

general methods of problem definitions and indicators development. A multi method approach such as

driving force, pressure, state, impact and response model, multi criteria decision methods, have been applied

to the study to form a conceptual approach which leads to a decision making process in water resources

management. Since water is a critical and limited resource in Gaza, sustaining the freshwater resources of Palestine

presents a great challenge and opportunity for the country's scientific and technological communities. For this

reason, it was chosen to be a case study. By applying the conceptual approach, which was developed in the

theory, and by conducting interviews with key water professionals from different institutions, and

organization, management options for water resources for the Gaza Strip were ranked. The following figure illustrates the methodology process:


-3-

Figure (1.1): Outline of the Methodology

RReeccoommmmeennddaattiioonn && CCoonncclluussiioonn

Phas

e II

I: D

ecis

ion

M

akin

g Pr

oces

s

Phas

e II

: Ind

icat

ors D

evel

opm

ent

& P

robl

em S

truc

ture

DDrr ii

vv iinn gg

FFoo rr

cc ee

II mmpp aa

cc tt

SS ttaa tt

ee PP rr ee

ss ssuu rr

ee

RReessppoonnssee ((MMaannaaggeemmeenntt OOppttiioonnss))

EEvvaalluuaattiioonn CCrriitteerriiaa

IInntteerrvviieewwss wwiitthh WWaatteerr EExxppeerrtt

RRaannkkiinngg ooff tthhee OOppttiioonnss

MMCCAA && DDEEFFIINNIITTEE

PPhhaassee II:: OOvveerrvviieeww ooff tthhee CCuurrrreenntt SSiittuuttiioonn


-4-

11..55 TTHHEESSIISS OORRGGAANNIIZZAATTIIOONN

The thesis is composed of the following five chapters that cover the proposed subject as

illustrated below: Chapter One: Introduction

This chapter reviews the problem and objectives of the research. Chapter Two: Literature Review

This chapter reviews water resources management strategy and master plans, and its process formulation,

putting the water resources management strategy into context. That is followed by a summary of the IWRM

principles, characteristics, problems, and the IWRM components. The literature Review also presents the

international environmental approaches in problem definition, indicators development and a decision support

system (DSS) using multi- criteria decision-making (MCDM).

Chapter Three: Development of hierarchical approach for water management.

This chapter describes the developed hierarchical approaches for the IWRM and decision-making process.

Chapter Four: Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in

GAZA Strip. This chapter focuses on the core of the problem in the water sector in Gaza strip.

Chapter Five: Conclusions and Recommendations.

This chapter concludes the study approach and suggests recommendations according to the

research results.

Chapter (2) Literature Review

-5-

CHAPTER TWO Literatures Review

Water’s vital role in economic and social development makes it essential to have a strategy

to manage this resource. This chapter provides an overview of the aspects of water

resources management such as water management strategy, in addition to the concept of

integrated water resources management, its principles, characteristics, and components.

22..11 MMAASSTTEERR PPLLAANNSS AANNDD SSTTRRAATTEEGGIICC WWAATTEERR MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT

22..11..11 OOBBJJEECCTTIIVVEESS OOFF WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT SSTTRRAATTEEGGYY

The aim in formulating national water resources management strategy as in (World Bank,

1994) is “to provide measures to manage the resources in accordance with adopted goals

and policies”. The World Bank (1994) indicated that the final goals of national strategy do

not need to identify specific investment projects, although it may outline or provide broad

directions for an investment program. In addition, the water resources management

strategy should emphasize such aspects of water development as the necessary institutional

and human resources framework, and should address the medium- to long-term (5-30

years) issue of building or enhancing a country's water management capacity. Such a

strategy should incorporate the views of water resources stakeholders by including them in

the formulation process.

While the (FAO, 1996) describes the final strategy as "a domestic product that encourages

the commitment and ownership necessary for sustained economic development as well as

for the implementation of the water strategy and the success of individual projects and

investments".

22..11..22 SSTTRRAATTEEGGYY FFOORRMMUULLAATTIIOONN IINN CCOONNTTEEXXTT

In view of the fact that the strategic planning is an essential tool for a continuous process,

the (World Bank, 1994) illustrates an overall strategic planning cycle in Figure (2.1).

In figure (2.1), the development of objectives and key water policies provide the platform

from which as assessment and analysis of issues and evaluating options and presenting

choices is the next step. Both the examination of major issues and the evaluation of options

may reflect back on development objectives, as illustrated by the dotted lines in figure

(2.1). An important step in the strategic planning cycle is the implementation of the

strategy.


-6-

Figure (2.1): The Strategic Planning Cycle (World Bank, 1994)

22..11..33 OOVVEERRVVIIEEWW OOFF TTHHEE PPRROOCCEESSSS OOFF SSTTRRAATTEEGGYY FFOORRMMUULLAATTIIOONN Several critical elements should be in place prior to the beginning to formulate a water sector strategy.

Figure (2.2) shows the outlines of the stages and the main critical elements in the process.

FAO (1996) stated, “While it is important that policies be in place to guide the formulation

of strategy, the iterative nature of strategy formulation means that policies both guide the

process and can be revised by it. During either Phase 1 or Phase 2, or even after a strategy

has been adopted, policies may need to be adapted or clarified. The options presented to

decision-makers may include revising impractical or unrealistic policies”.


-7-

Figure (2.2): Stages and the Main Critical Elements in the Process (FAO, 1996)

22..11..44 SSTTRRAATTEEGGYY AANNDD MMAASSTTEERR PPLLAANN

The World Bank (1994) and FAO (1996) differentiated between water resources

management strategy and master plans that many countries have developed. They have

described master plans as investment or project-oriented. The product of a master plan is

often a specific set of investments to be made or projects to be undertaken. Master Plans

have a role to play in water resources management if they are viewed as an investment plan

that follows the accepted strategy, and should be placed firmly within the context of

development goals and key water-related policies. However, many countries' master plans

have not adequately considered the institutional and human resources frameworks that are

important in water management. Master Plans have often neglected the long-term issue of

building a country's water management capacity.

22..11..55 DDEEFFIINNIINNGG AANNDD IIMMPPLLEEMMEENNTTIINNGG WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSTTRRAATTEEGGYY AAPPPPRROOAACCHH

This goal is to ensure the sustainability of the water environment for multiple uses as an

integral part of a country's economic development process. The level of complexity of the

strategy will differ among countries, depending on their problems, resources, priorities,


-8-

and capacities. The World Bank (1993) indicated four main points that should be

considered when defining and implementing water resources strategy. They are:

11 AANNAALLYYTTIICCAALL FFRRAAMMEEWWOORRKK

“Water resources should be managed in the context of a national water strategy that

reflects the nation's social, economic, and environmental objectives and is based on an

assessment of the country's water resources. The assessment should include a realistic

forecast of the demand for water based on projected population growth and economic

development. A consideration of options for managing demand and supply, taking into

account existing investments and those likely to occur in the private sector is also

necessary. The strategy would spell out priorities for providing water services; establish

policies on water rights, water pricing and cost recovery, public investment, and the role of

the private sector in water development; and institute measures for environmental

protection and restoration” (World Bank, 1993).

22 PPUUBBLLIICC WWAATTEERR IINNVVEESSTTMMEENNTTSS

“Specific options for investment and development must consider the interrelations among different sources of

water. Surface and groundwater resources are physically linked, so their management and development

should also be linked. Land and water management activities as well as issues of quantity and quality need to

be integrated within basins or watersheds, so that upstream and downstream linkages are recognized and

activities in one part of the river basin take into account their impact on other parts. Investments in

infrastructure may displace people and disturb ecosystems. Thus, water resource assessments need to

consider these cross-sectoral implications”. (World Bank, 1996)

33 OOPPPPOORRTTUUNNIITTYY CCOOSSTT OOFF WWAATTEERR

It provides a measure of the scarcity value of water to society, thus highlighting any cross-

sectoral differences in value. Determining the opportunity cost about water requires an

analysis of, future demand, supply options, investment alternatives, and the economic costs

of pollution and other environmental damage. In turn, the opportunity cost can help to

guide the price structure for sales to decentralized distribution entities, to evaluate the

economic viability of investment proposals, to establish the magnitude of the penalties to

be imposed on polluters, and to guide cross-sectoral allocations of water. (Adopted from

World bank, 1996).


-9-

44 IINNFFOORRMMAATTIIOONN NNEEEEDDSS

In general, a long-term demand forecast, with a time horizon compatible with the type of

project, is needed, as are adequate assessments of water resources and environmental

impacts. Equally important are the current data concerning water supply and demand

conditions so critical for efficient day-to-day management. To meet this information needs.

The World Bank (1993) identified the following activities:

− Define information requirements for national water resources, taking into account the

multiple demands for water;

− Review institutional arrangements linking the providers and users of data;

− Identify and implement new mechanisms for funding hydrological services, where

such mechanisms are required to provide adequate financial resources;

− Select appropriate technologies for collecting data, particularly data on water quality

and on groundwater, and for implementing user-friendly data management systems;

− Establish national databanks for information on water resources; and

− Define the human resources needed for hydrological information systems and provide

education and training to meet those needs.

22..11..66 TTHHEE SSCCOOPPEE OOFF IINNTTEEGGRRAATTEEDD WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT

SSTTRRAATTEEGGYY

World Bank (2003) defined the scope of the water resources management strategy as it focuses on the

connections between resource use such as water supply & sanitation, irrigation and drainage, energy,

environmental services, and other uses. These include industry; navigation and service management that

would be include infrastructure management, institutional management, and political economy of water

management. So, through this scope the following topics should be addressed:

1. The institutional framework including the definition and establishment of laws,

rights and licenses; the responsibilities of different actors; and standards for water quality

and service provision (especially to the poor), for the environment, for land use

management and for the construction and management of infrastructure that affects the

quantity and quality of water resources.

2. The management instruments, including regulatory arrangements; financial

instruments; standards and plans; mechanisms for effective participation of stakeholders;

and knowledge and information systems that increase transparency, motivate effective


-10-

water allocation, use and conservation, and secure maintenance and physical sustainability

of the water resources systems. 3. The development and management of infrastructure for annual and multi-year flow regulation, for

floods and droughts, for multi-purpose storage, and for water quality and source protection. And the political

economy of water management and reform, in which there is particular emphasis on the distribution of

benefits and costs, and on the incentives that encourage or constrain more productive and sustainable

resource use.

22..22 IINNTTEEGGRRAATTEEDD WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT ((IIWWRRMM))

22..22..11 HHIISSTTOORRIICCAALL DDEEVVEELLOOPPMMEENNTTSS

The concept of IWRM has undergone a series of evolution and refinement over past few years. Originally the

approach was sub-sectoral, mostly in relation to water supply, sanitation and irrigation. Recently, however,

there is a growing consensus in the need for IWRM approaches. A number of important international

conferences have been milestones in that process as illustrated in the following:

− The need for careful and wise management of water resources was recognised in the

human and environment conference in Stockholm 1972.

− At the UN conference in Mar del Plata (1977), the emphasis was still on water supply

and sanitation.

− The Brundtland Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development

1987, only mentioned the word water in relation to pollution and water supply.

− It was during the preparatory meetings for the UN Conference on Environment and

Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, that the concepts of IWRM were

widely discussed and adopted by the international communities. (Savenije, 1999)

One of the problems of the international community is that there is no UN organisation that

deals specifically with water resources. The water interest is fragmented over many

different organisations such as UNDP, UN/DPCSD, WMO, FAO, UNESCO, WHO,

UNEP and UNICEF.

Important steps in the process towards more co-ordination have been the formation of the

Global Water Partnership (GWP) and the World Water Council (WWC), who both have

the aim to coordinate the implementation of IWRM principles and practices worldwide.

Although there is undoubtedly some overlap between the two organisations, the WWC

concentrates on awareness raising at political levels, whereas the GWP aims at the

implementation of IWRM concepts and practises at the technical and operational levels.


-11-

Both these organizations and main international players such as the World Bank and

UNDP emphasise the need for regional and national capacity building in the water sector.

22..22..22 PPRRIINNCCIIPPLLEESS AANNDD TTHHEEOORRIIEESS IINN TTHHEE IIWWRRMM

Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) has become a critical issue because

both population and economy are growing, bringing an increasing demand for freshwater

along with an increase in pollution due to human activities. Whereas the amount of

available water in the hydrological cycle remains constant, this increasing demand for

freshwater resources results in increased competition for the limited water resources. Water resources development and management should be planned in an integrated manner, taking into

account long-term planning needs as well as those with narrower horizons. They should incorporate

environmental, economic and social considerations based on the principle of sustainability; include the

requirements of all users as well as those relating to the prevention and mitigation of water-related hazards;

and constitute an integral part of the socio-economic development planning process

The role of water as a social, economic, and life-sustaining good should be reflected in demand management

mechanisms and implemented through water conservation and reuse, resource assessment, and financial

instruments.

22..22..33 IIWWRRMM DDEEFFIINNIITTIIOONN

A number of authors have written about integrated water management have tried to put

forward some of them. Generally, they approach the facets of integration from different

vantage points.

"IWRM deals with problems that cut across elements of hydrologic cycle, that transcend

the boundaries among water, land and environment, and that interrelate water with broader

policy questions associated with regional economic development and environmental

management". (Mitchell, 1990)

"IWRM is a framework for planning, organizing and controlling water systems to balance

all relevant views and goals of stakeholders". (Grigg, 1999)

"IWRM is a process, which promotes the coordinated development and management of

water, land and related resources, in order to maximize the resultant economic and social

welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of the vital

ecosystems". (GWP-TAC, 2000a)

22..22..44 DDIIMMEENNSSIIOONNSS OOFF IIWWRRMM

Van der Zaag (2001) said "Integrated water resources management seeks to manage the

water resources in a comprehensive and holistic way. Hence, engineering, economic,


-12-

social, ecological and legal aspects need to be considered, as well as quantitative and

qualitative aspects, and supply and demand. Moreover, also the management cycle such as

planning, monitoring, operation & maintenance, needs to be consistent". It, therefore, has

to consider the water resources from a number of different dimensions. Due to the nature

of water, integrated water resources management has to take into account of the following

four dimensions and illustrated in figure (2.3) and as stated in Savenije (2000):

1. The water resources, taking the entire hydrological cycle into account

2. The water users, all sectoral interests and stakeholders

3. The spatial scale, which includes the spatial distribution of water resources , uses and

the various spatial scales at which water is being managed, as the individual user, user

groups, watershed, catchments, international basin; and the institutional arrangements

that exist at these various scales

4. The temporal scale: taking into account the temporal variation in availability of and

demand for water resources, but also the physical structures that have been built to even

out fluctuations and to better match the supply with demand.

Figure (2.3): Dimensions of Integrated Water Resources Management.(Savenije H.H.G.,

2000)

22..22..55 IINNTTEEGGRRAATTEEDD WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT CCHHAARRAACCTTEERRIISSTTIICCSS

1. IWRM is a balancing process among other things; it coordinates the development and

management of water and other related resources, with the objective of attaining water

security and sustainability. (GWP, 2002)

2. IWRM is an iterative method, in which implementing one policy or management tool

may result in the need to modify others. It requires vision and political will to


-13-

introduce, but with careful consultation and preparation can bring rich rewards.

Because water is pervasive throughout the economy, almost all-national economic and

social policies could have major impacts on water use. (GWP, 2002)

3. IWRM is a process of change from unsustainable to sustainable resource management.

4. IWRM promotes a holistic view, where it looks at the entire hydrological cycle and the

interaction of water with other natural and socio-economic systems. The same water

can serve many different purposes, in different places. However, the planning and

operation of water systems is usually fragmented, causing a lack of co-ordination,

waste and conflict. Moreover, water is frequently neglected when decisions are made

about crop patterns, trade and energy policies, and urban design and planning, all of

which are critical determinants of water demand. The sustainable use of the resource

calls for the creation of institutions and systems that can transcend these traditional

boundaries.

5. Integration: IWRM is based on perception of water as an integral part of the ecosystem,

a natural resource and a social and economic good, whose quantity and quality

determine the nature of its utilization. The integration approach has to incorporate

policy options that recognize these element, develop national water polices and to base

the demand for the allocation of water resources on equity and efficient use (Al Radif,

1999)

6. Economic value: The concept of water as an economic good is distinguished clearly

between the value of water, the allocation processes, and pricing, which are a part of

the cost recovery issue. The economic value of water is highlighted within the IWRM

through a greater stress on demand management rather than supply-side actions, a

recognition (and estimation where possible) of the economic value of water in different

uses, acceptance of the notion of opportunity cost (what is lost to other uses from

taking it for a particular purpose) and attention to cost recovery, though with concern

for affordability and securing access for the poor. (GWP, 2000b)


-14-

Figure (2.4): Flow Chart of Integrated Water Resource Management. (Al Radif, 1999)

22..22..66 DDUUBBLLIINN PPRRIINNCCIIPPLLEESS

The IWRM derives its principles from the Dublin principles, which were created at the

international conference on water and environment (ICWE) in Dublin in 1992.

The Dublin principles are:

5. 1. Freshwater is a finite and vulnerable resource, essential to sustain life,

development and the environment,

6. 2. Water development and management should be based on a participatory

approach, involving users, planners and policy-makers at all levels,

7. 3. Women play a central part in the provision, management and safeguarding

of water,

8. 4. Water has an economic value in all its competing uses and should be

recognized as an economic good.

22..22..77 IINNTTEEGGRRAATTEEDD WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT CCOOMMPPOONNEENNTTSS

While in figure (2.3) the water IWRM deals with water resources in the broadest possible

manner. It has to look at water resources in the context of the entire economic-, social- and


-15-

Eco-systems of the nation or region. Operationally this means that policies and programs in

other resource areas have to be carefully analyzed to see how they will influence demands

placed upon the water sector.

Hence, IWRM is the process of balancing and making trade-offs, in a practical

scientifically sound way, between:

− Economic efficiency in water use: because of the increasing scarcity of water and

financial resources, the finite and vulnerable nature of water as a resource, and the

increasing demands upon it, water must be used with maximum possible economic

efficiency in order to ensure social welfare and contribute to the elimination of

poverty;

− Social justice and equity concerns: the basic right for all people to have access to water

of adequate quantity and quality for the sustenance of human well being must be

universally recognized;

− Environmental and ecological sustainability: the present use of the resource should be

managed in a way that sustains the vital life-support systems, thereby not

compromising use by future generations of the same resource. (adopted from

GWP,2000)

− For successful implementation of IWRM process, concurrent development and

strengthening of three elements is needed: an enabling environment, appropriate

institutional roles, and practical management instruments as illustrated in the following

figure below.

Figure (2.5): Component of IWRM (GWP, 2000b)


-16-

11 IINNTTEEGGRRAATTEEDD WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT

SSTTRRUUCCTTUURREE

The Global water partnership identified the toolbox of integrated water resources

management, which compromised in the three main elements, as shown in figure (2.6), and

can be summarized in the following :

Figure (2.6): Structure of IWRM

A Enabling Environment The enabling environment comprises national, provincial and local policies and legislation. These constitute

the ‘rules of the game’, which enable all stakeholders to play their respective roles.

1. Polices – Setting goals for water use, protection and conservation. Policy development

gives an opportunity for setting national objectives for managing water resources and

water service delivery within a framework of overall development objectives.

2. Legislative framework – the rules to follow to achieve policies and goals. This

includes tools for use in the development of water law. Water law covers the

ownership of water, the permits to use (or pollute) it, the transferability of those

Polices

Legislative Framework

Financing And Incentive Structures

The Enabling Enviroment

Creating An Organizational Framework

Building Institutional Capacity

Insitutional Roles

Water Resources Asessment

Plans for IWRM

Efficieny In Water Use

Social Change Instruments

Conflict Resolution

Regulatory Instruments

Economic Instruments

Information Exchange

Management instruments

STRUCTURE OF INTEGRATED WATERRESOURCES MANAGEMENT


-17-

permits, and customary entitlements and underpin regulatory norms for as

conservation, protection, and priorities.

3. Financing and incentive structures – allocating financial resources to meet water needs.

The financing needs of the water sector are huge, water projects tend to be indivisible

and capital intensive, and many countries have major backlogs in developing water

infrastructure.

B Institutional Roles

Regarding governing and institutional roles, clear delineation of responsibilities between

actors, separation of regulation from service provision functions, adequate coordination

mechanisms, filling jurisdictional gaps, eliminating overlaps and matching responsibilities

both to authority and to capacities for action are all parts of institutional development.

1. Creating an organizational framework – forms and functions. Starting from the concept

of reform of institutions for better water governance, to the needed organizations and

institutions, from trans-boundary organizations and agreements, basin organizations,

regulatory bodies, to local authorities, civil society organizations and partnerships.

2. Institutional capacity building – developing human resources. This includes tools for

upgrading the skills and understanding of public decision- makers, water managers and

professionals, for regulatory bodies and capacity building for empowerment of civil

society groups. (GWP, 2003)

C Management Instrument The practical management tools required will vary from situation to situation. One of the central IWRM

challenges is to find the right mix of management tools. Such tools range from water resources assessment,

demand management, social change instruments, conflict management, regulatory instruments, economic

instruments and information and communication instruments. This calls for capacity building to nurture,

enhance and utilize the skills and capabilities of human resources and institutions at all levels so that they can

function effectively and contribute significantly to the attainment of the goal set out for IWRM.

9. 1. Water resources assessment – understanding resources and needs.

Assessment starts with the collection of hydrological, physiographic, demographic and

socio-economic data, and setting up systems for routine data assembly and reporting.

10. 2. Plans for IWRM – combining development options, resource use and

human interaction. The planning should recognize the need for parallel action plans for

development of the management structures.


-18-

11. 3. Demand management – using water more efficiently. Demand management

involves a set of tools for balancing supply and demand focusing on the better use of

existing water withdrawals or reducing excessive use rather than developing new supplies.

12. 4. Social change instruments – encouraging a water-oriented civil society.

Information is a powerful tool for changing behavior in the water world, through school

curricula, university watercourses and professional and mid-career training. Transparency

and product labeling are other key aspects.

13. 5. Conflict resolution – managing disputes, ensuring sharing of water. Conflict

management has a separate compartment here since conflict is endemic in the management

of water in many countries and several resolution models are described

14. 6. Regulatory instruments – allocation and water use limits. A set of tools on

regulation is included covering water quality, service provision, land use and water

resource protection. Regulations are key for implementing plans and policies and can

fruitfully be combined with economic instruments.

15. 7. Economic instruments – using value and prices for efficiency and equity.

This holds a set of economic tools involving cost effectiveness and cost benefit for water

resources to meet appropriate demand for water users. In addition to the use of different

prices and other market-based measures to provide incentives to consumers and to all

water users to use water carefully, efficiently and avoid pollution

16. 8. Information management and exchange– improving knowledge for better

water management. Data sharing methods and technologies increase stakeholder access to

information stored in public domain data banks and effectively complement more

traditional methods of public information (GWP, 1999).

22..33 MMOODDEELLSS OOFF DDEEVVEELLOOPPIINNGG IINNDDIICCAATTOORRSS FFOORR SSUUSSTTAAIINNAABBLLEE

WWAATTEERR MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT

22..33..11 IINNTTRROODDUUCCTTIIOONN

The popularization of the concepts of sustainability, and sustainable development has

continued since the publication of Brundtland Commission’s report (WCED, 1987), which

focuses on meeting the needs of both current and future generations. Development is

sustainable if it meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future

generations to meet their own needs.


-19-

Presently the definition most often used of sustainable development is: the ability of the

present generation to utilize its natural resources without putting at risk the ability of future

generations to do likewise.

ASCE (1998) and UNESCO (1999) described the sustainable water resource systems as

those designed and managed to fully contribute to the objectives of society, now and in the

future, while maintaining their ecological, environmental, and hydrological integrity.

While UNDP (1998) stated "It could be said that sustainable water management is

management that meets current needs without compromising the ability of future

generations to meet their own needs both for water supplies and for a healthy aquatic

environment". In addition, Koudstaal et al (1992) said, "Because sustainability is a

function of various economic, environmental, ecological, social, and physical goals and

objectives, water resources management must inevitably involve multi-objective trade off

in a multidisciplinary and multi-participatory decision-making process. Increasing

attention must be placed on demand management as well as supply-side alternatives. In

terms of freshwater supplies, two main options are available to address water demand.

Improving institutional and financial arrangements that make water services more tuned to

demand that stimulate conservation and improve cost recovery.

The core of sustainable water resources management is the balance between supply and

demand of water related goods and services".

22..33..22 SSUUSSTTAAIINNAABBIILLIITTYY IINNDDIICCAATTOORRSS In recent years, considerable attention has been focused on development of sustainability indicators.

Although there is a rapidly developing literature on the use of sustainability indicators, there are different

definitions of what an indicator is and different understandings of the primary roles of indicators. There are

also varying opinions on the use of quantitative versus qualitative indicators, and on who is to identify

indicators. Whether this should be by experts on scientific basis, or communities themselves on a more

cultural and local knowledge basis, or through a combination of the two.

Gallopin (1997) surveys a wide range of literature and reports that in different sources an environmental

indicator has been identified as a variable, a parameter, a measure, a statistical measure, a proxy, a value, a

meter or measuring instrument, a fraction, an index, something a piece of information, a single quantity, an

empirical model, a sign.

Smyth and Dumanski (1993) define indicators as environmental attributes that measure or reflect

environmental status or condition of change, Glen and Pannell (1998) argue that an indicator is a quantitative

measure against which some aspects of policy performance or management strategy can be assessed. This

role of quantification assigned by many authors is not universally accepted, since some authors regard

qualitative indicators as valid tools.


-20-

In general, an indicator quantifies and simplifies phenomena and helps us understand complex realities. It

tells us something about changes in a system.

The most common definition of indicator is a parameter, or a value derived from parameters, which points

to/provides information about/describes the state of a phenomenon/environment/area with a significance

extending beyond that directly associated with a parameter value.

-- CCRRIITTEERRIIAA FFOORR IINNDDIICCAATTOORR SSEELLEECCTTIIOONN

Definitions are numerous, and it is perhaps more useful to identify the uses and desirable

properties of indicators. Following Tunstall (1992) and Tunstall (1994), Gallopin (1997)

identifies major functions of indicators as:

− To assess conditions and changes;

− To compare across place and situations;

− To assess conditions and trends in relation to goals and targets;

− To provide early warning information; and, to anticipate future conditions and trends

Frequently, studies on sustainability assessment and the development of indicators produce

long lists of indicators. These often reflect the number and technical background of those

developing the lists, and tend to become lists of what people would like to know, and not

necessarily need to know. It is therefore essential to keep the actual number of indicators to

the minimum sufficient to reflect the different dimensions or aspects of sustainability.

22..33..33 CCOONNCCEEPPTTUUAALL FFRRAAMMEEWWOORRKKSS FFOORR PPRROOBBLLEEMM OORRIIEENNTTEEDD AAPPPPRROOAACCHHEESS AANNDD UUSSEE OOFF

IINNDDIICCAATTOORRSS

Several sets of methodological frameworks or guidelines have been identified for the

measurement of sustainability indicators. These have all tended to come from an approach

focused sustainable management. The United Nations, World Bank, OECD (Organization

for Economic Cooperation and Development), European Environment Agency (EEA), and

many other organizations and national governments are currently producing indicators or

proposed indicators of sustainable development. Different framework for developing

indicators is reviewed below

11 CCAAUUSSEE EEFFFFEECCTT AANNDD PPRREESSSSUURREE--SSTTAATTEE--

RREESSPPOONNSSEE FFRRAAMMEEWWOORRKK

Early Causal frameworks for environmental statistics were generally intended as the

physical basis for comprehensive environmental/resource accounts, which could be linked


-21-

to the UN System of National Accounts (SNA). Resource accounting seeks to trace the

flow of natural resources through their life cycle from harvesting/extraction to disposal and

environmental impacts. The PSR framework, illustrated in Figure (2.7), was developed

from the stress-response framework, which was applied to ecosystems by Friend and

Rapport in 1979. OECD, SCOPE (Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment)

and some other organizations working in the field, uses this framework. The PSR

framework is the most widely accepted many frameworks advocated. Having been adopted

by the OECD for its State of the Environment (SoE) group, the European Commission’s

indicator development also uses the PSR approach.

Pressure refers to human activities that exert a pressure on the environment and

State is the change of its quality and the quality and quantity of natural resources.

The response is the society reaction to the changes through environmental, general

economic and sect oral policies.

The OECD acknowledges that the PSR framework has an implicit notion of causality

within it since it tends to suggest linear relationships in the human activity-environment

interaction. Unhappiness with this idea that (negative) pressure causes changes in the

environment, which prompts society’s responses, is one of the motivations for the

development of the driving force-state-response (DSR) framework below discussed.

Figure (2.7): P-S-R Concept (OECD, 1993)

Pressure State Response

Indirect resources

Human activities • energy • transport • Industry

State of the environment & natural resources

Conditions & trends:

• Air, water • Land & soil • Wildlife • Natural resources

Economic & environmental

agents Administrations • households • enterprises • national

Direct Pressures

Pollutant & waste

Resource use

Information

Decisions actions

Information

Decision / actions


-22-

22 TTHHEE DDRRIIVVIINNGG FFOORRCCEE--SSTTAATTEE--RREESSPPOONNSSEE ((DDSSRR))

CCOONNCCEEPPTT

The DSR model (OECD, 1996) focuses on the human activities that create pressures (the

earlier name was Pressure-State-Response Model). These activities create positive or

negative forces, which change the quality and quantity of the natural resource base of air,

water, soil, flora and fauna, and non-renewable resources. Information on the state of that

resource base, reinforced or weakened by the valuation of the society of environmental

values, leads to a societal response. Society responds to this information through

environmental, general economic and sectoral policies. Changes in these policies will

generally change the incentives to use certain technologies, for example, pollution

mitigation. Linking these three major components of the DSR model are information

linkages between pressures and responses, between the state and the pressures, and from

the state to the response.

Some organizations prefer variants of the PSR model; for example, the UN Commission

for Sustainable Development (UNCSD) bases its indicator set on the Driving force-State-

Response model (DSR) model, which allows for a better inclusion of non-environmental

variables (UNCSD, 1996). The replacement of the term “pressure” in the PSR framework

by the term “driving force” was motivated by the desire to include economic, social and

institutional aspects of sustainable development.

This adjustment was deemed necessary when one shifts from a consideration of

environmental indicators to these indicators plus the state of the human subsystem

(Gallopin, 1997). The extension of the focus to all aspects of sustainable development

(social, economic, environmental and institutional) is argued to be particularly important

for developing countries for which an equal balance between the developmental and

environmental aspects of sustainable development is important in order to ensure future

sustainable growth patterns. Another aspect of the DSR framework, which separates it

from its predecessor, is that there is no assumption of causality between indicators in each

of the categories. “The term ‘driving force’ indicates an impact on sustainable

development. This impact can be both positive and negative, which is not the case for the

pressure category used by the OECD”. (Mortensen, 1997). “Driving force indicators

represent human activities, processes and patterns that have an impact on sustainable

development” (Mortensen, 1997).


-23-

The World Bank adopted the DSR framework in its work on indicators of environmentally

sustainable development, although in 1997 it published ‘World Development Indicators’

which used the PSR framework.

33 TTHHEE DDRRIIVVIINNGG FFOORRCCEE--PPRREESSSSUURREE--SSTTAATTEE--IIMMPPAACCTT--

RREESSPPOONNSSEE ((DDPPSSIIRR)) CCOONNCCEEPPTT

The Driving force-Pressure-State-Impact-

Response (DPSIR) model is an extension of the

PSR (Pressure-State-Response) model, the DPSIR

model has been adopted as the most appropriate

structure environmental information by most

Member States of the European Union and by

international organizations dealing with

environmental information, such as Eurostat, the

European Environment Agency (Eurostat, 1999).

Figure (2.8): DPSIR Concept (Feas, 2003)

According to this framework, a chain of causality exists from Driving forces over

Pressures to environmental State and Impacts on human welfare, finally leading to

political Responses.

The advantage of DPSIR compared to DSR is the more clearly separation of driving forces

and pressures. Like DSR the DPSIR concept do include the possibility for indicators

describing aspects of social sustainability, for example, health risks related to pollution

(State-Impact relationships). Aspects of sustainable development which is not directly

related to sectors but causes pressures, e.g. human population growth, social structure,

cultural attitudes etc., are to be included as driving forces, too.

44 PPOOLLIICCYY LLIIFFEE--CCYYCCLLEE CCOONNCCEEPPTT

According to Winsemius (1986), within environmental problems (for instance issues

concerning groundwater systems), four stages are practically always distinguishable:

problem recognition, policy formulation, policy implementation- and results’ evaluation.

In the first stage, the question for discussion is whether there is a true environmental

problem. There is probably much discord among politicians, or between politicians and the


-24-

public. With growing sight on the problem, admission grows and there is less discord and

more agreement on the political weight of the problem.

The second stage is a policy formulation stage, which will lead to a solution of the

problems.

In the third stage, the policy is implemented and measures are executed to solve the

problem.

The fourth stage is characterized by the control of the solved, or nearly solved,

environmental problem.

Figure (2.9): Four Stages of the Policy-Life Cycle Weight (Winsemius, 1986)

When using the policy life-cycle concept in environmental management, it is necessary to develop indicators

for different stages. Within a given problem area such as groundwater pollution, the desired type of indicator

will change over time and so will the type of data required.

The first and second stages require rough data to recognize the problem and the causal coherence. The third

and fourth stages require data that are more precise and operational indicators to select the most effective

measures and to quantify their effect (Van der Grift B., & Van Dael, J.G.F., 1999).

The different policy stages and indicator requirements are given in following table (2.1).

Table (2.1): Policy |Stages and Indicators Requirements Demands of the indicator Management stage

Sensitive to stress, quick response, shows trends over a long

time

Problem identification

Possibility to evaluate and to make prognosis of cost/profit

analysis of different policy-options

Policy development

Possibility to compare the present situation with the target

situation

Policy implementation, control and

evaluation


-25-

55 TTHHEE FFUUNNCCTTIIOONN--IISSSSUUEE TTAABBLLEE AAPPPPRROOAACCHH A classification of water resources problems and threats in relation to functions and uses is an important

management step towards sustainable resources. Water quality and water quantity can be judged by

standards, which are based on the functions/uses of the water resources. This is an important benefit of

classifying functions.

In a non-classified, multi-functional approach of water resources management, all water systems have to

fulfill the highest composed quality and quantity standard, even when those high standards are not necessary

for the particular use of the water resources.

After classification of the issues and functions of the water system, the next step is to link these with each

other, in order to identify which combination of issues and functions conflict with each other. This linkage is

given in Table 2.2: the function-issue table. A "*" in Table (2.2) means that the function of the groundwater

system is conflicting with the pressures caused by the matched issues. For instance for groundwater the

linkage is given in next Table (2.2): the function-issue table. A "*" in Table (2.2) means that the function of

the groundwater system is conflicting with the pressures caused by the matched issues. (B. Van der Grift , &

J.G.F. Van Dael ,1999).

Table (2.2): Example of Function – Issue Table Functions

Issue Drinking

water

Industrial water Agricultural

water

Nature

Acidification * * * *

Excess nutrients * * * *

Salinization * * * *

66 SSIIMMIILLAARRIITTIIEESS AANNDD DDIIFFFFEERREENNCCEESS IINN TTHHEE UUSSEE OOFF

CCOONNCCEEPPTTUUAALL MMOODDEELLSS The previous sections present three basic concepts for the development of indicators e.g. the function-issue-

table, the DPSIR-concept and the policy life cycle. All three of them are used for the specification of

information needs and the development of tailor-made indicators for groundwater Management. The

similarities and differences of these concepts are shown in table (2.3).


-26-

Table (2.3): Similarities and Differences of Different Concepts (Indicator Branch, 1994) Function-issue-table Management lifecycle DPSIR-concept

First impression of information

needs

Further specification of

information needs

Further specification of

information needs

Links information needs to

standards which indicates fitness

for use of groundwater resources


decision making process

(management level) and

execution of measures

(operational level)


nature and origin of

environmental problems that

stresses the fitness for use of

groundwater resources

Combined with the function-

issue-table gives an indicator

framework

Catchword: fitness for use Catchword: management and

problem solving

Catchword: causality chain

22..33..44 DDIIFFFFEERREENNTT IINNTTEERRNNAATTIIOONNAALL SSUUSSTTAAIINNAABBIILLIITTYY IINNDDIICCAATTOORRSS

This section review different set of developed environmental and water-related indicators.

1. DSR Framework of Sustainable Development Indicators For CSD:

1. The Commission on Sustainable Development of the United Nations (UNCSD), 1996

published a working list of indicators on Sustainable Development that are structured

according to the Driving Force-State-Response model. The list follows the chapters

of agenda 21and can be seen a flexible list from which countries can choose

indicators according to their priorities and targets. The indicators cover social,

economic, environmental and institutional aspects of sustainable development and

mostly refer to a national or country level. (All indicators according to paper

published from UNCSD on 2001 listed on table (1.1), appendix (1)

2. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 1994, has

developed a set of more than 200 indicators that measure environmental performance

and progress towards sustainable development. The indicators are organized by

issues including climate change, air pollution, and biodiversity, waste and water

resources and structured according to the PSR model. The OECD work focuses

primarily on indicators to be used on national and international level. The water

related core indicators are subdivided into freshwater quality indicators and

indicators for water resources. The key set of Water-related indicators is listed in

appendix (1) table (1.2)


-27-

3. The European System of Environmental Pressure Indices (EPI) has been developed

in order to describe human activities that have a negative impact on the environment

in the European Union. 48 indicators were defined structured according to the

DPSIR-approach, including several connected to water. The Environmental

Sustainability Index (ESI) measures overall progress towards environmental

sustainability in five core components and comprised a total number of 69

environmentally related indicators. Appendix (1), Table (1.3) shows directly water-

related indicators of the European System of Environmental Pressure Indices.

4. The Mediterranean Commission on Sustainable Development (MCSD) has the target

to provide a tool to measure progress to sustainable development in the

Mediterranean countries. For that reason, a set of 130 indicators structured according

to the PSR-approach was developed by its activity center called “Plan Bleu pour

l'environnement et le développement en Méditerranée” (Blue Plan for the

Environment and Development in the Mediterranean), 40 among them were adopted

from the UNCSD working list of indicators. (Appendix (1), Table (1.4))

5. The Water Framework Directive (WFD) established a framework for the protection

of inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater. The

WFD classification methodology approaches water resources from an environmental

perspective, and determine different levels of classification of water bodies to

establishing macro-scale eco-regions. (Appendix1)


-28-

22..44 DDEECCIISSIIOONN SSUUPPPPOORRTT SSYYSSTTEEMMSS ((DDSSSS)) Normally, the quality of a decision is considered with regard to either the decision process (or its

appropriateness) or/and the characteristics of the choice. The decisions made under uncertainty integrate the

decision-maker’s attitude towards negative decision outcomes. The decision outcomes in such a case depend

on the future conditions. In order to select the most appropriate program of measures, the water authorities

often have to consider:

− Multiple conflicting objectives (e.g. the economic development of a region vs.

conserving water quality),

− Uncertainty afflicting the measures’ predicted outcomes,

− A variety of persons involved and their problem views, and

− The spatio-temporal distribution of the decision outcomes.

In these situations, the holistic (unaided) way to decision making is often beyond the

cognitive ability of the decision makers. Decision theory is designed to support decision-

makers dealing with such unstructured or semi-structured decision problems. The formal

approach of decision theory, which analyses subjective utility and measures goal

satisfaction achieved by decision alternatives, makes the decision more transparent and

consistent (i.e. rational), and allows multiple decision-makers and stakeholders responsible

for or affected by the decision to communicate their positions and compromise their

expectations (Mystic, 2003). The ranks of alternatives yielded by different decision

methods can differ significantly, especially when the number of alternatives and criteria

increase. The variation of results obtained when a decision-maker uses two or more

decision methods may be as large as the variation of rank orders obtained when different

people use the same decision method. Moreover, the way a decision situation is structured

may be the cause of further disagreements. Different criteria arrangements (e.g.

hierarchically and non-hierarchically organized criteria) may lead to different preferences.

(Hobbs, B. GF. and Meier, P. M.1994).

22..44..11 MMCCDDMM LLIITTEERRAATTUURREE RREEVVIIEEWW Multiple criteria problems in general have received different approaches throughout history and different

authors have been using multiple approaches and several methods for more than half a century. In that

period, multiple criteria analysis has received “different names” such as Multi-Criteria Decision Making

(MCDM), Multi-Criteria Evaluation (MCE), Multi-Attribute Utility (MAU), and Multi-Objective

Programming (MOP). Similarly, there have been numerous approaches to “solve problems” when multiple

criteria are involved in the decision-making process, among those: operations research techniques, fuzzy


-29-

preference analysis, choice rules, ranking rules, outranking methods, and frequency techniques have been

widely used and tested.

22 AATTTTRRIIBBUUTTEESS,, OOBBJJEECCTTIIVVEESS,, GGOOAALLSS AANNDD CCRRIITTEERRIIAA Decision-making has used numerous names to define similar concepts. Zeleny (1982) states that when people

talk about decision criteria, they also talk about yardsticks, “Measures of effectiveness,” “standards,”

“gauges,” “principles,” “norms,” “rules,” and even models. They look and attempt for “goals,” “targets,”

“aims,” “aspirations,” “objects,” “objectives,” “ends,” “intents”, “purposes,” “missions,” and “ambitions”.

Similarly, people portray and categorize the reality in terms of “characteristics,” “aspects,” “properties,”

“qualities,” “distinctions,” “attribute,” “traits,” and “cues.”

A comparison of attributes, objectives, goals and criteria is shown in Table (2.4). The understanding of this is

important to be able to differentiate MCDM, MAU and MOP.

Table (2.4): Differences among Attributes, Objectives, Goals and Criteria

Criteria Goals Objectives Attributes

Measures, rules,

and standards that

guide decision

making

Identifiable with a

decision maker’s

needs and desires.

Directions of

improvement

based on

attributes.

Description of

reality. It may be

objective or

subjective

characteristics of the

outside world.

Def

initi

on

Therefore, Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) is related to the solution of problems

that involve multiple attributes, objectives and goals. Multi-Attribute Utility (MAU) deals

with how to construct objectives from attributes, or in other words how to achieve an

objective of utility maximization. Multi-Objective Programming (MOP) explores problem

with different objectives; it does not to seek a higher level of objective functions. In addition to the previous definition, Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) could be also defined as the

numeric techniques- discrete mathematics- to help decision makers chose among a discrete set of alternative

decisions (Triantaphyllou, 1997). This section will expand on different methods used by MCDM theory that

are relevant to the study of low-income labor market.

33 MMUULLTTIICCRRIITTEERRIIAA SSOOLLVVIINNGG MMEETTHHOODDOOLLOOGGIIEESS

According to Saaty (1996), there are two parts to the multicriteria problem: how to

measure what is known as intangibles, and how to combine their measurements to produce

an overall preference or ranking. Saaty (1996) presents four major approaches or

methodologies to crack multicriteria problems.


-30-

First, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) that is a utility and value theory of economics

based on the use of lottery comparisons.

The second approach is probabilistic, based on Bayesian Theory.

Third, Outranking Method based on ordinal comparison of concordance and discordance.

And fourth, Goal programming that is basically a modified version of Linear

Programming.

44 AADDVVAANNTTAAGGEESS AANNDD DDIISSAADDVVAANNTTAAGGEESS According to (Voogd, 1983), multicriteria evaluation methods have positive and negative sides. Table (2.5)

reviews for a summary of this.

Table (2.5): Summary of Advantages and Disadvantages of Multicriteria Methods. Disadvantages Advantages

Arrive at a surveyable classification of actual

information

Get a better insight into the various value

judgments It may lead to a disclosure of policy intentions

Incorporate differences in interests and/or views in

an analytical research framework

It gives a more substance view of the concept of

openness of a planning process

Arrive at a reduction of the available information

Arrive at substantially better considered decisions

Methods may be too complex to be understood by

non- experts

Arrive to a better position of the expert in the

planning process

It allows to account or justify policy decisions

The opinion making process could be manipulated It allows to structure research contributions in a

planning process

55 CCHHAALLLLEENNGGEESS In order to approach the challenges that one may encounter, different strategies to approach multi-criteria

problems that researchers such as Saaty (1996), and others have presented. See Table (2.6) for a summary of

those strategies.

Table (2.6): Strategies to Multi-Criteria Projects Approach (Juan, 2002)

Strategy Author


-31-

Strategy Author

Theory of the analytic hierarchy process

Utility and value theory of economics based on the use of

lottery comparisons

Bayesian theory based on probabilities

Outranking method based on ordinal comparison of

concordance and discordance

Goal programming

Saaty (1996)

Criterion weights

1. Ranking

2. Rating

3. Pairwise comparison

4. Trade-off analysis

Malczewski (1999)

Fuzzy set theory Martinetti (2000)

Frequency based Brandolini and D’Alessio

(1999)

Logarithm function Cerioli and Zani (1990)

Linear weighted combination Pullar (1997)

22..44..22 UUNNCCEERRTTAAIINNTTIIEESS A number of uncertainties are inherent in the decision making process. These can be classified as follows:

− Uncertainties in expert opinions

− Uncertainties in decision making

− Uncertainties associated with the DM

In general and the entire decision, making process has a number of uncertainties that can

be classified as follows:

17. 1. Uncertainties in expert opinion refer to the inherent uncertainties when

estimating the impacts of a given set of action on a water resources system. The

environmental, social, esthetical and other consequences of a given water management

intervention cannot be predicted with certainty. MAUT (multi Attribute utility theory)

cope with uncertainties.

18. 2. Uncertainties in the decision making process refer to the individual and

societal consequences.

19. 3. Finally, uncertainties that are related to the decision maker can have a large

influence on the selection of alternatives; situations might occur in which the DM is not

able or unwilling to determine the relative importance of the evaluation criteria.


-32-

20.

22..44..33 SSEENNSSIITTIIVVIITTYY AANNAALLYYSSIISS One way to deal with uncertainties is to use a sensitivity analysis that is aimed at investigating the sensitivity

of the objectives. Typically, the criterion outcome is computed for number of weights and the range of

possible variation of the weights is determined. The objective of a sensitivity analysis is to find out how the

output of the MCDM procedure (i.e. the recommendation of an alternative) is affected by the DM’s

preference.

Alternatively, a certain problem can be solved using an average weighting and the result can be compared

with the one reflecting the preferences initially assigned. In many cases, a degree of confidence for each

criterion is specified for a given preference value.

Chapter (3) Decision Making Process for Development of Conceptual Approach for IWRM

-33-

CHAPTER THREE Decision Making Process for Development of Conceptual

Approach for IWRM

33..11 IINNTTRROODDUUCCTTIIOONN This chapter focuses on developing a conceptual approach for the IWRM, which could be applied to semi –

arid countries such as the Gaza Strip. This model is derived form basics, principles, and frameworks that

were reviewed in the previous chapter taking into consideration all parameters, aspects that could affect water

management in the Gaza Strip.

The conceptual model should be used to assess the current situation emphasizing major

problems of water resources management and should provide indicators for selected

actions under each potential availability and demand. The process of decision-making is ameliorated by a multi-criteria method for the ranking of the management

options of water resources.

The main goal is to suggest a reliable and scientifically supported methodology, which

could be characterized by minimum subjectivity.

33..22 GGEENNEERRAALL HHEEIIRRAARRCCHHIIAALL AAPPPPRROOAACCHH FFOORR IIWWRRMM

The target of this research is the development of water management decision-making

approach for synthesizing water management scenarios applicable to the Gaza Strip in

particular. The proposed approach for solving the problems utilizes several steps to

compromise them. It identifies the problems, and looks for solutions of the problems of

water resources management. Therefore, the conceptual approach consists of the following

phases: Phase 1: Overviewing the current situation of the water sector in the Gaza Strip.

Phase 2: Structuring the problem and developing water management indicators.

Phase 3: Developing the decision making process using the MCDA.

33..33 PPHHAASSEE 11:: OOVVEERRVVIIEEWWIINNGG TTHHEE CCUURRRREENNTT SSIITTUUAATTIIOONN OOFF TTHHEE

WWAATTEERR SSEECCTTOORR IINN TTHHEE GGAAZZAA SSTTRRIIPP This part should describe the current situation of the water sector in Gaza Strip. It should review available

water resources in matter of demand and supply. The enabling environment which is composed of the

current polices, legislations, regulations, institutional structure, should be discussed highlighting on the

problems and challenges facing this sector as will be shown in chapter (4).


-34-

33..44 PPHHAASSEE 22:: SSTTRRUUCCTTUURRIINNGG TTHHEE PPRROOBBLLEEMM AANNDD DDEEVVEELLOOPPIINNGG

WWAATTEERR MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT IINNDDIICCAATTOORRSS The Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) framework is proposed to be used as a methodology to

facilitate the decision process for water resources management and planning. The DPSIR approach is used in

structuring the indicators and distinguishing among four different aspects of environmental variables:

21. - The pressure: describes the underlying cause of the problem. It can be an

existing problem or it may be the result of a new project or investment.

22. - The state: usually describes some physical, measurable characteristic of the

environment that results from the pressure.

23. - The impact: represents the result of the pressure and state,

24. - The responses: are those policies, actions or investments that are introduced

to solve the problem, as responses to environmental problems can affect the state directly

or indirectly by acting at the pressures at work.

The four categories of D-P-S-I causal interrelationships approach, forces the indicator

developer and user to consider the various aspects of an environmental problem, which is

usually important when several people from various stakeholder groups, are involved in

the process. Walmsley (2002) developed a framework of the DPSIR (Driving-Forces–

Pressure–State–Impact–Response) indicators for water resources management as shown in

figure (3.1), which is adopted in this research.


-35-

Figure (3.1): The DPSIR Framework for Water Resources Management (Walmsley, 2000)

According to the figure (3.1), The DPSIR categories comprised the following:

− Driving force indicators lead to water deficiency and reflect pressures exerted by

natural phenomena and anthropogenic activities such as population growth, and land

availability.

− Pressure indicators reflect the pressures exerted on water resources and water use as a

result of the main driving forces over the supply and demand such as overexploitation

of groundwater or urbanization.

− State indicators assess the status of water resource in the context of quality and

quantity.

− Impact indicators assess the effect that a pressure has on the state of user groups and

resources such as the deterioration of water quality.

25. The Responses to the pressures and drivers are related to the reactions of water

deficiency, which is classified into three categories:


-36-

- Supply enhancement

- Demand management

- Social – Developmental Policy , Institutional Policies and other

33..55 PPHHAASSEE 33:: DDEECCIISSIIOONN MMAAKKIINNGG PPRROOCCEESSSS UUSSNNGG MMUULLTTII CCRRIITTEERRIIAA

DDEECCIISSIIOONN MMAAKKIINNGG ((MMCCDDMM))

Due to the complex nature of the factors that are related to water resources management the development of a

decision support system is essential to:

− Evaluate and examine the scenarios based on characteristics that are related to water resources

management (technical, environmental, financial, social criteria), using the method of multi-criteria

analysis.

− Define the best solution.

− Perform sensitivity analysis of the suggested solution, according to its variables, as well as the planning of

the recommended projects.

− The proposed methodology for the selection of the best method of water resources management is based

on the typical development of a multi-criteria evaluation process. The evaluation process using multi-

criteria analysis has been applied through the following steps:

− Establishment of the decision context as aims of the Multi-Criteria Decision Making.

− Identification of decision makers and other key players.

− Identification of the options to be appraised.

− Identification of the objectives and criteria for assessment of each option.

− Scoring : assessment of the expected performance of each option against the criteria. Then assessment of

the value associated with the consequences of each option for each criterion.

− Weighting: Assignment of the weights for each of the criterion to reflect their relative importance to the

decision.

− Combination of the weights and scores for each option to derive an overall value. This includes the

calculation of the overall weighted scores at each level in the hierarchy and the calculation overall

weighted scores.

− Examination of the results.

− Sensitivity analysis: Conducting a sensitivity analysis taking into account other preferences or weights

that affect the overall ordering of the option and taking into consideration the advantages and

disadvantages of the selected options, then comparing the different pairs of options.

− The above steps have been repeated until a 'requisite' model is obtained.

26. The multi criteria process for Decision Support System is summarized in the

following figure (3.2).


-37-

Figure (3.2): Proposed Decision Support System Process for IWRM for Gaza Strip

Problem definition

Defining the management options (Alternatives)

Options and criteria in a matrix

Decision makers and water experts'

preferences

Identification of evaluation criteria

Scoring the option with respect to evaluation

criteria

Ranking

Sensitivity analysis

If decision

No

Final ranking

Decision makers and water experts' preferences

Sensitivity analysis

Selection of most important criteria

Yes


-38-

33..٥٥..11 PPRROOBBLLEEMM DDEEFFIINNIITTIIOONN

− A review of the status of the water sector in the Gaza Strip should be done focusing

on problems and challenges as it will be shown in chapter (4). The problem can be derived

from the current situation. The configuration of the problem should be done using the

driving forces, pressure, status, impact and response framework, which must be used for

developing the indicators and identifying the alternative water management options for

Gaza Strip.

33..55..22 EEVVAALLUUAATTIIOONN CCRRIITTEERRIIAA

In the suggested methodology, the solution is determined by the evaluation of all the important parameters that influence water resources

management such as economy, society, and environment. The tree of evaluation criteria must be compromised of a simplification of the

reality. Mimi & Smith (1999) identified the evaluation criteria that could affect the selection of the water resources management options.

They classified the criteria groups as shown in table (3.1).

Table (3.1): Water Resources Management Criteria (Mimi & Smith, 1999)

Group Criteria

1. Financial / Economic viability − Fundability

− Unit cost of water production

− Tariff levels

− Affordability

− Reliability of price source

2. Technical viability

− Availability of technology

− Potential for implementation

− Technical complexity

− Feasibility

− Flexibility

− Reliability of technology

− Infrastructure requirement

3. Source viability − Availability and hydrologic certainty of the

source

− Reliability of sources quantities

− Sustainability of quantity and quality

− Flexibility of variable abstraction rates during


-39-

Group Criteria

development.

4. Political viability

− Compliance with current water management

strategy

− Political stability of the source country

− Compatibility with international laws and

existing agreements.

5. Institutional viability − Availability and capacity and

− Reliability of relevant institutions.

6. Environmental viability − Impacts on the protected areas

− Impact on land use

− Impact on Aquifer balance

− Impact on Aquifer quality

− Impacts on physical and natural environment.

7. Social viability − Public acceptance

− Fulfillment of the development needs.

− Impact on public health.

-- EEXXPPLLAANNAATTIIOONN OOFF EEVVAALLUUAATTIIOONN GGRROOUUPPSS IINN TTEERRMMSS

OOFF CCRRIITTEERRIIAA

1. Financial / Economic viability − Fundability

Fundability is a measure of the ability of securing financial support for capital and recurring costs to fund

the option. It is primarily a function of the amount of money needed.

− Unit cost of water production (Including capital and recurrent costs)

This criterion is the cost of water to the customer, with capital costs distributed over an appropriate period,

and recurrent costs figured in the price of water.

− Tariff levels

Tariff means the cost of services. It should cover operations and maintenances (O&M)

− Affordability

It is the ability of the consumer to pay for the water.

− Reliability of price source (cost certainty)


-40-

It is conceivable that an alternative or option is selected because the cost should be lower; however, the

supplier makes use of the fact that the cost can be driven up to the level of the next available option. Thus,

the cost and the price charged may not be equal.

2. Technical viability − Availability of technology

This qualitative criterion must be based on professional judgment and knowledge of the

area. Considerations include an assessment of how effective the technology is, and how

proven at the scale suggested. − Potential for implementation

This criterion is based on professional judgment of the ease with which the option could

be implemented. Things to consider in making the judgment are: the availability of data

that may be needed for implementation, the availability of skilled manpower, the

necessary local or importable expertise, and the ability to access the required equipment

to build and maintain the option. − Technical complexity

This criterion is a measure of the relative complexity of constructing, operating, and

maintaining the various technologies and components included in the option. It is based

on professional judgment only, but should consider the level of training required of the

operations and maintenance staff to keep the facility running. − Feasibility

This measure to what extend it is practical and reasonable to implement specified option. − Flexibility

This criterion measures the ability of the option or technology to adjust to change in

demand, expansion, meet changing water quality conditions, or any other variable

technical considerations that may influence the effectiveness of the option over the long

term. − Reliability of technology

This criterion measures how robust the option is. Consideration is given to the

susceptibility to failure and breakdown. The reliance on constant power sources, and the

ease of repair under the conditions encountered in the Gaza Strip is imperative. − Infrastructure requirement

This criterion may be appropriate in some cases where the options being considered

require other infrastructure not directly related to the project be in place. Examples may

be the need for a port, or the need for better roads for the routine delivery of supplies.

3. Source Viability


-41-

− Reliability of sources quantities

This criteria is a measure of the hydrologic reliability of the source. For example

seawater is a reliable source because the source is unlimited and the quality nearly

always constant. Runoff collected for recharge is not reliable because it’s occurrence is

subject to weather patterns, the amounts are unpredictable, and the quality varies. − Sustainability of quantity and quality

Keeping the quantity and quality of the sources for next generation − Flexibility of variable abstraction rates during development

This criterion measures the ability of the option or technology to adjust to changes in

demand, expand, meet changing water quality conditions, or any other variable technical

considerations that may influence the effectiveness of the option over the long term.

4. Political viability − Compliance with current water management strategy

Extent to which the option meets PWA’s goals and strategy in respect of long-term

development of water resources in the Gaza Strip. − Political stability of the source country

This criterion considers the influence of the regional and local political consideration of

availability, and reliability of the source − Compatibility with international laws and existing agreements

This criterion considers whether or not the option fits in with rights and other

international laws and agreements.

5. Institutional viability − Availability and capacity

This criterion measures the availability and capacity to create the managerial, regulatory,

legal, and political institutions needed to implement specified option. − Reliability of relevant institutions

This criteria refers to the ability of institutions over time to manage and operate the

option with no loss of service.

6. Environmental viability − Impacts on the protected areas

These criteria measures the impact of the option on protected area such as nature areas,

archaeological sites, sandy dune areas, beaches, and prime agricultural areas. − Impact on land use

This measures the degree to which an option fits with designated use for the location as

given in regional plan.


-42-

− Impact on Aquifer balance

This criteria is a measure of the water balance of the aquifer. With the use of the

groundwater model, it could be defined as the amount of water above or below aquifer

yield, could also simply be the difference between the amount of water recharged to the

aquifer and the amount withdrawn, regardless of total natural recharge to the aquifer. − Impact on Aquifer quality

This criteria measures the net input of pollutants to the aquifer on an annual basis. Its’

intent is as a measure of the quality stress being applied to the aquifer. It can be broken

down by pollutant (chloride, TDS, nitrate) if appropriate. Note that some options can

actually remove pollutants from the aquifer water. This should be accounted for in the

use of this criterion either by shifting the scale of measure, or by some other means.

7. Social viability − Public acceptance

This criterion is a measure of the public’s attitude or willingness to embrace an option

and to make use of it. For example, the use of wastewater on food crops may not be

easily accepted. − Impact on public health

This criterion may be used as a general measure of the expected improvement of public

health and hygiene based on elimination of improper sewage and improvement of

drinking water quality. − Culture and awareness

These measure the influence of culture and awareness for country people to deal with

water deficit. For example in water deficit and limited resources the water conservation

and public awareness is critical.

− General standard of living and employment

This criterion is used as a general measure of the effect of the general standard of living for

option selection. In general, the people with a high standard of living often lead to high

water consumption whereas the water price does not become critical.

33..55..33 SSEELLEECCTTIINNGG TTHHEE AAPPPPRROOPPRRIIAATTEE EEVVAALLUUAATTIIOONN CCRRIITTEERRIIAA Weight definition comprises the measure of relative importance that each involved decision maker attributes

to the decision making process in every evaluation criterion of alternative methods of water resources

management. The weight assignment is being done by means of an appropriate structured questionnaire


-43-

distributed to the decision makers and water experts involved, in order to achieve a classification of the

evaluation criteria by priority.

As depicted previously, there are sets of criterions, and it is difficult to evaluate each management options

with respect to these criteria sets. As the methods of MCDM stipulate a limited number of criteria not

exceeding nine criterions, the selection of the most important criteria will be determined by conducting

interviews and distributing structured questionnaire to decision makers and water experts.

33..55..44 DDEEVVEELLOOPPMMEENNTT OOFF DDEECCIISSIIOONN MMAATTRRIIXX In this stage, the alternatives (options) and effects (criteria) are organized in a table, and the score of each

alternative with respect to the criteria should be defined according to a specified scale. For example, the

option may be desalination of seawater or wastewater treatment while the criteria may be fundability or

feasibility as shown in table (3.2).

Table (3.2): Problem Definition Matrix

Option1

(Desalination of seawater)

Option2

(Wastewater treatment)

Criterion 1

(Fundability)

-- -

Criterion 2

(Feasibility)

-- --

33..55..55 WWEEIIGGHHTT OOFF TTHHEE RREESSPPOONNSSEE IINNDDIICCAATTOORRSS AACCCCOORRDDIINNGG TTOO SSEELLEECCTTEEDD

EEVVAALLUUAATTIIOONN CCRRIITTEERRIIAA

MCDM problems involve a number of criteria that are not equally important to the DM.

Consequently, one important step in MCDM is the articulation of weights to the criteria

that reflect the DM’s preference structure with regard to the objectives. Each attribute

(criteria) j is assigned a weight that represents the preference structure of the decision

maker (DM). The weights typically sum up to one. Formally, a set of weights is defined as

follows: w =(w1, w2, ...w j, ...wn) and ∑wj =1.

The weight values assigned to the criteria account for two factors:

− Changes in the range of variation for each evaluation criteria

− Different degrees of importance being attached to these ranges of variation

There is a number of methods for calculating the values of the normalized weight value based on the

information given by the DM.


-44-

33..55..66 SSTTAANNDDAARRDDIIZZAATTIIOONN OOFF TTHHEE SSCCOORREESS::

Before a multi-criteria method can be applied, for most methods the effects table (matrix of

criteria and options) needs to be standardized.

Scores from various effects (criteria) can be only compared if the measurement units are

the same. Through the standardization procedure, the measurement units are made

uniform, and the scores lose their dimension along with their measurement units.

33..55..77 EEVVAALLUUAATTIIOONN OOFF AALLTTEERRNNAATTIIVVEE MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT OOPPTTIIOONNSS

After completing these procedures, the classification of alternatives scenarios emerges.

This point is considered essential for the results to be explained. Enlightening some

important aspects such as why one scenario has received better grades than another one,

and which factors played a significant role. In certain cases, the evaluation of water

resources management methods may lead to conclusions that render decision making

disputable. Such a case arises when a different grading of parameters according to their

objective values, may, at the end, result in the equal grading of two methods.

Consequently, the total evaluation has to be carried out by means of other quality

indicators as well, which will evaluate the grading structure for each factor of each

alternative method.

33..55..88 SSEENNSSIITTIIVVIITTYY AANNAALLYYSSIISS All calculations include a certain amount of uncertainty or inaccuracy. For this reason, a sensitivity analysis

is necessary, in order to investigate the size of reaction of a result at alternative changes of certain values.

33..66 MMCCDDMM MMEETTHHOODDSS

In this research, four methods of MCA will be used; ElectreII, Regime method, Evamix

method and Weighted Summation.

33..66..11 EELLEECCTTRREE IIII

This method, also known as Concordance analysis, is widely used especially in French-

speaking countries. The Electre method is based on a pairwise comparison of the

alternatives, by using only the interval character of the scores in the evaluation of the

effects table. The basic idea is to measure the degree to which scores and their associated

weights confirm or contradict the dominant pairwise relationships among alternatives.


-45-

Beinat, Herwijnen& Janssen (2003) described the dominance relationship for each pair of

alternatives as the relationship, which is derived from both an index of concordance and an

index of discordance. Where, the concordance index represents the degree to which

alternative i is better than alternative j'. This index is defined as the sum of weights of the

effects included in the concordance set Cjj' and this is the set of effects for which

alternative i is at least equally attractive as alternative j'.

Beinat, Herwijnen& Janssen (2003) defined the discordance index as the index which

reflects the degree to which alternative j is worse than alternative i'. Analogous to the

concordance index discordance set Djj' is defined as the set of effects for which alternative

j is worse than alternative j'. For each effect from this set, the difference between the

standardized scores of both alternatives is calculated. The discordance index is defined as

the largest of these differences. This reflects the idea that, beyond a certain level, bad

performance on one effect cannot be compensated for by good performance on the other

effect. Beinat, Herwijnen& Janssen (2003) stipulated the use of the thresholds, to be

supplied by the decision maker, in combination with the concordance and discordance

tables, to establish a weak and a strong outranking relationship between each pair of

alternatives.

The Results of using this method are Concordance table, Discordance table and the Strong,

Weak results, ranking from top-down as well as the bottom-up.

11 SSttaannddaarrddiizzee SSccoorreess

The scores are standardized in such a way that they all have the same magnitude. For

Electre II method, it is preferred to apply maximum standardization.

22 MMAAKKEE CCOONNCCOORRDDAANNCCEE --MMAATTRRIIXX

Every pair of alternatives (aj and ak) determines a concordance-index. These indices

together form the concordance-matrix. The concordance-index is the sum of the effect

weights from the concordance set. An effect belongs to the concordance set if the score of

aj is better than or equal to the score of ak. In formula:

∑≥

=SikSijiWikjconc

:),( (Beinat, E., Herwijnen van M. & Janssen, R., 2003)

Where:

Wi = the weight of effect ci

Sij = the score of alternative ai for effect ci

Example: The following table (table 3.3) shows the effects weight and option scores:


-46-

Table (3.3): Problem Definition Matrix of the Example

Effect Weight of the effect A1 A2 A3

E1 0.4 80 50 40

E2 0.2 25 30 20

E3 0.1 1.75 1.8 2

E4 0.3 4 5 10

The concordance table for the alternatives as depicted in the table (3.4):

Table (3.4): Concordance Table of the Example

Alternatives A1 A2 A3

A1 0.4 0.6

A2 0.6 0.6

A3 0.4 0.4

This means that the value 0.4 for the alternative A1 and A3 is calculated as the sum of the

weights of the effects in which A1 scores better than or equal to A3. From the alternative-

effect table it is found that (A1, E1) =80 > (A3, E1) =40 and (A1, E2) =25 > (A3, E2) =20,

the concordance index for A1, A3 = the sum of the weight of E1, E2= (0.4+0.2=0.6).

33 DDIISSCCOORRDDAANNCCEE MMAATTRRIIXX

The second intermediate result of the Electre 2 method is a discordance table .

Every pair of alternatives (aj and ak) determines a discordance-index. These indices

together form the discordance-matrix. The discordance-index is the largest difference

between the standardized effect scores of all effects from the discordance set. An effect

belongs to the discordanceset if the score of aj is worse than or equal to the score of ak. In

formula:

)(),( ''max:

ijik SSkjdiscSikSiji

−=≤

(Beinat, E., Herwijnen van M. & Janssen, R., 2003)

Where:

S’jk = the standardized score of the alternative ai for effect cj

To compare between every two alternatives, in the previous example, the maximum

difference between each pair of alternatives of specific effect should be determined.


-47-

Taking for example, pair A1, A3. (Two columns in the table 3.3), the maximum difference

of specific effect between the pair is divided by maximum difference for the alternative for

the same effect.

For A1, A3, the maximum difference in the two column where A1<A3 is 10-4 = 6 (at

effect E4). And the maximum difference between every pairs for the same effect is also 6

also where 10-5=5, 10-4=6.

The discordance for A1, A3 = 6/6=1

The discordance table for the alternatives as depicted in table (3.5):

Table (3.5): Discordance Table of the Example


A1 0.5 1

A2 0.75 0.83

A3 1 1

The value 0.83 for both alternatives, A2 and A3, is defined as the difference between the

standardized scores of the effect for which A2 is the worst compared to A3.

The discordance value for A2, A3 is calculated as the maximum values from the set (0, 0,

0, 0.2/0.25, 5/6) which equal 5/6=0.83.

A weak and strong threshold value must be assigned to the concordance and discordance

index. Sometimes, mean values of the elements in the respective matrices are used as

initial thresholds.

44 TTHHRREESSHHOOLLDD VVAALLUUEESS

Two thresholds have to be defined for the concordance indices: one threshold for the

strong graph (Dc*) and one for the weak graph (Dc'). The maximum threshold is 1 and the

minimum is 0.5. If the concordance-index, conc. (j, k), is smaller than 0.5 then alternative

aj is worse than ak. A high threshold for the concordance-index indicates that an

alternative is only preferred to the other alternative if the sum of the weights of the effects,

which are better, is sufficiently large. All indices, which are equal to or higher than the

defined threshold, are selected. The two concordance-thresholds have to fulfill the

condition that: Dc* > Dc'.

Two thresholds have to be defined for the discordance indices also one threshold for the

strong graph (Dc*) and one for the weak graph (Dc'). The thresholds are between 0 and 1.


-48-

All indices, which are equal to or lower than the defined threshold, are selected. A low

threshold indicates that only those pairs of alternatives, aj and ak, are selected that have a

small maximum difference for aj worse than ak. The two discordance-thresholds have to

fulfill the condition that; Dd* < Dd '. (Adopted from Beinat, E., Herwijnen van M. &

Janssen, R., 2003). DEFINITE automatically suggests default values for the thresholds.

In Definite program manual the suggested values are 1.1 (strong table) and 0.9 (weak

table) times the average of the strong and weak table respectively. For discordance the

values are 0,9 (strong table) 1,1 (weak table) times the average of the strong and weak

table respectively. So, in the above example: for concordance table the thresholds are:

− Strong graph: 1.1 * (average values of concordance table) =

1.1*(.4+0.6+0.4+0.4+.6+0.6)/6=0.55

− Weak graph = 0.9(average values of concordance table) = 0.9*.52=0.45 <0.5, so use

0.5

− In the above example: for discordance table the threshold are:

− Strong graph: 0.9 * (average values of discordance table) =

0.9*(0.75+1+.5+.25+1+.0.83)/6=0.762

− Weak graph = 1.1*(average values of discordance table) = 1.1*0.8467=0.931

55 SSTTRROONNGG GGRRAAPPHH Every pair of alternatives should be determined if they fulfill the strong preference relation (>*). This relation

holds if the concordance index is larger than the strong concordance threshold and if the discordance index is

smaller than the strong discordance threshold. This means that the concordance must be sufficiently large and

the discordance sufficiently small. In formula: aj >* ak, conc.(j,k) > Dc* and , disc(j,k) < Dd*

In the above example, the strong threshold value for the concordance-index is set at 0.55

and the strong threshold for the discordance-index is set at 0.762. This means that no

alternative meets both constraints. (Adopted from Beinat, E., Herwijnen van M. & Janssen,

R., 2003)

Table (3.6): Strong Graph Table of the Example


A1 0 0

A2 0 0

A3 0 0


-49-

66 MMAAKKEE WWEEAAKK GGRRAAPPHH (Beinat, E., Herwijnen van M. & Janssen, R., 2003) stated that every pair of alternatives should be determined

if they fulfill the weak preference relationship (>’). This relationship holds if the concordance index is larger

than the weak concordance threshold and if the discordance index is smaller than the weak discordance

threshold. This means that the concordance must be sufficiently large, but not as large as with the strong

graph, and that the discordance must be sufficiently small, but not as small as with the strong graph. In

formula: aj >’ ak , conc(j,k) > Dc’ and disc(j,k) < Dd’.

In the example, the weak threshold value for the concordance-index and discordance-index are both set at 0.5

and 0.93 so, no alternative meets both constraints.

Table (3.7): Weak Graph Table of the Example


A1 0 1

A2 1 1

A3 0 0

One or more cycles such as, Alt.1 > Alt.2 and Alt.2 > Alt.1 may occur in both graphs. If a cycle occurs all

alternatives within this cycle are combined into a group of alternatives with the same rank. A cycle between

alternatives a1, a2 and a3 exist if the following holds:

a1 > a2 and a2 > a3 and a3 > a1 This means that it is not possible to determine a rank order between alternatives that are in a cycle. Cycles are

removed by considering the alternatives in a cycle as equally important in the ranking.

77 RRAANNKKIINNGG

The ranking of the alternatives is determined based on the strong threshold values.

Alternatives that are placed in the same position are then ranked according to their weak

threshold values if possible. The ranking of alternatives is done in order of best to worst, as

well as from worst to best alternative . A procedure of systematic elimination is used to

transform the weak and strong graph representing the weak and strong outranking

relationships into an overall ranking of the alternatives. The method does not always result

in a complete ranking and apart from the ranking, no evaluation scores are provided.

The process is as follows: A- Determine rank order one

A ranking of the alternatives is determined as follows:

1. Select from the strong graph those alternatives that are not worse than any other

alternative. Put these alternatives in the set F .


-50-

WWT

WI BWD

DSW

2. Select from F those alternatives for which in the weak graph hold that they are not

worse than any other alternative. Put these alternatives in the set G .

3. All alternatives in G retrieve rank order 1.

4. Delete the alternatives from G.

5. Carry out steps 1 to 5 again until all alternatives are ranked.

B- Determine rank order two

27. All preference relations in the graphs are reversed. Then a ranking of alternatives is

determined in the same way as with rank order 1. At the end this new ranking is reversed. C- Determine final ranking

− The final ranking of the alternatives is determined by taking the average of rank order

1 and rank order 2 .

− The end result is presented in a bar graph. The same options are available for this bar

graph as the ones for the bar graph for the weighted summation, except for the stacked

bar graph and the separate bar graph .

− A table can represent a graph with the alternatives in the rows and columns with 0 and

1 in the middle.

28. An example of a graph of the alternatives: Assume that there are four alternatives

for management options in Gaza such as wastewater treatment (WWT), Desalination of

seawater (DSW), Water import (WI), and brackish water desalination (BWD) as shown in

table (3.8):

Table (3.8): Concept of Weighting Options WWT DSW WI BWD

WWT 1 1 0 DSW 0 1 1 WI 0 1 0

BWD 0 0 0

In this graph alternative WWT is better than DSW and WI,

alternative BWD is better than WI and BWD, and

alternative WI is better than DSW.

This graph can also be presented graphically using points and

arrows. The alternatives are the points, and an arrow represents

the relation better than. The graph of the example then looks


-51-

like figure (3.3):

Figure (3.3): Illustration of Graph Cycle

It is now clear that the alternatives DSW and WI

form a cycle. Alternative DSW is better than WI,

but alternative WI is also better than DSW. In

Electre 2 such a cycle is removed by considering

these alternatives as one point. Then the graph can

be presented as shown in figure (3.4):

Figure (3.4): Illustration of Preference Graph

33..66..22 TTHHEE RREEGGIIMMEE MMEETTHHOODD

The Regime method is considered an ordinal generalization of pairwise comparison

methods such as the Electre method.

The method is based on pairwise comparison of the alternatives. There exists an analytical

variant that can only be calculated for a limited number of effects and for a numerical

variant. Characteristic of the numerical variant of the Regime method is the qualitative

effect of scores and weights that can be processed as quantitative scores by making a large

number of drawings from scores that are allowed by the qualitative scores.

The Regime method determines the ranking of the alternatives based on an evaluation

score per alternative.

11 MMEETTHHOODDOOLLOOGGYY

The starting point of the Regime method is the concordance index cii'. The focus of this

method is on the sign of cii' - ci'i for each pair of alternatives. If this sign is positive,

alternative i is preferred to i'; and the reverse holds if the sign is negative.

Ordinal weights are interpreted as unknown quantitative weights. A set (S) is defined

containing all sets of quantitative weights that conform to the qualitative priority

information. In some cases, the sign will be the same for the whole set S and the

alternatives can be ranked accordingly. In other cases, the sign of the pairwise comparison

cannot be determined unambiguously: for parts of the set S the sign of cii'-ci'i is positive

and for other parts it is negative. The distribution of the weights within S is assumed to be

uniform and therefore the relative sizes of the subsets of S can be interpreted as the

probability that alternative i is preferred to alternative i'. Probabilities are aggregated to

produce an overall ranking of the alternatives. The relative sizes of the subsets are

DSW WWT

BW


-52-

estimated using a random generator .(Adopted from Beinat, E., Herwijnen van, M. and

Janssen, R., 2003)

The Regime method works with evaluation problems with only qualitative information on

scores and evaluation problems with a combination of qualitative and quantitative

information on scores.

The final result of the Regime method is a ranking of the alternatives linked to an appraisal

score for each alternative along with a probability table.

22 QQUUAALLIITTAATTIIVVEE VVAARRIIAANNTT

“The qualitative variant of the regime method is applied when all scores are qualitative. In

this variant a Regime matrix is determined first. Afterwards random quantitative weights

are drawn. By combining these weights with the regime, a preference is determined for

each pair of alternatives. These preferences are noted in the probability table”. (Beinat, E.,

Herwijnen van M. & Janssen, R., 2003) - Determine Regime matrix qualitative variant

If there is a set of alternatives with aj (j=1..M), and set of effects with ci (i=1…n), then a

signs is determined for every pair of alternatives (aj and ak). A (+1) sign indicates that the

alternative aj is better than ak for effect ci. These signs together form the regime matrix. In

the formula:

<=>+

=Sik Sij if 1-SikSij if 0SikSij if 1

k)(j,sign i (Beinat, E., Herwijnen van M. & Janssen, R., 2003)

where :

Sij = the score of alternative aj for the effect ci

Sik = the score of alternative ak for the effect ci

This means if there is pair of alternatives such as desalination and wastewater treatment. It

is found that in matter of fundability the score of the wastewater treatment become higher

than the desalination score. The sign (desalination, wastewater treatment)= -1, and sign of

(wastewater treatment, desalination) = 1

- Random drawings qualitative variant

A random generator draws a set of weights that fulfill the given rank order. Then the

weights are multiplied with the signs and added up over the effects for every pair of

alternatives. In the following formula:


-53-

)),((),(1

kjsignwikjpN

ii∑

=

×= (Beinat, E. ,Herwijnen van M. & Janssen, R., 2003)

Where p(j,k) = The pair of alternative j, and alternative k.

i to n = set of effects, wi = weight of effect from I to n

sign I (j,k) = the sign of effect I for pair of alternatives ( j,k) as illustrated previously.

An examination of the sign of p(j,k) is done. If p(j,k) is larger than 0, alternative aj is better

than ak for this drawing. This calculation is executed for a large number of drawings (T)

and keeps track of the results of all these drawings (t) in a table. In formula:

)),((),(),(chance 1t kjpsignkjchancekj t +=+ . (Beinat, E., Herwijnen van M. & Janssen,

R., 2003).

After executing all drawings for all pair of alternatives, the chances are divided by the total

number of drawings. These results are stated in a probability table. In the following

formula:

),(1),( kjchanceT

kjyprobabilit t= ,

Beinat, E, R. Herwijnen van M. and Janssen R., 2003

Where: T = number of drawings

33 RREEGGIIMMEE MMEETTHHOODD:: MMIIXXEEDD VVAARRIIAANNTTSS

The mixed variant of the regime method is applied when both qualitative and quantitative effects are present.

In this variant a factor is determined first for each pair of effects. Afterwards random quantitative weights are

drawn. By combining these weights with the factors a preference is determined for each pair of alternatives.

These preferences are kept in the probability table.

- Determine factors mixed variants If there is in alternative, effect table qualitative and quantitative scores such as numeric number and ++/--

scores, then for every pair of alternatives (aj and ak) and for every effect two factors are determined. If

alternative aj is better than ak for effect ci, than the factor for aj are 1 and that for ak the fraction Sik/Sij. If

alternative ak is better than aj for effect ci, than the reverse holds. In the following formula:

<>

=

<

>=

SikSij if 1SikSij if Sik/Sij

k)(j, factor

SikSij if Sij/Sik SjkSij if 1

k)(j, factor

ki

ij


The factor is calculated for each pairs of alternative (j,k), for every effect (i), Where:

Sij = the score of alternative aj at effect ci

Sik = the score of alternative ak at effect ci - Random drawing mixed variant


-54-

A random generator draws a set of weights that fulfill the given rank order. Then the weights are multiplied

with the factors and summed over the effects for every pair (aj,ak) of alternatives. In formula:

)),((),(P1

j kjfactorwkj ji

n

ii ×= ∑

=

(Beinat, E., Herwijnen van M. and Janssen, R., 2003)

Where: Pj (j,k) = the element of (aj,ak ) in the matrix

∑=

×=n

i

,k))factorkj(j(wi1

k k)(j,P (Beinat, E, Herwijnen van M. and Janssen R., ٢٠٠٣ )

Where: Pk (j,k) = the element of (ak,aj ) in the matrix

Then examine the difference between pj(j,k) and pk(j,k). If pj(j,k) is larger than pk(j,k), alternative aj is better

than ak for this drawing. This calculation is executed for a large number of drawings (T) and is kept track of

the results of all these drawings (t ) in a table. In formula:

<−

>+=+ ),(P),(P if 1),(

),(P),(P if 1),(chance

kj

kj1t kjkjkjchance

kjkjkjchance

t

t

(Beinat, E., Herwijnen van M. & Janssen, R., 2003) Where: t= iteration number (drawings), T = all iterations (large number of drawings)

After executing all drawings for all pair of alternatives, the chances are divided by the total number of

drawings. This results in a probability table. In formula:

),(chanceT1k)(j,y probabilit t kj=


44 PPRROOBBAABBIILLIITTYY TTAABBLLEE The Regime method provides a probability table as an intermediate result. For each pair of alternatives this

table shows how large the chance is that one alternative is better or worse than the other.

55 DDEETTEERRMMIINNEE FFIINNAALL RRAANNKKIINNGG The final ranking of the alternatives is determined by summing the probabilities for every alternative

horizontally and dividing it by the number of alternatives minus 1. In formula:

∑≠=

=M

jk1k

k)(j,y probabilit1-M

1(j) Score

(Beinat, E, R. Herwijnen van M. and Janssen R, 2003)

Where:

the set of alternatives is ai (i=1…M)

This formula is applicable for qualitative variant and mixed variant.


-55-

33..66..33 EEVVAAMMIIXX MMEETTHHOODD This method is especially suitable for problems with scores measured on a qualitative as well as a

quantitative scale. The user has to indicate the relative importance (the weight) of the effects.

Qualitative and quantitative scores are treated separately. For both types of scores dominance indices are

calculated. After standardization the indices are combined into one dominance index. The ranking is defined

based on this index. This procedure generates a ranking of the alternatives. The Evamix method generates

separate dominance tables for quantitative and for qualitative effect scores. Both tables are combined into a

total dominance table. The Evamix method is designed to deal with an effects table with a mixture of

qualitative and quantitative effects. The set of effects in the effects table is divided into a set of ordinal

effects, and a set of quantitative effects. Dominance effects are calculated for both sets.

The method requires quantitative weights but can be used in combination with any of the methods dealing

with ordinal priority information. The sum of the weighs has to be 1 in the following formula: 11

=∑=

N

iWi


Where: Wi = weight of the effects ci , and i =1…N

The final result of the Evamix method is a ranking of the alternatives linked to an appraisal

score for each alternative.

11 SSPPLLIITT EEFFFFEECCTTSS The effects table is split in two sub tables: a qualitative and a quantitative sub-table. The qualitative sub-table

holds the effects of the alternatives for all the qualitative effects. These two sub-tables are explained

separately with help from the following notations:

T: set of quantitative effects

L: set of qualitative effects

It is recommended to save each relevant result of a multi-criteria method. A result that is saved can be

analyzed using sensitivity analysis and will be included in the report generated.

22 EEVVAAMMIIXX MMEETTHHOODD:: QQUUAALLIITTAATTIIVVEE DDOOMMIINNAANNCCEE

TTAABBLLEE

For every pair of alternatives (aj and ak) the qualitative dominance-score (DL(j,k)) is

determined. These scores together form the qualitative dominance-matrix. First, for every

pair of alternatives (aj and ak) and for every qualitative effect (ci) the sign (signi(j,k)) is

determined. A sign of +1 indicates that alternative aj is better than ak for effect ci. Then

multiply the weights (wi) with the signs and sum for every pair of alternatives over the

qualitative effects. In formula:

<=>+

= SkiSij if 1-

SikSij if 0SikSij if 1

k)(j,sign i


-56-

)),((),(1

kjsignwkjDN

Lii

iiL ∑∈=

×= , (Beinat, E., Herwijnen van M. & Janssen, R., 2003)

Where: DL (j,k) is the qualitative score for alternative ai, ak.

33 EEVVAAMMIIXX MMEETTHHOODD:: QQUUAANNTTIITTAATTIIVVEE DDOOMMIINNAANNCCEE

TTAABBLLEE For every pair of alternatives (aj and ak) the quantitative dominance-score (DT (j,k)) is determined. These

scores together form the quantitative dominance-matrix. For every pair of alternatives (aj and ak) the weights

(wi) are multiplied with the difference between the scores (sij-sik) and then summed over the quantitative

effects. In the following formula:

))((),(1

ikij

N

Tii

iT SSwkjD −×= ∑∈=

(Beinat, E., Herwijnen van, M. & Janssen, R., 2003)

Where: DT (j,k) is the qualitative score for alternative ai, ak.

44 EEVVAAMMIIXX MMEETTHHOODD:: SSTTAANNDDAARRDDIIZZEEDD DDOOMMIINNAANNCCEE

TTAABBLLEE The qualitative dominance-matrix is standardized by dividing it by the sum of the absolute dominance-scores

in the matrix. In the following formula:


The quantitative dominance-matrix is standardized by dividing it by the sum of the

absolute dominance-scores in the matrix. In the following formula:

55 EEVVAAMMIIXX MMEETTHHOODD:: TTOOTTAALL DDOOMMIINNAANNCCEE TTAABBLLEE The two standardized dominance-matrices are now combined into one total dominance-matrix (D(j,k)). This

is done by calculating the weighted sum of the two dominance-matrices. In formula:

)(),()(),(),(1

^

1

^

∑∑∈=

∈=

×+×=N

Lii

iT

N

Lii

iL wkjDwkjDkjD


),((

),(),(

11

kjDabs

kjDkjDMM

kjkj

L

LL

∑≠==

∧

=

),((

),(),(

11

kjDabs

kjDkjDMM

kjkj

T

TT

∑≠==

∧

=


-57-

The final scores for the alternatives are found as the row totals of the total dominance table. The higher the

score of an alternative, the better the position in the final ranking. In formula:

∑≠=

=M

jkk

kjDjscore1

),()( (Beinat, E. ,Herwijnen van M. & Janssen, R., 2003)

33..66..44 WWEEIIGGHHTTEEDD SSUUMMMMAATTIIOONN MMEETTHHOODD Weighted Summation is a simple and often used evaluation and multi-criteria method. The ranking of the

alternatives is defined based on the weighted sum of the effect scores .

This method is especially suitable for problems with scores measured on a quantitative scale. The user has to

indicate the relative importance (the weight) of the effects.

(Triantaphyllou, & Mann, 1989) stated, “As a first step, all effect scores are standardized. An appraisal score

is then calculated for each alternative by first multiplying these standardized affect scores by its appropriate

weight, followed by summing up the weighted scores of all effects. The final ranking of the alternatives is

assessed based on the resulting appraisal scores for each alternative.

The final scores and ranking are dependent on the standardization method being applied. By saving the MCA

results, the results of different calculations can be compared. In this way the influence of changes in weights,

weight methods and standardization procedures can be analyzed.The result of weighted summation is a

ranking of the alternatives and an appraisal score for each alternative”.

33..66..55 CCOOMMPPAARRIISSOONN AAMMOONNGG EELLEECCTTRREE,, RREEGGIIMMEE,, EEVVAAMMIIXX AANNDD WWEEIIGGHHTTEEDD

SSUUMMMMAATTIIOONN MMEETTHHOODDSS

A comparison between multi-criteria methods, which are used in this research, is described

in the following table:

Table (3.9): Comparison of ElectreII, Regime, Evamix, and Weighted Summation Methods.

Electre Regime method Evamix Weighted

summation

Purpose of use Ranking of the

alternatives

Ranking of the

alternatives

Ranking of

alternatives

Ranking of

alternatives

Characteristics The alternatives are

examined on their

amount of concordance

and discordance

Ordinal

generalization of

pairwise

comparison

This method treats

with ordinal and

quantitative scores.

Weighted

Summation is a

simple and often

used multicriteria

method

Basis of the

theory

Pairwise comparison Pairwise

comparison

Pairwise

comparison

Based on the

weighted sum of the


-58-


summation

effect scores

Requirement Quantitative weights of

the effects. Summation

of effects weight = 1

Rank of the

importance of the

effects

Quantitative

weights of the

effects. Summation

of effects weight =

1

Quantitative

weights of the

effects. Summation

of effects weight =

1

Standardization Maximum

standardization

No standardization Qualitative effects

do not need to be

standardized, but

quantitative do.

No specific

standard method

No specific

standard method

Final results Ranking of the

alternatives.

Ranking of the

alternatives.

Ranking of

the

alternatives.

Ranking of

alternatives.

Intermediate

results

− Concordance

table

− Discordance table

− Strong graph

table

− Weak graph table

− Strong graph

cycle

− Weak graph

cycle.

− Probability

table

− Ranking of

the

alternatives.

− Quantitative

dominance

table

− Qualitative

dominance

table

− Standard

Quantitativ

e

dominance

table

− Standard

Qualitative

dominance

table

− Total

- Ranking of the

alternatives.


-59-


summation

dominance

table

33..66 DDEEFFIINNIITTEE SSOOFFTTWWAARREE In this research DEFINITE is used as a software for applying the multi-criteria analysis. DEFINITE,

(decisions on a finite set of alternatives), is a decision support software package that has been developed to

improve the quality of environmental decision making. DEFINITE is a Windows-based decision support

software package developed at the Institute for Environmental Studies of the Free University of Amsterdam,

Netherlands (Janssen, 1992). This program contains a number of methods for supporting problem definition

as well as graphical methods to support representation. To be able to deal with all types of information,

DEFINITE includes five different multi-criteria methods, as well as Cost-Benefit and Cost-Effectiveness

analysis. Related procedures such as sensitivity analysis are also available.

The problem definition stage enables the users to set up the problem, including definition of alternatives and

criteria. The alternatives could be desalination, or wastewater treatment, whereas the criteria could be the

cost, and availability of technology.

Several types of multi-criteria analyses are provided, including weighted summation approaches, pair-wise

comparison of alternatives as ELECTRE, regime method and Evamix methods. The user is prompted to rank

the criteria in the order of importance, and to rank series of simplified test alternatives, each defined on

specified criteria.

The procedure, which is used in the research case study, is illustrated in the table (3.10):

Table (3.10): Definite process, which is used in the research

Step 0 Start Definite

Open session Save session

Step 1 Problem Definition

Scores Presentation of the effects table

Step 2 Multi-Criteria Analysis

Standardize Weighting Ranking

Step 3 Sensitivity Analysis for MCA


-60-

Uncertainty Score uncertainty Sensitivity Score sensitivity

Step 4 Report Generation

Detail-format for Problem definition Detail-format for Multi-Criteria Analysis

The first main menu in as shown in figure (3.5) Define is enable the user to define the problem from problem

definition, or apply evaluation method such as multi-criteria, or cost-benefit or sensitivity analysis of the

results.

Figure (3.5): First Main Menu in Definite Software

When the problem definition button is clicked another main menu is opened as shown in figure (3.6).

Through this menu, effects and alternative are defined.


-61-

Figure (3.6):Problem Definition Menu

The third main menu is multi-criteria analysis menu. By using different button to open other sub menu

analysis and evolution of alternatives and effects is done.

Figure (3.7): Multi-Criteria Analysis Menu

Chapter (4) Proposed Hierarchical Approach for IWRM in the Gaza Strip

-62-

CHAPTER FOUR Hierarchical Approach for IWRM in Gaza Strip

44..11 IINNTTRROODDUUCCTTIIOONN

The water sector in the Gaza Strip is facing potentially disastrous challenges. Not only are

the resources being depleted at an alarming rate, but also they are being polluted due to the

absence of wastewater management. In this chapter, the Gaza Strip is selected and used as a case study. The chapter is composed of three main

phases:

1. Overview of water sector in Gaza highlighting problems and challenges.

2. Development of water management indicators using DPISR model and identifying the management

options.

3. Using MCDM supported with water experts for ranking the options.

44..22 BBAACCKKGGRROOUUNNDD

44..22..11 LLOOCCAATTIIOONN

The Gaza Strip located on the southeastern Mediterranean coast of the Middle East at the

coordinate 31’ 25 N, 34’ 20 E. The total area of the Gaza Strip is 365 sq km (self – rule

area: 210km2) With 45 km of coast line, a 12 km boundary with Egypt and 51 km

boundary with Israel, its width is about 5km at the middle of the strip near Wadi Gaza and

about 7km in the north and the maximum width 12 km near Khuzza’a village. The Gaza

Strip embodies five governorates, namely Northern Gaza, Gaza, Middle Gaza, Khan

Younis and Rafah. Each governorate consists of municipalities that varied in number

depending on the number of towns or villages and the population of each.


-63-

Figure (4.1) : Gaza Strip Location

44..22..22 PPOOPPUULLAATTIIOONN::

Future population projections are based on the 1997 PCBS census of some 1,020,0813

people. The population growth rate is assumed to be 3.5% up to year 2000 and 3%

thereafter for the Gaza Strip Governorates. The total number of returnees following the

Oslo 2 Accord is estimated at 1000,000 in the Gaza strip Governorates. The population

estimation for 2003 depends basically on the census of the population done in the year

2002 and approved by Ministry of Local Government multiplied by the annual growth rate

adopted in the Water Sector Strategic Plan Study (WSSPS) for 2002 (3%)

The total current population of the Gaza Strip for 2003 is 1,242,379 according to WSSPS,

as shown in table (1), Appendix (2)

44..22..33 CCLLIIMMAATTEE::

The Gaza Strip enjoys a Mediterranean climate, which ranges from temperate and mild

winters, to dry warm to hot summers. Southwestern winds blow during winter seasons

#

Med

it err a

nean

Sea

De a

d S

e a

Egypt

Red Sea

Lebanon

Jord

an

Syr

ia

Tiber ias

Jerusal em

Gaza Strip

N

Jabalya

Gaza

Deir al-Balah

Khan Yunis

Rafah

e

MED

ITER

RANEAN SE

A

EGYP T1 0 1 2 Kilometers

Wadi

Israeli Military zone

Built up AreaAirport

Area under Israeli control

Israeli Settlement

Regional roadMain roadLocal road

e


-64-

(from November through March) causing rainfall which constitutes the major source of

fresh water aquifer recharge. The average rainfall is 415 mm/yr (PWA, Databank2003).

The daily relative humidity fluctuates between 65% in the daytime and 85% at night in

summer between 60% and 80% respectively in winter (PWA, Databank2003).

The average monthly temperature ranges between a minimum 4°C to a maximum 35° C.

44..33 PPHHAASSEE II:: RREEVVIIEEWW OOFF CCUURRRREENNTT SSIITTUUTTIIOONN OOFF WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS

IINN TTHHEE GGAAZZAA SSTTRRIIPP

44..33..11 SSUURRFFAACCEE WWAATTEERR The Wadi Gaza is considered the largest surface water feature in Gaza. It rarely flows due to numerous water

diversions and storage projects upstream in Israel. There are other two small Wadies in Gaza: Wadi Salka

near Deir El-Balah and Wadi Halib near Beit Hanoun. Since 1967, many studies reported that the amount of

water flowing in the three Wadis is negligible due to Israeli barriers, which are located upstream and control

the course of Wadis. Quantities decreased from 20MCM/yr to 2 MCM/yr or less according to EPD, MOPIC

(1994).

The type of soil also affects storm water infiltration in the Gaza Strip. Surface runoff usually occurs when

rainfall intensity is higher than the rate of infiltration of water in soil. The coastal plain for Gaza, which is

close to the sea, is composed of moseys of sandy soil; while the eastern part have a clay layer, hence the

infiltration conditions are most likely to occur on coastal areas.

44..33..22 GGRROOUUNNDDWWAATTEERR ((CCOOAASSTTAALL AAQQUUIIFFEERR)) The Gaza Coastal Aquifer is considered the main water resources in Gaza. It is a part of the regional

groundwater system that stretches from the coastal areas of the Sinai in the south to the Haifa in the north.

The National Water Plan (NWP) reported that the coastal aquifer hold approximately 5x109 m3 of

groundwater of different quality, only 1.4x109m3 of it, is freshwater with chloride less than 500mg/l. This

means that 70% of aquifer is brackish or saline and 30% fresh.

Total groundwater abstraction in the Gaza Strip in recent years is estimated at 140-145x106 m3/yr.

Agricultural abstraction is estimated to account for about 85-90x106 m3/yr (PWA, CAMP 2000), while

municipal (59.6x106 m3/yr) (LEKA Statistical data, 2003) and settlements (5-7x106 m3/yr) (PWA, CAMP

2000). The metered data from the Ministry Of Agriculture (MOA) indicated that the total average annual

abstraction for the 1,500 metered wells over the period of records (1988-1993) was approximately 43x106

m3/yr. Prorating this average to the estimated 3,900 wells in operation today yields an estimated total

agricultural abstraction of about 85-90 x106 m3/yr.

The lateral inflow of the aquifer is estimated to be between 10-15 x106 m3/yr (PWA, CAMP 2000). Some

recharge is available from the major surface flow. But because of the extensive extraction from Wadi Gaza

in Israel, at its best, this recharge is limited to 1.5- 2x106 m3 during the ten or 50 days the Wadi actually

flows in a normal year (PWA, CAMP 2000).


-65-

Under natural conditions, groundwater flow in the Gaza Strip is towards the Mediterranean

Sea, where it discharges into the sea. However, pumping over 40 years has significantly

disturbed natural flow patterns. Large cone of depression have formed in the north and

south where water levels are below mean sea level, including inflow of seawater towards

the major pumping centers, which is shown in figure (4.2).

The different hydrological responses observed from south to north in Gaza Strip are

influenced by many factors, including: Return flow (from irrigation, municipal supply, and

wastewater in urban areas), Abstraction patterns, Lateral inflow and Seawater intrusion.


-66-

73

84

96

98

101

103

107

109

112

114

113

110

105

99

94

93

89

88

87

85

82

80

79

77

75

68

69

70

71

72

74

76

78

81

83

86

90

91

92

95

97

100

102

104

106

108

111

115

75 88868381 85 878482807978777674

110

108

107

105

101

100999694919089

102

10492 93 95 97 98

103

106

109

111

-5

-4-3-2-1

012

36

LEGEND

Water level in Groundwater(meter above mean sea level)

N

EW

S

0 2 4 6 Kilometers

Figure (4.2) : Waterlevel Contour Map (PWA- databank,2003)

44..33..33 WWAATTEERR QQUUAALLIITTYY

More water is pumped from the aquifer than is recharged. This over extraction has resulted

in the draw down of the groundwater resulting in the intrusion of seawater and up-coning

the underlying saline water. The major water quality problems are high salinity and high

nitrate concentrations in the aquifer. Fig.4.3 indicates that chloride concentrations exceed

the WHO standard.


-67-

73

84

96

98

101

103

107

109

112

114

113

110

105

99

94

93

89

88

87

85

82

80

79

77

75

68

69

70

71

72

74

76

78

81

83

86

90

91

92

95

97

100

102

104

106

108

111

115

75 88868381 85 878482807978777674

110

108

107

105

101

100999694919089

102

10492 93 95 97 98

103

106

109

111

0 1 2 3 4 5 Kilometers

N

EW

S

Chloride Concentration

<250

251 - 500

501 - 750

750 - 1000

1001 - 1250

1251 - 2000

LEGEND

Cloride Concentration in Groundwater (mg/l)

Figure (4.3): Chloride Concentration in Groundwater (PWA-Databank, 2003)

High levels of chloride in the groundwater cause high salinity in the water supply. Less

than 10% of the aquifer's yield is water that meets the WHO drinking water standards.

Some agricultural wells currently have salinity levels of more than 1200mg/l. Sources of

high chloride content have been determined to be, sea water intrusion, lateral flow of

brackish water from east in the middle and southern area and up-coning of the brine water

from the base of the aquifer. Seawater intrusion and uplift of the deep brine water are the

direct consequences of over pumping and represent the greatest threats to municipal and


-68-

agricultural water supplies in the Gaza Strip. The lateral inflow of brackish water from the

east is believed to be groundwater from the Eocene age rocks that underlie the coastal

aquifer in the east and is therefore of natural origin.

Most wells in Gaza show nitrate level in excess of the WHO drinking water standard of 50

mg/l as shown in figure (4.4).

In urban centers, nitrate concentrations are increasing at rates up to 10 mg/l per year. The

main sources of nitrate are domestic sewage effluent and fertilizers. In contrast to salinity,

groundwater flowing from east has relatively low nitrate levels.


-69-

73

84

96

98

101

103

107

109

112

114

113

110

105

99

94

93

89

88

87

85

82

80

79

77

75

68

69

70

71

72

74

76

78

81

83

86

90

91

92

95

97

100

102

104

106

108

111

115

75 88868381 85 878482807978777674

110

108

107

105

101

100999694919089

102

10492 93 95 97 98

103

106

109

111

<5051 - 100

101 - 200201 - 300301 - 500

LEGEND

N

EW

S

Nitrate Concentration in Groundwater (mg/l)

0 2 4 6 Kilometers

Figure (4.4): Nitrate Concentration in Groundwater (PWA-Databank, 2003)

44..44 WWAATTEERR DDEEMMAANNDD

According to PWA, water resource department data for year 2003, the average

consumption per capita in the Gaza Strip is 80 l/c/d. The increase in demand resulting from

the trend for more acceptable consumption rates, from the natural increase in population,

and from an influx of returnees, which will significantly exacerbate the present critical

situation.


-70-

The WHO recommends an average of 150 (l/c/d) for individual water use. In Carl Bro

International a/s, 1999, it is estimated that 80 l/c/d were actually made available to

consumers. As social development occurs, the demand for water should increase to meet

the average WHO recommendation of 150 l/c/d in future years.

44..44..11 DDOOMMEESSTTIICC AANNDD IINNDDUUSSTTRRIIAALL WWAATTEERR DDEEMMAANNDD ((DD&&II))::

Population growth, the changing water needs of households and industry and the changing

demands of agriculture will shape the D&I water demand in the near future.

The D&I demand includes net demand for domestic, industrial, public customers and

livestock water supply. Water losses through transmission pipelines and water distribution

systems are included. Therefore, the D&I demand represents the quantity of water at the

water supply source that should be delivered to the D&I customers.

Given domestic water, first priority for the Palestinians, a minimum scenario should be

adopted for municipal and industrial demand management to secure 100 and 150 l/c/d

integrated with the WHO quality standards for household connections in small

communities and urban areas respectively. The main action to meet the M& I demand

projection is to increase the amount of water supply from the current level to the amount of

182 MCM by the year of 2020 assuming an overall efficiency of water distribution of 80%

(Carl Bro International a/s, 1999).

The annual domestic production and quantity consumed in the Gaza Governorates is

referred to the formal reports and statistical data issued by the LEKA concerning the

municipal water consumption for the year 2003 in the existing sixteen municipalities in the

Gaza Governorates as shown in table (2- appendix 2). The data shows that the current M&I

water consumption is 62.9MCM. The overall losses, unaccounted for water, is about 37%,

with the dominant part is believed to be due to unregistered connections, public parks,

mosques and meter losses, while the physical losses may constitutes only 10% (PWA

databank, 2004).

According to PWA data, M & I consumption rates per capita were estimated to be 90 l/c/d

in the Gaza Governorates for 2002, and 2003. This is still below the consumption in

comparison to the standards recommended by the WHO, i.e. 100 l/c/d and 150 l/c/d for

small and urban communities respectively. The efficiency of water distribution system is

63% for 2003 (PWA databank, 2003).


-71-

44..44..22 IINNDDUUSSTTRRIIAALL WWAATTEERR DDEEMMAANNDD

The WSSPS indicates that the current average of industrial water consumption is about 6-

8% of the total M & I water consumption, about 4 MCM/year. However, the figure given

may be overestimated in the current situation in the Gaza Strip. The instability of the

political situation and the absence of the industrial infrastructure tend to lower the

consumption to 2 MCM/year (PWA, Water Resources Department).

44..44..33 AAGGRRIICCUULLTTUURRAALL AANNDD LLIIVVEESSTTOOCCKK WWAATTEERR DDEEMMAANNDD::

The agricultural sector is considered the largest water consumer in Palestine. The current

cultivated land in the Gaza governorates observed a remarkable decline with a drastic

decrease in fruits especially citrus. The approximate estimation of the irrigation water

demand based on the quota allowed and the available irrigated land is about 85.5

MCM/year. Accordingly, the appropriate estimation of livestock water demand,

considering the present number of animals in the Gaza governorates for 2002, is about 2

MCM/yr (Water Resources Department, PWA, 2003)

Table (4.1): Summary of Agriculture Water Demand

IITTEEMM EESSTTIIMMAATTEEDD QQUUAANNTTIITTYY

MMCCMM//YYEEAARR

Irrigation 85.5

Livestock 2

Total 87.5 Source: Water Resources Department, PWA, 2003

Table (4.2): Summary of the Total Water Demand For all Sectors in the Gaza

Governorates for 2002

Item Water Estimation

MCM/year %

MMUUNNIICCIIPPAALL WWAATTEERR

DDEEMMAANNDD 62.7 41

Agricultural Water Demand 87.5 57.6

Industrial Water Demand 2 1.4 Total 152.2 100%

Source: Water Resources Department, PWA, 2003


-72-

44..44..44 PPRROOJJEECCTTEEDD WWAATTEERR DDEEMMAANNDD

By the year 2020, the domestic and industrial demands are expected to reach 182 MCM/yr

while the agricultural water demand will diminish to 80 MCM/yr due to the lack of land

for further agriculture and improved agricultural practices. (PWA NWP, 2000).

Generally, the overall water demand in the Gaza Strip is estimated to increase from

145x106m3/y at present to about 262x106 m3/y in 2020 (PWA Camp, 2000). This includes

the D&I demand at the water supply source and agricultural demand.

The effect on the water balance in the aquifer without any water resources management is

dramatically damaging. The water deficit will reach about 100mcm/y by the year 2020

(PWA Camp, 2000). The results will be a continuation of water level decline and water

quality deterioration through seawater intrusion and saline water up coning.

Table (4.3): Overall Projection Water Demand in Gaza Strip

Year Population

(Inhabitant)

Agriculture

water demand

(MCM/yr)

Domestic

water

demand

(MCM/yr)

Total

demand

(MCM/yr)

Available

Resources

(MCM/yr)

Gap

(MCM/yr)

2000 1167359 91 55 146 109 -37

2005 1472333 92 100 192 131 -61

2010 1871144 88 125 213 137 -76

2015 2241206 86 152 238 145 -93

2020 2617823 80 182 262 155 -107

Source: PWA, CAMP (2000)

Table (4.4) Water Resources Development in the Gaza Strip 2000 to 2020

Resources 2005 2010 2015 2020

Coastal aquifer (MCM/yr) 92 100 119 148

Wastewater re-use (MCM/yr) 23 34 48 63

Brackish (MCM/yr) 35 32 20 0

Mekeroth (MCM/yr) 10 10 10 10

De-salination (MCM/yr) 24 47 55 57

Storm water recharge (MCM/yr) 4 5 6 7

Transfer from West bank (MCM/yr) (0) (0) (0) (0) Total (MCM/yr) 188 228 258 285

Sources: PWA, 2000


-73-

44..55 WWAATTEERR BBAALLAANNCCEE OOFF TTHHEE GGAAZZAA CCOOAASSTTAALL AAQQUUIIFFEERR

The water balance of the Gaza coastal aquifer has been developed based on estimate of all

water inputs and outputs to the aquifer system. The present net aquifer balance is negative.

Under defined average climatic conditions, total abstraction, and return flow, the net deficit

is about 55-65 MCM/y. Implication of the net deficit include:

29. - Lowering of water level;

30. - Reducing the availability of fresh groundwater;

31. - Moreover, seawater intrusion, and potentially up-coning of deep brines.

Only 10 % of the total aquifer volume that may be considered fresh, according to the WHO

drinking water standards. This corresponds to a total of about 450-600 x106 m3

(PWA&CAMP, 2000). The time frame for a complete depletion of the fresh groundwater

will depend on the continued abstraction volumes and patterns. Using a rate of aquifer

depletion of about 40-50 x106 m3/yr, it can be theoretically calculated that the depletion

would occur in 10-13 years. The net deficit has led to a lowering of the water table in the

past 30-40 years and inland migration of seawater. The water balance of the Gaza Coastal

Aquifer has been developed based on an estimate of all inputs and outputs to the regional

aquifer system.

The components of the current water balance are:

Outflow= Total abstraction + Lateral flow (including natural recharge to the sea).

Inflow = Effective recharge + Lateral inflow + total return flows + saltwater intrusion,

According to Palestinian Water Authority data and camp report, the net water balance of

the Gaza Strip is depicted in table (4.5):


-74-

Table (4.5): Aquifer Balance Inflow Outflow

Min Max Min Max

Recharge from precipitation

(PWA & CAMP, 2000) 40 45 Municipal

Abstraction 59 63

Lateral flow from Israel 15 20 Industrial

Abstraction 2 4

Lateral inflow: Agriculture

Abstraction 87.5 90

1. Leakage from municipal water

distribution system 10 15 Settlement

Abstraction 5 7

2. Wastewater return flow 10.5 10.5 Natural groundwater

Discharge 10 15

3. Agricultural return flow (15-

30%) from Agr. Abstraction

(MOA.1999)

13 27

Other recharge (include recharge

from WWTP) 3.5 3.5

Saltwater Intrusion 10 15

TOTAL 102 136 163.5 179

Deficit 61.5 43

Note: Lateral flow from Egypt is considered negligible and not included in balance

44..66 TTHHEE PPAALLEESSTTIINNIIAANN WWAATTEERR SSEECCTTOORR AANNDD IINNSSTTIIUUTTIIOONNAALL SSEETTUUPP

The PA established the PWA in 1996 by decree 2/1996, and its power and responsibilities

were defined in the Palestinian by-law No 2. This gave a mandate to the PWA to develop

a Water Resources Management Strategy based on the principles embodied in the water

policy with the responsibility to: − Manage water resources

− Execute water policy

− Establish, supervise, and monitor water projects

− Initiate coordination and cooperation between the parties affected by water management


-75-

To achieve its aims, the PWA has formulated its strategy, vision, goals, polices and

implementation plan for development of water sector base through the water sector

strategic plan for Palestine as shown in figure (4.5).

Figure (4.5): Management Strategy for Water Sector (Carl Bro International a/s, 1999)

As shown in the general framework of the PWA, the IWRM is separated from the

facilitating environment and the development of the resources although this is in contrast

with the general concept of the IWRM as illustrated in the literature review, which should

be composed of the enabling environment and resources management in addition to

development of water resources.

In WSSPS study, which was followed by Coastal Aquifer Management plan (CAMP), the

main goal is to keep the aquifer in a sustainable condition.

44..66..11 RREEGGUULLAATTIIOONNSS,, PPOOLLIICCEESS AANNDD LLAAWWSS

The current regulations derived from the water law No.3/2003 spirit gives the PWA the

right and obligation to develop regulations in support of execution of its responsibilities.

The Palestinian Water Law No.3/2002 encompasses the whole water sector. It aims at

developing and managing water resources to increase capacity, and improving the quality

to preserve and protect the aquifer from pollution and depletion. The law is composed of

two main parts; the first one is environmental regulation, which concentrates on licensing

of water abstraction, and issuing licenses related to disposal and reuse of treated

wastewater and disposal of industrial wastewater including the brine of desalination. The

Objective Sustainable Management of W ater Resources

Facilitating Environment

Integrated Management of Water Resources

Development of Water Resources

Key Areas Key Areas Key Areas

Actions Actions Actions

2. Strengthen National Policies and Regulations 3. Build Institutional Capacity and Develop Human Resources 7. Promote Public Awareness and Participation

1. Pursue Palestinian Water Rights 4. Improve Information Services and Assessment of Resources 6. Enforce Pollution Control andProtectionof Water Resources

5. Govern Water and Wastewater Investments and Operations


-76-

second part is water quality regulation in addition to setting of the composition and tasks of

the national water council.

44..66..22 IINNSSTTIITTUUTTIIOONNAALL FFRRAAMMEEWWOORRKK

Many ministries and organizations play certain roles in the effective functioning of the

sector. The interaction of these organizations with the PWA is illustrated in figure (4.6)

which depict the co-ordination links in the sector.

WaterAuthority

Palestinian

Ministry ofEnvironmental

Affairs

IndustryMinistry of

Planning &Int. Co-op

Ministry of

Ministry ofJustice

Ministry ofFinance

Ministry of

HealthMinistry of

Ministry ofLocal

Goverment

Agriculture

Pollution licence sLicense application

Sector Planning

Co-ordinate OperationsLawWater

International

General Planning/

water quality standards

Drinking and bathing

and controlCo-ordination

approval/

Water tarrif

cost recovery

License application

Sec

tor P

lann

ing/

Lice

nce

appl

icat

ion

Figure (4.6): Inter-ministerial Co-ordination in Water Sector (PWA NWP, 2000)

44..66..33 RREEGGUULLAATTOORRYY FFRRAAMMEEWWOORRKK

In 2000, the national water plan was developed. It describes a general overview for the role

of service provider (regional water utilities). It states that the utility will be responsible for

the following services: preliminary investigation design, construction and/or rehabilitation,

research, repair, operation and maintenance. It would cover the fields of municipal and

industrial water supply; wastewater collection, treatment and reuse; storm water collection,

treatment and reuse; water and wastewater supplies for irrigation. Regional water utilities

will remain government owned with community representation on their board. It will be

required to seek full cost recovery in their operations and develop a customer charter.

To regulate the water industry, the Palestinian Water Law sets the composition and tasks of

the national water council. The PWA plays the role of the sector regulator, which is


-77-

responsible for supervising and controlling the water utility. The Environmental Quality

Authority is responsible for wastewater quality control and the Ministry of Health is

responsible for drinking water quality control.

44..66..44 CCOOSSTT OOFF SSEERRVVIICCEE –– WWAATTEERR TTAARRIIFFFF::

Three previous studies have been carried out (Norconsult, 1998; LEKA, 1998; Metcalf &

Eddy, 2000). All recommend substantial increases of the tariff from the present level of

NIS 1.15/m3 to between NIS 2.5-3.5/m3.

The main challenge now is to find a tariff system that can mobilize enough revenues to

enable adequate cost recovery for operating of the Water Utility, taking into account both

its investment needs and the collection environment. However, the current legislation will

only allow ex-post recovery of cost. Therefore, tariffs can be increased after investments

have been made, and not ex-ante in participation of future investment needs and long run

marginal cost considerations.

44..77 SSUUMMMMAARRYY OOFF EEXXIISSTTIINNGG SSIITTUUTTIIOONN

44..77..11 MMUUNNIICCIIPPAALL AANNDD IINNDDUUSSTTRRIIAALL WWAATTEERR DDEEMMAANNDD

The existing situation is summarized below:

− Present water demands have been suppressed because of the limitations on supply and

restrictions on developing new water resources and supply infrastructure.

− Present water supplies are neither adequate to provide acceptable standards of living

for the Palestinian people, nor sufficient to facilitate economic development.

− Water quality is critical; there is only ~30% of fresh Groundwater.

− The losses in the domestic supply systems are high, varying around 35 percent.

−− Future water demands, which include 182 MCM/y for M&I, have been estimated at

about 262 MCM/y by the year 2020.

44..77..22 AAGGRRIICCUULLTTUURRAALL WWAATTEERR DDEEMMAANNDD

− The contribution of agriculture to the overall economy has proportionately declined in

recent years, mainly due to unnatural constraint on development.

− The national food requirement for irrigated crops including fruits and vegetables is

estimated at about 270 kg/capita/year (MOA, 2001). This requirement may be satisfied

by a combination of expanding irrigated agricultural land and importation of food.


-78-

− Available land for irrigation is limited in many Governorates but this limitation is

severe, so no expansion schemes can be proposed.

− Low quality water and treated wastewater effluents represent a potential source for

irrigation water.

− Agricultural credit and marketing institutions and arrangements are inadequate.

44..77..33 WWAATTEERR CCOONNSSEERRVVAATTIIOONN

− The two studies (LEKA, 1998, and LEKA, 2002) affirm that unaccounted for water

(UFW) in Palestinian water utilities ranges from 25 percent to 35 percent.

− Significant numbers of unregistered connections have been discovered.

− Some indications of the losses at source were found after the rehabilitation of wells,

where at least 20 percent improvement in quantity was realized after rehabilitation.

− Most of the existing utilities dealing with the management of water services are part of

the municipalities and village councils and are understaffed and under-skilled.

− The existing fragmented and disparate water tariff system does not take into account

all the components of the cost and does not encourage the conservation of water use.

− Most of the industrial facilities do not consider water conservation or the treatment and

recycling of their wastewater.

− There are insufficient building and plumbing codes, which regulate the construction,

nor is there a municipal authority to approve standards of construction.

− There is a lack of awareness of the true value of water.

44..77..44 WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS

− The quality of the groundwater has drastically deteriorated

− The coastal aquifer supplies 96 percent of the current total water supply. The available

conventional resources are far from meeting the current and future water demands.

− In the Gaza Strip, it is assumed that the agricultural fresh water demand is stabilized at

the current level and reduced as lower quality water becomes available.

− There are studies for increasing the supply by the regional seawater desalination

plants.


-79-

44..77..55 RREESSOOUURRCCEE GGAAPP

− In Gaza, this gap is growing throughout the time. This resource gap, if not bridged in a

timely manner will inevitably have serious adverse effects on the future of the

Palestinian socio-economic development.

− Other lower quality water are available and must be used as resource wherever

possible in order to acknowledge the scarcity of water in the region and mitigate this

gap without detracting from Palestinian water rights.

− The growing gap calls for the mobilization of additional conventional and non-

conventional water resources.

44..77..66 WWAATTEERR SSUUPPPPLLYY SSYYSSTTEEMMSS

− Water supply is artificially constrained by the unavailability of both resource and

infrastructure in the Gaza Strip

− The huge differences between demands and available supplies place water supply

systems into a continuous crisis.

− Recent rehabilitation of some of the main transmissions and distribution systems has

resulted in substantial leakage and loss reduction.

− Network pressure and hours of service are often substantially lower than required for

satisfactory service.

− Uncertainty in availability of future resources related to supply would require phased

development.

44..77..77 WWAASSTTEEWWAATTEERR MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT AANNDD RREEUUSSEE

− The reuse of treated effluents represents an interest and is considered an important

component of the water resources.

− The current lack of wastewater management is responsible for serious health risks.

− Previously many proposals accepted by international donors for construction of

wastewater facilities did not take specific account of the reuse elements although this

approach is now changing as exemplified by the German support of the middle area

WWTP.

− The reuse of treated effluents offers the following main advantages: 1. The introduction of complementary resources

2. The quantitative and qualitative protection of water resources

3. The general protection of public health by eliminating health hazards


-80-

4. Sustaining the existing and expanding irrigated areas

32. According to PWA data for year 2004, 60% of the Gaza Strip has access to

Wastewater collection system.

44..77..88 EENNVVIIRROONNMMEENNTT AANNDD GGRROOUUNNDDWWAATTEERR CCOONNTTAAMMIINNAATTIIOONN

− The coastal aquifer is at risk from:

33. 1. Raw Wastewater

34. 2. Uncontrolled dumping of solid wastes

35. 3. Application of agricultural fertilizers and pesticides

36. 4. Over extraction, which introduces unsafe chemicals from seawater

or through up-coning.

37. 5. Unsanitary disposal of hazardous wastes

− Aquifer quality is an important issue with high nitrates and chlorides.

− Water and sanitation related diseases are common in Palestine such as kidney diseases,

parasites and bacteria infections, particularly in areas where there is no satisfactory

water supply and a lack of proper sewerage system.

44..77..99 SSTTOORRMM WWAATTEERR DDRRAAIINNAAGGEE

− All actions that increase infiltration to the aquifers are vital, especially those that do so

in areas before the possibility of pollution.

− Storm water once polluted is less useful and often incorporates foul sewage and is

costly to reclaim.

− Current aquifer recharge in the Coastal Region is estimated to be approximately 40-45

MCM/y. An improvement of efficiency is projected.


-81-

44..88 PPHHAASSEE 22:: SSTTRRUUCCTTUURRIINNGG TTHHEE PPRROOBBLLEEMM AANNDD DDEEVVEELLOOPPMMEENNTT OOFF

WWAATTEERR MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT IINNDDIICCAATTOORRSS

The DPSIR concept is used as a framework for identification and development of

Integrated Water Resources Management Indicators for the Gaza Strip. After reviewing

international sustainable indicators related to water sectors and water sector situation in the

Gaza Strip, the indicators are developed and classified according to Walmsley (2000)

schema for water resources management.

44..88..11 AA CCLLAASSSSIIFFIICCAATTIIOONN BBAASSEEDD OONN DDRRIIVVIINNGG FFOORRCCEESS

Driving force indicators reflect pressures exerted by natural phenomena and anthropogenic

activities that, cannot be easily manipulated but provide essential information for

understand the regional context.

The driving forces can lead to a state of water deficiency with relative variation, so the

nature of the water deficiency is one factor that needs to be determined. The main

characteristics of our region are the high spatial and temporal imbalances of water demand

and supply, seasonal water uses that strive for inadequate water resources and a relative

lack of institutional water management.

List of driving forces according to the Walmsley (2000) schema (Natural conditions,

Development and economic activity):

38. 1. Population growth rate and demographic trend,

39. 2. Literacy rate and environmental awareness,

40. 3. Meteorological factors mainly rainfall and temperature,

41. 4. Land use and Land availability,

42. 5. Income (per capita),

43. 6. Location above coastal aquifer (as source for natural water) and proximity

to Mediterranean Sea,

44. 7. Local aquifer shared by Israel,

45. 8. Political situation,

46. 9. Waste generation,

47. 10. Uneven distribution of available water all over the sectors,

48. 11. Access to safe water supply,

49. 12. Access to an improved sanitation facilities,

50. 13. Agricultural products,

51. 14. Current agricultural practices and activities,


-82-

52. 15. Cost of water production,

53. 16. Illegal drilling for water,

54. 17. Water price,

55. 18. Efficiency in revenues and taxation,

56. 19. Financial assistance for investments,

57. 20. Existence of environmental, water laws and agencies,

58. 21. Lack of enforcement of legislation,

59. 22. Employment including sectoral and regional changes in the job market,

60. 23. Number of staff trained, community participation, charitable works,

61. 24. Active NGO (non-Governmental Organizations),

62. 25. Gender empowerment.

44..88..22 AA CCLLAASSSSIIFFIICCAATTIIOONN BBAASSEEDD OONN PPRREESSSSUURREE

Pressure indicators reflect the pressures exerted on water resources and the water use

groups of a region, as a result of the driving forces. Therefore, the pressure indicators,

which reflect water supply, water demand, waste and pollution, are:

63. 1. Positive trend of water demand and consumption, (domestic use, industrial

and agricultural sectors, environmental needs),

64. 2. Overexploitation of groundwater,

65. 3. Salinization of ground water due to sea water intrusion, and upconing

phenomena of the aquifer,

66. 4. Positive trend of nitrates and other chemicals concentrations in

groundwater,

67. 5. Pollution generation problem due to untreated effluent disposal,.

68. 6. Difficulties of the water system in supplying unsatisfied demands,

69. 7. Conflicts regarding the use of reclaimed sewage water (specially in

agriculture reuse),

70. 8. Deficit in crop production,

71. 9. High cost of land for erection and maintenance of storage reservoirs and

treatment facilities,

72. 10. Political situation and shared water,

73. 11. Chemical fertilizers,

74. 12. Organic fertilizers,

75. 13. Petrol stations,


-83-

44..88..33 SSTTAATTEE ((WWAATTEERR QQUUAANNTTIITTYY,, AANNDD WWAATTEERR QQUUAALLIITTYY)) State indicators assess the status of water resources and then divided into two main parts:

− Water Quantity

76. 1. Total available water per capita,

77. 2. Increasing demand in proportion to supply,

78. 3. Increased domestic and agricultural water demand and consumption,

79. 4. Decreased piezometric level of aquifers,

80. 5. Illegal drilling of wells,

81. 6. Poor annual permits and water allocation mechanism,

82. 7. Significant urban water supply and irrigation losses (UFW), − Water Quality

83. 1. Salinization problem due to seawater intrusion and over-abstraction,

84. 2. Fecal Coliform Concentration,

85. 3. Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD),

86. 4. Chemical Oxygen demand (COD),

87. 5. Heavy metals Concentration,

88. 6. Nitrate concentration,

89. 7. Chloride Concentration,

90. 8. TDS (total dissolved solids),

44..88..44 IIMMPPAACCTT:: ((EECCOOSSYYSSTTEEMM IINNTTEEGGRRIITTYY AANNDD UUSSEE VVAALLUUEE)) Impact indicators assess the effect that a pressure has on the state of user groups and resources, which

are summarized below:

91. 1. Ecosystem degradation,

92. 2. Public health concerns,

93. 3. Loss of crops and livestock,

94. 4. Inadequate land use and water infrastructure,

95. 5. Limited renewable recharge of the aquifer,

96. 6. Deterioration of the quality of the water in the aquifer,

97. 7. Seawater intrusion and up-coning,

98. 8. Economic impacts on the agricultural sector,

99. 9. High nitrates and salt concentrations could compromise groundwater use for

domestic purposes,


-84-

100. 10. Loss of wetlands,

101. 11. Loss of biodiversity,

44..88..55 RREESSPPOONNSSEE:: PPOOLLIICCYY AANNDD MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT IINNCCLLUUDDIINNGG IINNSSTTIITTUUTTIIOONNAALL

AARRRRAANNGGEEMMEENNTT The term Responses in the context of the DPSIR framework applies mostly to long-term management

actions. These generally aim at adjusting or mitigating the pressures and impacts caused by the human

environment. These actions form parts of different Policy Options, which include:

− Supply Enhancement

− Demand Management and Social Developmental Policy

− Institutional and other Policies

The response for the increasing water demand, the reduction of water supply and the

poor quality of local water resources are: − Supply Enhancement

102. 1. Desalination of brackish water (in this research it means the desalination of

brackish water without paying attention to the sustainable yield of the aquifer or even

concerning about it and continue in over-exploitation),

103. 2. Sea water desalination,

104. 3. Storm water harvesting,

105. 4. Exploitation of existing resources (this option suggests the exploration of

deep aquifer),

106. 5. Wastewater treatment and reuse,

107. 6. Water import and regional conveyance. (This option does not include the

current amount of water taken from Mekorot which is about 5Mm3/yr), − Demand Management & Social Developmental Policy

108. 7. Improvement of Agriculture activities and practices,

109. 8. Water conservation and water saving strategies,

110. 9. Water tariffs,

111. 10. Infrastructure improvement and development,

112. 11. Public awareness and information campaign,

113. 12. Surface and groundwater protection,

114. − Institutional and other Policies

115. 13. Institutional capacity building,

116. 14. Environmental policies,


-85-

117. 15. Economic polices,

118. 16. Promulgation and enforcement of legislation, water law.


-86-

Figure (4.7): Proposed DPSIR Framework for the Gaza Strip

DRIVING FORCE 1. Population growth rate, and demographic trend 2. Literacy rate and environmental awareness 3. Meteorological factors mainly rainfall and

temperature. 4. Land use and Land availability 5. Income ( per capita) 6. Location above coastal aquifer (as source for

natural water) and proximity to Mediterranean Sea,

7. Local aquifer shared by Israel, 8. Political situation 9. Waste generation 10. Uneven distribution of available water all over

the sectors, 11. Access to safe water supply 12. Access to an improved sanitation facilities 13. Agricultural product 14. Current agricultural practices and activities 15. Cost of water production 16. Illegal drilling of water, 17. Water price

18. Efficiency in revenues and taxation 19. Financial assistance for investments

20. Existence of environmental, water laws and agencies, 21. Lack of enforcement of legislation

22. Employment including sectoral and regional changes and job market, 23. Number of staff trained,

community participation, charitable works., 24. Active NGO

25. Gender empowerment

PRESSURE 1. Positive trend of water demand and

consumption, (domestic use, industrial and agricultural sectors, environmental needs)

2. Over-exploitation of groundwater 3. Stalinization of ground water due to

sea water intrusion, and upcoming phenomena

4. Positive trend of nitrates and other nutrients concentration in groundwater

5. Pollution generation problem due to untreated effluent disposal.

6. Difficulties of water system in supplying unsatisfied demands

7. Conflicts regarding the use of reclaimed sewage water

8. Deficit in crop production 9. High cost of land for erection and

maintenance of storage reservoir and treatment facilities

10. Political situation and shared water 11. Chemical fertilizers 12. Organic fertilizers 13. Petrol stations

STATE Water Quantity & Quality

1. Total available water per capita 2. Increasing demand with

proportional to supply 3. Increased domestic and agricultural

water demand and consumption 4. Decreased piezometric level of

aquifers 5. Illegal drilling of wells 6. Poor annual permits and water

allocation mechanism. 7. Significant urban water supply and

irrigation losses (UFW), 8. Salinization problem due to

seawater intrusion and over- abstraction

9. Fecal Coliform Concentration 10. Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) 11. Chemical Oxygen demand (COD) 12. Heavy metals Concentration 13. Nitrate concentration (Nitrates

concentration exceeds the limit values for drinking water)

14. Chloride Concentration.

IMPACT 1. Ecosystem degradation 2. Public health concerns. 3. Loss of crops and

livestock 4. Inadequate land use and

water infrastructure. 5. Limited renewable

recharge of the aquifer, 6. Deterioration of the

quality of the water in the aquifer,

7. Sea intrusion and up-coning

8. Economic impacts in agriculture sector

9. High nitrates and salt concentrations could compromise groundwater use for domestic purposes.

10. Loss of wetlands. 11. Loss of biodiversity

RESPONSE Supply Enhancement

1. Desalination of brackish water (in this research it mean the desalination of brackish water without pay attention to of sustainable yield of aquifer or concern about it)

2. Sea water desalination 3. Storm water harvesting 4. Exploitation of existing resources (this option

suggests the exploration of deep aquifer). 5. Wastewater treatment and reuse 6. Water import and regional conveyance. (This

option does not include the current amount of water taken from Mekorot which is about

–Demand Management & Social Developmental Policy

7. Improvement of Agriculture act ivies and practices 8. Water conservation and water saving strategies 9. Water Tariff. 10. Infrastructure improvement and development 11. Public awareness and information campaign

Surface and groundwater protection

Institutional and other Policies 12. Institutional capacity building 13. Environmental policies 14. Economic polices 15. Promulgation and enforcement of legislation,

water law


-87-

44..99 PPHHAASSEE 33:: AANNAALLYYSSIISS OOFF TTHHEE IINNDDIICCAATTOORRSS UUSSIINNGG MMCCDDAA

After identifying options, which could contribute to improving quality and quantity of

water to meet the required demand. Ranking of these options is necessary to find the

priorities for investment in the water sector. In this research, MCDA is used as DSS tool

for ranking water sector management options. The four main methods, ELECTRE II,

Regime Method, Weighted Summation method and Evamix Method are used. The above-

mentioned methods are applied to case study to rank the options according to its

importance by using DEFINIT program. In the following sections, the steps of the work

utilize the previous conceptual approach as follows:

119. - Selection of the most important criteria

120. - Combination of criteria (also called effects) with indicators (also called

alternatives or options).

121. - Scoring the options in accordance with criteria.

122. - Applying MCA methods

123. - Conducting comparison between the MCA methods and sensitivity analysis

44..99..11 SSEELLEECCTTIIOONN OOFF CCRRIITTEERRIIAA Based on the criteria, indicated previously, consultations and interviews were conducted with 40 water

experts and decision makers in the water sectors to select the most appropriate criteria that can affect the

decision-making in water sector. The experts are project mangers, head of departments, and engineers from

PWA, Environmental Affairs Authority, Ministry of Planning and International Cooperation, Ministry of

Agriculture, Palestinian Hydrology Group, in addition to lecturers from Islamic University and Al-Azher

University. During interviews, the criteria were explained orally and scoring of criteria was done from 1 to 5

where:

1 Very Important

2 Important

3 Neutral

4 Not important

5 Not important at all

Table (4.6) contains a list of criteria in addition to the calculated in regard to the importance index, and rank,

where:


-88-

criteria scoring ofnumber cause.each for response total theof percentage asgiven response i theoffrequency x

response i theof weigth theexpressingconstant aindex importance

:)1(

thi

thi

1

==

=

=−

=∑

=

n

I

wheren

xaI

n

iii

Table (4.6): List of Criteria Affecting Water Management Options

NO. CRITERIA IMPOR.

INDEX

RANK

(1) Financial and Economic viability

1.1

Fundability:

Is a measure of the ability to secure financial support for capital and

recurring costs to fund the option. It is primarily a function of the

amount of money needed

91% 1

1.2 Unit cost of water production. (Including capital and operation Costs) 75% 19

1.3 Tariff levels 71% 22

1.4

Affordability:

Is the ratio of the highest acceptable rate to the consumer divided by the

cost per unit water

76% 15

1.5 Reliability of price source 68% 25

(2) Technical viability

2.1 Infrastructure requirement 84% 6

2.2 Availability of technology 79% 10

2.3 Potential for implementation 79% 10

2.4 Technical complexity 71% 22

2.5

Flexibility:

Is the ability of the option or technology to adjust to changes in demand,

expand, meet changing water quality conditions, or any other variable of

technical considerations that may influence the effectiveness of the

option over the long term.

76% 15

2.6 Feasibility 85% 5

2.7 Reliability of technology 80% 8


-89-

NO. CRITERIA IMPOR.

INDEX

RANK

Consideration is given to the susceptibility to failure and breakdown, the

reliance on constant power sources, and the ease of repair under the

conditions encountered in the Gaza Strip.

(3) Source viability

3.1 Reliability of source quantities:

It is a measure of availability and hydrologic certainty of the source

87% 4

3.2 Sustainability of quantity and quality 75% 19

3.3 Flexibility of variable abstraction rates during development 67% 27

(4) Political viability

4.1 Compliance with current water management strategy 79% 10

4.2 Political stability of the source country 83% 7

4.3 Compatibility with international laws and existing agreements 63% 30

(5) Institutional viability

5.1

Availability and capacity

It a measure of the availability and capacity to create the managerial,

regulatory, legal, and political institutions needed to implement option.

88% 3

5.2

Reliability of relevant institutions

It is a measure of to the ability of institutions over time to manage and

operate the option with no loss of service.

80% 8

(6) Environmental viability

6.1 Impacts on the protected areas 72% 21

6.2 Impact on land use 67% 27

6.3 Impact on aquifer balance 79% 10

6.4 Impact on aquifer quality 76% 15

6.5 Impacts on physical and natural environment in general 68% 25

(7) Social viability

7.1 Public acceptance 79% 10

7.2 Fulfillment of the development needs. 76% 15

7.3 Impact on public health 91% 1

7.4 Culture and awareness 71% 22

7.5 General standard of living and employment 64% 29


-90-

As the methods that depend on pairwise comparison do not work with more than nine criteria, the highest

seven criteria were selected, as follows:

1. Fundability.

2. Impact on public health.

3. Institutional availability and capacity.

4. Reliability of the source quantities.

5. Feasibility.

6. Infrastructure requirement.

7. Political stability.

44..99..22 SSCCOORRIINNGG OOFF TTHHEE IINNDDIICCAATTOORRSS BBAASSEEDD OONN SSEELLEECCTTEEDD CCRRIITTEERRIIAA After selecting the seven criteria which have the highest degree of importance, other interviews were

conducted with water experts where they were asked to put the importance of each indicator with respect to

the highest seven criteria as shown in appendix (3).

The scores were converted to --/++ scale which is often used to describe qualitative effects as shown in table

(4.7).

In general, the pluses and minuses mean the following:

++ : Big negative effect (represent the degree of importance =1)

+ : Small negative effect (represent the degree of importance =2)

0 : no effect (represent the degree of importance =3)

- : Small positive effect (represent the degree of importance =4)

-- : Big positive effect (represent the degree of importance =5)

Chapter (4) Proposed Hierarchical Approach for IWRM in Gaza Strip

-91-

Table (4.7): Scores of The Policy and Management Options which Correspond to The Most Important Criteria:

Criteria

Alternatives

Sea water desalination

Storm w

ater harvesting

Exploitation of existing resources

Wastew

ater treatment

Water conservation

and water saving

strategies

Infrastructure im

provement

irrigation im

provements

Land and crop m

anagement

Economic polices

Water Tariff

Surface and groundw

ater protection

Environmental polices

Institutional capacity building

Public awareness and

information cam

paign

Promulgation and

enforcement of

legislation, water law

Desalination of

brackish water

Water im

port and regional conveyance

Fundability + + -- ++ + ++ + 0 + + + + + + 0 - --

impact on public health + ++ 0 + ++ ++ + 0 0 0 + 0 + + + + +

Availability and capacity of

institutions + + -- ++ ++ + ++ + + + + + + + + - --

Reliability of the source

quantity ++ ++ - + 0 0 + ++ 0 0 - 0 + 0 + - 0

Feasibility + + + - ++ ++ + + + ++ ++ + + + 0 + - --

Infrastructure requirement + + ++ 0 ++ + ++ 0 ++ + + ++ + 0 0 0 + +

Political stability + + 0 -- ++ ++ 0 ++ + + + ++ + 0 + + -- ++


-92-

44..99..33 AANNAALLYYSSIISS By using definite program, four methods were used to analyze the ranking of management options.

11 PPRROOBBLLEEMM DDEEFFIINNIITTIIOONN:: The problem is identified by classifying it into two main categories:

1. The effect (criteria): In this analysis, the effect score is the first seven criteria that were ranked in table

(4.6).

According to table (4.6), the weight of each criterion for the first seven criteria is as in table (4.8):

Table (4.8): Weight of Each Criterion Criteria Weight Importance

index

Fundability 0.149 91%

Impact on public health 0.149 91%

Availability and capacity of institutions 0.144 88%

Reliability of the source quantity 0.143 87%

Feasibility 0.14 85%

Infrastructure requirement 0.138 84%

Political stability 0.136 83%

2. The alternatives are the policy actions, (response, in the context of DPSIR framework). Qualitative scores

(++/--) were adopted as mentioned previously.

22 EELLEECCTTRREE IIII MMEETTHHOODD This method calculates the ranking of alternatives based on pair wise comparison of alternatives. The

concordance table (1) in appendix (5) shows that the value in the table is calculated as the sum of the weights

of the effects in which one alternative is better than or equal the other. For example, the value of desalination

and wastewater treatment is 0.71 and is calculated as the sum of the weights of the effects in which

desalination scores better than or equal wastewater treatment.

The concordance table shows that in the first column, the highest weight was in wastewater treatment, while

the threshold for a strong graph is 0.725 and for a weak graph is 0.593 as shown in table (1), appendix (5).

The values in the discordance table (2) in appendix (5) are the differences between the standardized scores of

the effect which one alternative is worst compared to the others. For example, the value 0.25 for both

alternatives, wastewater treatment and infrastructure improvement, is defined as the difference between the

standardized scores of the effect for which wastewater treatment is the worst compared to infrastructure

improvement. DEFINITE suggests a strong threshold value of 0.333, and a weak threshold value of 0.407.

From the concordance table it is obvious that desalination is ranked (100%) over most option except for

storm water (85%), wastewater treatment 71%, infrastructure improvement (70%)and irrigation 86%. The

worst alternative is exploitation of existing resources, water import and overexploitation of groundwater by

utilization of brackish desalination.

− Strong and weak graphs


-93-

For every pair of alternatives, it should be determined if they fulfill the strong preference

relationship (>*). This relation holds if the concordance index is larger than the strong

concordance threshold and if the discordance index is smaller than the strong discordance

threshold. This means that the concordance must be sufficiently large and the discordance

sufficiently small. The strong threshold value for the concordance index is set at 0.725 and

the strong threshold for the discordance index is set at 0.333 as shown in table (2),

appendix (5). For example, the ranking of seawater desalination which is better than storm

water harvesting meets both constraints, the first where in the concordance table, the

seawater desalination with stormwater is 0.85 which is larger thanl0.725 (strong threshold

value for the concordance index), and the second in discordance table, where the values is

0.25<0.333. This is indicated with a 1 in table (3) appendix (5). (The values are calculated

by DEFINITE). − Ranking

First, the ranking of the alternatives is determined based on the strong threshold values. Alternatives that are

placed in the same position are then ranked according to their weak threshold values if possible. The ranking

of alternatives is shown in fig. (4.8).

ELECTRE II

Was

tew

ater

Tre

atm

ent

Sea

wat

er d

esal

inat

ion

Sto

rm w

ater

har

vest

ing

Wat

er c

onse

rvat

ion

and

wat

er s

avin

g st

rate

gies

Infra

stru

ctur

e im

prov

emen

t irr

igat

ion

impr

ovem

ents

Land

and

cro

p m

anag

emen

t Su

rface

and

gro

undw

ater

pro

tect

ion

Prom

ulga

tion

and

enfo

rcem

ent o

f leg

isla

tion,

wat

er la

w

Inst

itutio

nal c

apac

ity b

uild

ing

Eco

nom

ic p

olic

es

Env

ironm

enta

l po

lices

Wat

er T

ariff

Publ

ic a

war

enes

s an

d in

form

atio

n ca

mpa

ign

D

esal

inat

ion

of b

rack

ish

wat

er

Wat

er im

port

and

regi

onal

con

veya

nce

Expl

oita

tion

of e

xist

ing

reso

urce

s

Result

1 2 3 3 4 4 4 5 6 6 7 7 7 8 9 9 10

Figure (4.8): Ranking of Management Options Using ELECTRE II


-94-

ElECTRE II results show that enhancement of the supply is the main target which can be

achieved by wastewater treatment through using treated wastewater for agriculture or in

artificial recharge to improve capacity of groundwater to be utilized through wells drilling.

While seawater desalination is the second priority which must be considered as an

important source to increase the fresh water quantity.

The storm water harvesting by utilization of natural resources through water conservations,

the improvement of infrastructure, improvement of agricultural practices and protection of

natural resources is considered as third priority.

On the contrary, the worst alternatives are desalination of brackish water, exploitation of

the existing resources and water import. Although the cost of brackish water desalination is

less than seawater desalination, but the continuity in increasing the abstraction of the

aquifer beyond the sustainable limit could lead to the depletion of aquifer, and therefore an

infinite resource is being lost. While, the exploration of current resources (deep aquifer) is

accompanied with high uncertainty. Whereas, the water import affects with political

stability of the region, so it is not considered as a visible option.

− Sensitivity analysis for ELECTREII:

The input for the result is an uncertainty of each effect as shown in the following table:

Table (4.9): Specific Weight of Options and Their Uncertainty Criteria Weight Uncertainty

%

Fundability 0.149 50

Impact on public health 0.149 0

Availability and capacity of institutions 0.144 30

Reliability of the source quantity 0.143 0

Feasibility 0.14 30

Infrastructure requirement 0.138 0

Political stability 0.136 60

The uncertainty values of fundability and political stability are the highest (50.60). this is due to their

dependence on political stability. While the impact on public health, reliability of source quantity, and

infrastructure requirement are always easy to verify.

In sensitivity analysis, the ranking of alternatives is calculated a large number of times

based on changing scores (or weights). The best alternative of every pair of alternatives is


-95-

saved in a table called dominance table as shown in table 8 in appendix 5 and presents

additional information about the certainty of their mutual ranking. The dominance table

shows that in 437 of the 500 cases the alternative wastewater treatment ranks better than

seawater desalination. This means that it is about 87.3% certain that alternative wastewater

treatment ranks better than seawater desalination.

Table (4.10): The Results of Sensitivity Analysis Using ELECTRE II

Alternatives Total Score Sensitivity

Analyses

Conclusion

Wastewater treatment 1 16.87 1

Sea water desalination 2 16.13 2

Storm water harvesting 3 14.48 3

Water conservation and water saving strategies 3 14.52 3

Infrastructure improvement 4 11.70 4

Irrigation improvements 4 11.71 4

Land and crop management 4 11.71 4

Surface and groundwater protection 5 10.30 5

Promulgation and enforcement of legislation, water law 6 7.78 6

Institutional capacity building 6 7.78 6

Economic polices 7 6.22 7

Environmental polices 7 6.22 7

Water Tariff 7 6.22 7

Public awareness and information campaign 8 5.02 8

Desalination of brackish water (above sustainable yield) 9 2.4 9

Water import and regional conveyance 9 2.72 9

Exploitation of existing resources 10 1.0 10

The first column in the table (4.10) shows the scores of the examined ranking. The second

column holds the scores of the ranking calculated from sensitivity analysis and the third

column eventually holds the final ranking. This final ranking is based on the values in the

second column. As the rank order of two alternatives is assumed to be enough certain if the

difference between the scores for these two alternatives is larger than 0.2, so the examined

ranking is sufficiently certain. It is important to mention that even when score of

uncertainty is changed with keeping the ratio of the effect as changing the percentage


-96-

uncertainty to (70, 10, 30, 10, 30, 80), the values of the sensitivity analysis doesn’t change

the rank as shown in table (4.11).

Table (4.11): The Score of Uncertainty

Criteria Weight Uncertainty (%)

Fundability 0.149 70

Impact on public health 0.149 10

Availability and capacity of institutions 0.144 30

Reliability of the source quantity 0.143 10

Feasibility 0.14 30

Infrastructure requirement 0.138 10

Political stability 0.136 80

The results are:

Table (4.12): The Results of Sensitivity after Changed Score of Uncertainty

Alternatives Total

Score

Sensitivity

Analyses

Conclusion

Wastewater treatment 1 16.85 1

Sea water desalination 2 16.15 2

Storm water harvesting 3 14.47 3

Water conservation and water saving strategies 3 14.53 3

Infrastructure improvement 4 11.70 4

Irrigation improvements 4 11.84 4

Land and crop management 4 11.72 4

Surface and groundwater protection 5 10.59 5

Promulgation and enforcement of legislation,

water law

6 7.74 6

Institutional capacity building 6 7.74 6

Economic polices 7 6.12 7

Environmental polices 7 6.12 7

Water Tariff 7 6.12 7

Public awareness and information campaign 8 5.00 8


-97-

Desalination of brackish water 9 2.37 9

Water import and regional conveyance 9 2.96 9

Exploitation of existing resources 10 1.0 10

As one can see from above analysis, changing uncertainty values with approximately, the

same ratio of uncertainty of the effect as in previous values of first analysis does not affect

the final ranking and the changing in values of sensitivity scores is negligible. (See table

4.12, 4.10).

33 MMUULLTTII--CCRRIITTEERRIIAA AANNAALLYYSSIISS UUSSIINNGG TTHHEE RREEGGIIMMEE

MMEETTHHOODD ((OORRDDIINNAALL))

The regime method is based on pairwise comparisons of the alternatives. The Regime

method calculates the ranking of the alternatives a large number of times using a random

generator. The Regime method provides a probability table as depicted in (table 9,

appendix 5) as an intermediate result. The overall score of an alternative is calculated as

the row average of the relative success indices. The weight of effect is ranked according to

the weight, used in the ELECTRE II method. The results of analysis are shown in the

figure (4.9).

Regime method

Was

tew

ater

trea

tmen

t

Wat

er c

onse

rvat

ion

and

wat

er s

avin

g

Infra

stru

ctur

e im

prov

emen

t

Stor

m w

ater

har

vest

ing

Sea

wat

er d

esal

inat

ion

irrig

atio

n im

prov

emen

ts

Inst

itutio

nal c

apac

ity b

uild

ing

Su

rface

and

gro

undw

ater

pro

tect

ion

E

cono

mic

pol

ices

W

ater

Tar

iff

Pub

lic a

war

enes

s an

d in

form

atio

n ca

mpa

ign

P

rom

ulga

tion

and

enfo

rcem

ent o

f leg

isla

tion,

wat

er la

w

Land

and

cro

p m

anag

emen

t

Env

ironm

enta

l pol

ices

Des

alin

atio

n of

bra

ckis

h w

ater

Wat

er im

port

and

regi

onal

con

veya

nce

Exp

loita

tion

of e

xist

ing

reso

urce

s

Result 1.00 0.92 0.89 0.80 0.76 0.69 0.60 0.55 0.42 0.42 0.40 0.36 0.26 0.24 0.13 0.06 0.00

Figure (4.9): Ranking of Management Options Using Regime Method


-98-

− Sensitivity Analysis using the Regime Method:

The sensitivity analysis generates probability and dominance tables. See (tables 10&11 in appendix 5).

The result of sensitivity analysis is shown in table (4.13):

Table (4.13): The Results of Sensitivity Analysis using the Regime Method

Alternatives Total Score Sensitivity

Analyses

Conclusion

Wastewater treatment 1.00 16.97 1

Water conservation and water saving strategies 0.92 15.97 2

Infrastructure improvement 0.89 14.86 3

Storm water harvesting 0.8 14.03 4

Sea water desalination 0.76 13.04 5

Irrigation improvements 0.69 12.02 6

Institutional capacity building 0.60 10.79 7

Surface and groundwater protection 0.55 9.95 8

Economic polices 0.42 8.77 9

Water Tariff 0.42 7.87 9

Public awareness and information campaign 0.40 7.12 10

Promulgation and enforcement of legislation,

water law

0.36 6.13 11

Environmental polices 0.24 5.02 12

Land and crop management 0.26 4.14 13

Desalination of brackish water 0.13 3.0 14

Water import and regional conveyance 0.06 2.0 15

Exploitation of existing resources 0.00 1.0 16

44 EEVVAAMMIIXX MMEETTHHOODD

The analysis using Evamix which include dominance table is shown in (table 12, appendix

5). The result of the ranking of the alternative using these methods is illustrated in the

figure (4.10):


-99-

Evamix Method

Was

tew

ater

trea

tmen

t

Sea

wat

er d

esal

inat

ion

Wat

er c

onse

rvat

ion

and

wat

er s

avin

g st

rate

gies

Sto

rm w

ater

har

vest

ing

Infra

stru

ctur

e im

prov

emen

t

irrig

atio

n im

prov

emen

ts

Sur

face

and

gro

undw

ater

pro

tect

ion

Land

and

cro

p m

anag

emen

t

Eco

nom

ic p

olic

es

Wat

er T

ariff

Inst

itutio

nal c

apac

ity b

uild

ing

Pro

mul

gatio

n an

d en

forc

emen

t of l

egis

latio

n, w

ater

law

Env

ironm

enta

l pol

ices

Pub

lic a

war

enes

s an

d in

form

atio

n ca

mpa

ign

Wat

er im

port

and

regi

onal

con

veya

nce

Des

alin

atio

n of

bra

ckis

h w

ater

Exp

loita

tion

of e

xist

ing

reso

urce

s

Result

0.09 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.00-0.00 -0.00-0.01-0.02 -0.02-0.03-0.05 -0.08

-0.12

Figure (4.10): Ranking of Management Options Using Evamix Method

− Sensitivity analysis by using Evamix Method

The sensitivity analysis generates dominance and probability tables (15 and 16), in appendix 5. The result of

sensitivity analysis is shown in table (4.14):

Table (4.14): The Results of Sensitivity Analysis using Evamix Method Alternative Score Sensitivity

Analyses

Conclusion

Wastewater treatment 0.09 17.00 1 Sea water desalination 0.06 15.97 2





Surface and groundwater protection 0.01 10.99 7 Land and crop management 0.00 9.95 8


-100-

Alternative Score Sensitivity

Analyses

Conclusion

Economic polices -0.00 8.89 9

Water Tariff -0.00 7.98 9

Institutional capacity building -0.01 7.01 10

Promulgation and enforcement of legislation, water law -0.02 6.01 11

Environmental polices -0.02 5.03 12

Public awareness and information campaign -0.03 4.1 13

Water import and regional conveyance -0.05 3.00 14

Desalination of brackish water -0.08 2.0 15

Exploitation of existing resources -0.12 1.0 16

55 RRAANNKKIINNGG TTHHEE AALLTTEERRNNAATTIIVVEE UUSSIINNGG WWEEIIGGHHTTEEDD

SSUUMMMMAATTIIOONN MMEETTHHOODD

This method generates a ranking of the alternatives based on the Weighted Sum of the

effect scores. The result of weighted summation is a ranking of the alternatives and an

appraisal score for each alternative. Standardization interval is used where the effect is

linearly interpolated between the best and worst scores. The ranking of the alternatives is

shown in figure (4.11)


-101-

Weighted summation

Was

tew

ater

trea

tmen

t

Sea

wat

er d

esal

inat

ion

Sto

rm w

ater

har

vest

ing

Wat

er c

onse

rvat

ion

and

wat

er s

avin

g st

rate

gies

Infra

stru

ctur

e im

prov

emen

t

Sur

face

and

gro

undw

ater

pro

tect

ion

Land

and

cro

p m

anag

emen

t

irrig

atio

n im

prov

emen

ts

Eco

nom

ic p

olic

es

Wat

er T

ariff

Inst

itutio

nal c

apac

ity b

uild

ing

Pro

mul

gatio

n an

d en

forc

emen

t of l

egis

latio

n, w

ater

law

Env

ironm

enta

l Pol

ices

Pub

lic a

war

enes

s an

d in

form

atio

n C

ampa

ign

Wat

er im

port

and

regi

onal

con

veya

nce

Des

alin

atio

n of

bra

ckis

h w

ater

Exp

loita

tion

of e

xist

ing

reso

urce

s

Result 1

0

0.88 0.85 0.82 0.80 0.77 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.58 0.58 0.56 0.56 0.54 0.510.33 0.25

0.03

Figure (4.11): Ranking of Management Options using Weighted Summation Method

From sensitivity analysis, the total scores and conclusions of the ranking is tabulated in the

following table.

Table (4.15): The Results of Sensitivity Analysis using Weighted Summation Method Alternative Score Sensitivity

Analyses

Conclusion

Wastewater treatment 0.88 16.99 1 Sea water desalination 0.80 15.96 2




Surface and groundwater protection 0.67 11.57 6

Land and crop management 0.67 11.14 7


Economic polices 0.58 8.94 9

Water Tariff 0.58 7.94 9


-102-

Alternative Score Sensitivity

Analyses

Conclusion

Institutional capacity building 0.56 6.73 10

Promulgation and enforcement of legislation, water law 0.56 6.42 11

Environmental polices 0.54 5.04 12

Public awareness and information campaign 0.51 4.0 13

Water import and regional conveyance 0.33 2.99 14

Desalination of brackish water 0.25 2.01 15

Exploitation of existing resources 0.03 1.0 16

66 CCOOMMPPAARRIISSOONN BBEETTWWEEEENN TTHHEE MMCCAA MMEETTHHOODDSS

The comparison between the results of four MCA methods is shown in figure (4.11), and is

illustrated in table (4.16) below:

Table (4.16): The Comparison between the Results of the Four Methods of MCA Alternatives Weighted

Summation

ELECTREII Regime

Method

Evamix

Method

Wastewater treatment 0.88 1 1.0 0.09 Sea water desalination 0.85 2 0.76 0.06 Storm water harvesting 0.82 3 0.8 0.04 Water conservation and water saving

strategies

0.80 3 0.92 0.06

Infrastructure improvement 0.77 4 0.89 0.03 Surface and groundwater protection 0.67 5 0.55 0.01 Land and crop management 0.67 4 0.26 0.00 Irrigation improvements 0.67 4 0.69 0.03 Economic polices 0.58 7 0.42 0.00 Water Tariff 0.58 7 0.42 0.00 Institutional capacity building 0.56 6 0.6 -0.01 Institutional capacity building

legislation, water law

0.56 6 0.36 -0.02

Environmental polices 0.54 7 0.24 -0.02 Public awareness and information

campaign

0.51 8 0.4 -0.03


-103-

Alternatives Weighted

Summation

ELECTREII Regime

Method

Evamix

Method

Water import and regional conveyance 0.33 9 0.06 -0.05 Desalination of brackish water 0.25 9 0.13 -0.08 Exploitation of existing resources 0.03 10 0.00 -0.12

Sea water desalinationStorm water harvestingExploitation of existing resourcesW astewater treatmentW ater conservation and water saving strategiesInfrastructure im provementirrigation improvementsLand and crop managementEconom ic polices

W ater Tariff Surface and groundwater protectionEnvironmental policesInstitutional capacity buildingPublic awareness and inform ation campaignPromulgation and enforcement of legis lation, water lawDesalination of brackish waterW ater im port and regional conveyance

Result number 1 2 3 4

Rank num

ber

1716

15

14

1312

11

10

98

76

54

3

2

1

Figure (4.12): Comparison Among the Results MCDA Methods

Where:

1 = weighted summation methods

2= Electre II methods

3 = regime methods

4= Evamix methods.

44..99..44 IINNTTEERRPPRREETTAATTIIOONN OOFF TTHHEE RREESSUULLTTSS From the comparison of the four methods, the ranking of the alternatives is approximately similar in the

Weighted summation, Electre, Evamix, but the Regime methods shows that its’ ranking is different from the

others. That’s because the Regime Method deals with ordinal weighting of alternatives while others

calculation are based on percentage of the weight of each alternative. In addition the Regime method does not

standardize qualitative (ordinal and ---/+++) effects.

In general, from the analysis results, all the methods indicate that the wastewater treatment is the most

important option. Most of the MCA methods prioritize desalination of seawater as the second alternative. The

seawater desalination is considered an important options for improving water supply and covering the deficit


-104-

between demand and supply, which could not be covered by stromwater harvesting, and demand

management options.

On contrary, in the regime method whereas the main concentration was on the utilization

of the natural resources as much as possible by deploying the stormwater harvesting and

water conservation measures. While the regime method has shown that concentration on

deploying the natural resources as storm water, harvesting with demand management

options are more important. It is worth to mention that all the analysis methods have showed that the infrastructure, and irrigation

improvement is important to reduce the UFW (unaccounted for water) in addition to land and crop

management.

To attain an integrated water resources management, the enabling environment, which

composes, of institutional framework, policies, legislation, laws must be enabled, and their

importance is clear in the analysis results.

The desalination of brackish water beyond the sustainable yield and the continuation

exploitation of aquifer is considered the worst option due to its impacts on the

sustainability of aquifer, besides, the exploration of deep aquifer should not be considered

because this option is accompanied by high uncertainty due to lack of information about

the quantity and quality of its water. Whilst, the water import and regional conveyance,

which have high uncertainty due to its dependence on political stability got a bad score.

Therefore, the general paradigm for IWRM for Gaza Strip concentrates on water deficit,

which could be solved by:

1. Treating wastewater and reusing it in irrigation or recharging it in the

aquifer,

2. Implementation of seawater desalination plants, where the seawater

desalination could contribute in increasing the amount of fresh water in

short term.

3. Implementation of stromwater management and water harvesting

projects, that is due to importance of rainfall as a natural resource.

4. All the related systems which are needed for implementation the above-

mentioned sources should be improved as water supply system,

wastewater and stromwater collection systems.

5. All of the above projects have no value if there are not institutions able

to implement, and manage the development plans, so institutional


-105-

polices should be strengthen to enable the Palestinians institutions to

carry their responsibilities on a proper way.

The fig (4.13) shows the general paradigm of integrated water resources management in

Gaza Strip.


-106-

water deficit

W as te water Treatementa nd reuse

S to rm wate r manage ment

Sus ta inability of Aquifer

S ea water Desal ination

Re us e inAgric ulture , industry

De mos tic supply

A rt ifical Rec harge

Inf iltrat ion BasinsSupplyEnha nc ement

W ater Conserv ationDem andManagem ent

w ate r tarr if &

e c onomic policy

crop ma na geme ntLand and

of Wa te r WellsR egula t ion of

Re duc tionof UFW

Irr igation improve ment

E nvirom netal Policy

Public Awar eness

Infra strucre im provement

Code of P ractice

Legislation a nd water law

Institu tional Po lices

GrounwaterProtection

Institu tional CapacityBuilding

Figure (4.13): Proposed Paradigm for the Integrated Water Resources Management in

Gaza Strip

Chapter (5) Conclusions & Recommendations

-107-

CHAPTER FIVE Conclusions and Recommendations

55..11 CCOONNCCLLUUAAIIOONNSS

1) The economic, technical, source, political, institutional, environmental, and

social criteria influence the choice of water management options. According

to water experts opinions in the Gaza strip, the main sub-criteria which

affect water resources planning and management in the Gaza Strip are

fundability, impact on public health, institutional availability and capacity,

reliability of the source quantities, feasibility, infrastructure requirement,

and political stability.

2) The DPSIR framework identifies cause–effect relationship, allows for the

separation of categories of issues, and provides flexibility for usage and

analysis.

3) Indicators are instruments of simplification as they summarize large

amounts of measurements to a simple and an understandable form in order

to highlight the main characteristics of a system. Information is reduced to

its elements, maintaining the crucial meaning for the questions under

consideration.

4) MCA techniques can be used to identify the most preferred options to rank

them, to a short list of a limited number of options for subsequent detailed

appraisal, or simply, to distinguish acceptable from unacceptable

possibilities.

5) The results of different methods of MCA are approximately similar (with

small difference).

6) The approach for ensuring an adequate water supply for all users,

responding to current conditions of water deficit, and contributing in

keeping the aquifer in a sustainable condition, is based on a combination of

a number of policy options including supply enhancement, demand

management, social development polices and institutional polices.

7) Wastewater treatment is considered as one of the most important options

when integrated water resources management is addressed in Gaza Strip

that is referable to possibility of using the treated wastewater in agriculture

or by recharging it to aquifer to contribute in aquifer recovery.


-108-

8) Because of the ambiguity of clear implementation of plan due to the

instability of political situation of the country, and the sever situation of

aquifer, due to increasing demand, the importance of seawater desalination

is raised specially under fund availability for implementation plants. The

seawater desalination is feasible and practical new resource that can provide

the Gaza Strip with substantial quantities of fresh water in a relatively short

time.

9) Stormwater harvesting and water conservation have significant role in water

resources management.

10) Water import and regional conveyance does not have significant importance

to the Gaza Strip at least for near future, because of its accompaniment with

high uncertainty due to political situation.

11) It cannot be relied on the deep aquifer as an alternative source for fresh

water to fill the gab between water supply and demand at least for short

term that is due to the lack of information about its quality and quantity.

12) Laws, Legislations, and polices play a vital role in water resources

management.

13) Existence of institutions that are capable of managing water utilities is

important for proper implementation of water management related projects.

14) Although the supply and demand problem is significant, that does not

despise the importance of water quality. The water quality will be enhanced

due to enhancement of water supply. When wastewater is collected , and

treated up to WHO standards and the regulations & polices are applied for

irrigation and water use, protection measures of water resources are

developed, and automatically the water quality will be improved

55..22 RREECCOOMMMMEENNDDAATTIIOONNSS

1) For the Gaza Strip, reclaimed water is a potentially valuable water resource,

so the priority should be devoted towards the wastewater to be treated and

reused to the maximum extent feasible. All wastewater in the Gaza Strip

should be treated to standards appropriate and expanded to safeguard public

health, avoid pollution and utilize water for direct irrigation as needed or

recharged into the aquifer during the off-season. In addition, the

rehabilitation of overloaded treatment works, the construction and


-109-

rehabilitation of sewer networks must be considered for incorporating

further sewerage projects to cover the growth in developments.

2) Seawater desalination projects should be adopted at least for urgent

solutions to secure water for their Palestinians.

3) The implementation of an appropriate institutional structure able to develop

and manage the strategy of water sector is necessary for IWRM in Gaza

Strip.

4) The implementation of legislation concerning sewerage networks, as

industrial effluent pre-treatment, dumping of sewage, septic tank wastes and

sludge in Wadis, at sea, wastewater reuse, and sludge use are highly

recommended.

5) The aquifer should remain the main source as much as the water supplied as

can be recovered.

6) Brackish water desalination and nitrate removal could be priorities for

implementation when wastewater recharge and reuse is adopted. It is worth

to mention that, in the Gaza Strip, there is significant amount of desalinated

brackish water contribute in water supply.

7) Desalination or any other freshwater resource requires infrastructure

capable of carrying the needed demand and reducing the UFW. In addition,

wastewater treatment needs wastewater collection system. The

improvement of infrastructure to accommodate the development should be

considered.

8) The projects of water conservation and stormwater harvesting should be

considered, that is not only due to its importance in development of

infrastructure but also due to its value as a flight resources of fresh water.

9) From MCDM results. It is obvious that the attention should be paid towards

water conservation. By reducing the UFW and applying effective water

tariff system could contribute to provide full recovery for operation and

maintenance should support. The plumbing and building codes should be

adopted to regulate the construction of piping and fitting material.

10) Finally, laws and legislations should be developed to strengthen and enforce

water conservations.

11) Consideration of the environment has to be viewed from two principle

perspectives in relation to the IWRM. Firstly, the recognition of the quantity


-110-

of the natural resource, which should be developed to avoid deterioration of

the natural environment. This includes the consideration of all components

of the hydrological cycle. Secondly, consideration must be taken of all

mitigating actions, which can be taken in relation to the developments, and

be proposed to minimize the long-term adverse impacts on the environment.

The sustainability principle should be such that future generations are not

disadvantaged due the actions of the current one.

12) The success of proper implementation of all development fields of

integrated water resources management relies on the institutional capacity

and staffing of the water facilities. This should be improved and extended to

satisfy the needs of the expanded system and the target service levels.

13) The current available studies shows that exploitation of existing resources

(deep aquifer) should not be taken into consideration at least for short term

instance because of uncertainty of the nature of the water quality of deep

aquifers and cost of exploration it.

14) The institutions should be formed and strengthened to be able to carry their

missions.

15) The strategic plans for water sector should be developed to reflect the

connotation of IWRM.

55..33 RREECCOOMMMMEENNDDEEDD SSTTUUDDIIEESS

1) Further studies should continue to link the MCA, DPISR with GIS and

other water modeling as water distribution and GW modeling, Wastewater

system, which enable the user to identify an accurate on line results based

on real data from different models.

2) More studies are recommended for exploration the nature and quality of

deep aquifer.

3) Further studies are recommended to be elaborated on the effect of

desalination on the marine life on one hand and tourism on the other hand

should be considered since Gaza is small crowded area with limited coast

length.

Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in Gaza Strip

-111-

RREEFFEERREENNCCEESS

A1-Radif, A. (1999). Integrated water resources management (IWRM):

an approach to face the challenges of the next century and to avert

future crises ELSEVIER, Desalination, 124.

African Development Bank. (2000, April). Policy for integrated water

resources management.

ASCE Task Committee on Sustainability Criteria. (1998). Sustainability

Criteria for Water Resource Systems. ASCE, Reston, Virginia, USA.

B. And Billharz, S., Sustainability Indicators. Report on the project on

Indicators of Sustainable Development, John Wiley and Sons,

Chichester.

Beinat, E., Herwijnen van, M., & Janssen, R. (2003, June), Definite 3.0 –

case study and user manual, Institute of environmental studies, Vrije

Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Brandolini, A., D’Alessio, G. (1998). Measuring well-being in the

functioning space, mimeo, Banca d’Italia, Rome, Italy.

Bruins. H.J, & Keller. T Tunihoff. (1991, September). A. Water in Gaza

Strip – Hydrology study. Government of Netherlands.

Camp Dresser & McKee International Inc. (1997). Comprehensive

Planning Framework for Palestinian Water Resources Development.

Carl Bro International a/s. (1999, May). Water sector strategic planning

study (WSSPS), final draft report, Summary Prepared for Palestinian

Economic Council for Development and reconstruction, and the world

bank.

Cerioli, A., Zani, S. (1990). A fuzzy approach to the measurement of

poverty, in Dagum e Zenga (eds), Income and wealth Distribution,

Inequality and Poverty, Springer Verlag Berlin.

CIAT/World Bank/UNEP. (1999, August). Rural Sustainability


-112-

Indicators: Outlook for Central America, Technical Note.

De Montis, A., De Toro, P., Droste-Franke, B., & Omann, I., Stagl, S.

(2000, May). Criteria for quality assessment of MCDA methods, 3rd

Biennial Conference of the European Society for Ecological Economics,

Vienna.

Environmental Planning Directorate (EDP) & Ministry of Planning and

International Cooperation (MOPIC). (1994). Gaza Environmental Profile,

Part I, Inventory of resources.

Estrela T., Menéndez M., Dimas M., Marcuello C. Rees G.,Cole G., Weber

K. and Grath J., LeonarJ., Ovesen N., J nos Fehér, Vituki Consult, 2001.

Sustainable water use in Europe, EEA, Copenhagen, 2001

European Environment Agency (EEA), (2001). Sustainable use of

Europe's water: State, prospects and issues, Environment Assessment

Series.

Eurostat, (1999). Towards Environmental Pressure Indicators for the

European Communities, Luxembourg.

FAO, World Bank & UNDP. (1996). Water sector policy review and

strategy formulation. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United

Nations, Rome.

Feas, J., Eni Enrico F. (2003). A methodology for policy analysis in water

resources management. Italy.

Gallopin, G. (1997). Indicators and their use: information for decision

making, in Moldan, B. And Billharz, S., Sustainability Indicators. Report

on the project on Indicators of Sustainable Development, John Wiley

and Sons, Chichester.

Glenn, N.A. and Pannell, D.J. (1998, January), The Economics and

Application of Sustainability Indicators in Agriculture, University of New

England, Armidale, Jan, 1998.


-113-

Global Water Partnership (GWP), (2000). Integrated Water Resources

Management, TAC Background Paper No.4, GWP, Stockholm, Sweden.

Global Water Partnership (GWP), (2000). Integrated Water Resources

Management, toolbox for IWRM, GWP, Stockholm, Sweden. Retrieved

Dec.2003 from

www.gwpforum.org/gwp/library/ToolBox%20Version%202%20.pdf.

Global water partnership (GWP), (2002). Toolbox: integrated water

resources management, policy guidance and operational tools. Retrieved

Dec.2003 from

(http://www.gwp.ihe.nl/wwwroot/GwpORG/handler.cfm?event=home)

Grigg, Neil S. (1999). A New Paradigm for Water Management. Colorado

State University. Retrieved Dec.2003 from http:

//www.ufrgs.br/iph/simposio/grigg.doc.

Hobbs, B. GF. & Meier, P. M., (1994). Multicriteria methods for resource

planning: an experimental comparison. IEEE Transaction on Power

Systems, 9(4), 1994.

Indicator Branch, (1994). Environmental Indicator Selection Criteria.

State of the Environment Directorate, Environment Canada.

Jesinghaus, J. (1998). A European System of Environmental Pressure

Indices. First Volume of the Environmental Pressure Indices Handbook.

Retrieved January,2004 from

http://esl.jrc.it/envind/theory/Handb_.htm

Juan, F. Ortega, (2002). Multi-criteria Decision Making For Low Income

& Labor-Market. University of Illinois at Chicago, Urban Transportation

Center, UTC-UIC Working Paper WP-12A-02.

Karavitis, C. A., (1999). Drought and Urban Water Supplies: the Case of

Metropolitan Athens. Water Policy, Vol. 1, Iss. 5, pp. 505-524, Elsevier

Science.


-114-

Koudstaal, Rijsberman & Savenije, (1992). Water resources system.

Delft, Netherlands.

Lisa, S. (1996, October). Environmental performance indicators. World

Bank, ESSD.

Loucks, Daniel P. (1998). Sustainable water resources management,

International water resources association (IWRA). Water international,

Volume 25, number1.

Lundin, M., Molander S. & Morrison G. (1997, April). Indicators for the

development of sustainable water and wastewater systems. Sustainable

development research conference, Manchester.

Lyonnaise des Eaux- Khatib & Alami (LEKA). (2002). Municipal Water

Production. Gaza, Palestine.

Lyonnaisee des Eaux – Khatib and Alami (LEKA), (1997). Strategic water

Distribution master plan. Technical Paper 49. Gaza, Palestine.

Lyonnaisee des Eaux – Khatib and Alami (LEKA). (1998). , Tariff Study

Technical Paper 37. Gaza, Palestine.

Lyonnaisee des Eaux – Khatib and Alami (LEKA). (1998). Capital

Investment Program Technical Paper 26. Gaza, Palestine.

Malczewski, J. (1999). GIS and Multicriteria Decision Analysis. New

York: John Wiley & Sons, INC.

Margat J. & Vallee D. (2000). Water Resources and uses in the

Mediterranean Countries: Figures and Facts. PlanBleu. Retrieved March,

2004 from Http//: www.planbleu.org.

Martinetti, E. (2000). A Multidimensional Assessment Of Well-Being

Based On Sen’s Functioning Approach. Rivista Internazionale di Science

Sociali, n.2. 2000.

Mediterranean Commission on Sustainable Development (MCSD).

(2000). Indicators for the sustainable development in the Mediterranean


-115-

region. PlanBleu. Retrieved March, 2004 from Http//:

www.planbleu.org.

Mimi, Z., & Smith, M. (1999). Selection of water resources management

options, Integrated development for water supply and sanitation.

WEDEC conference, Addise Ababa, Ethiopia.

Ministry of Agriculture (MOA). (2001). Agricultural General Income in

Gaza Strip. 2001.

Ministry of Agriculture, 2001. Agricultural General Income in Gaza Strip,

2001.

Ministry of Planning and International Cooperation (MOPIC). (1998).

Master Plan For Sewage and Stormwater Drainage in Gaza Governorate.

Draft Final Report, Main Report.

Morrison, G., Fatoki, O., Zinn, E. & Jacobsson, D. (2001, April).

Sustainable development indicators for urban water systems: A case

study evaluation of King William’s Town.South. Africa, and the applied

indicators, Water SA Vol. 27 No. 2.

Mortensen, L.F. (1997).The Driving Force-State-Response Framework

used by the CSD in Moldan. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester.

Mysiak, J. (2003). Development of transferable multicriteria decision

tools for water resource management. UFZ Center for Environmental

Research, Leipzig, Germany

Norconsult International, A.S. (1998, December). Water Tariff Study.

Gaza Strip.

OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development).

(2001). Environmental indicators, towards sustainable development.

OECD. (1993). OECD Core set of indicators for environmental

performance reviews. A synthesis report by the group on the state of the

environment, OECD. Paris.


-116-

OECD. (1994). Environmental Indicators – OECD Core Set. Paris.

Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBCS). (1999). Population in

the Palestinian territory, 1997-2025. Ramallah, Palestine.

Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBCS). (2003, May).

Population 2002 in numbers, Ramallah, Palestine.

Palestinian Water Authority (PWA) & Coastal aquifer management

program (CAMP). (2000, May). Integrated Aquifer Management Plan

(Task-3). PWA, CAMP. Volume 1, II. Gaza, Palestine.

Palestinian Water Authority (PWA) & Coastal aquifer management

program (CAMP). (2000, May). PWA, CAMP. Integrated Aquifer

Management Plan (Task-3). Appendixes A, Appendices B-g. Gaza,

Palestine.

Palestinian Water Authority (PWA). (1995, September). Article 40 of

Oslo II agreement: agreed version concerning Water and Sewerage.

Palestinian Water Authority (PWA). (1996). Water law No. 2:

establishment of the Palestinian Water Authority. Palestine.

Palestinian Water Authority (PWA). (2000, Dec.). National Water Plan

(NWP). Gaza, Palestine.

Palestinian Water Authority (PWA). (2002). Water law, 3/2002.

Palestine.

Palestinian Water Authority (PWA). (2003). Water Sector in Palestine:

Summary of Basic Information. Gaza, Palestine

Palestinian water Authority. (PWA). (2004). Water resources and

planning department. Official data. Gaza, Palestine.

Pullar, D. (1997). Using an Allocation Model in Multiple Criteria

Evaluation. Journal of Geographic Information and Decision Analysis,

vol.3, no.2,

Rigby D., Howlet D. t & Woodhouse P. (2000, February). A Review of


-117-

Indicators of Agricultural and Rural Livelihood Sustainability. University

of Fort Hare, South Africa, University of Bradford, UK, University of

Makerere, Uganda, & University of Manchester, UK.

Saaty, & Thomas L. (1996). Mathematics and Multicriteria Decision

Making. Mathematics Awareness week. University of Pittsburgh.

Savenije H.H.G. (2000). Water resources management: concepts and

tools. Lecture note. IHE, Delft, Netherlands.

Savenije Hubert H.G. (1999, May). Integrated Water Resources

Management. UNESCO- IHE, Delft, the Netherlands.

Shah & Reena, (2000). International Framework of environmental

statistics and indicators .UN statistics division, Uzbekistan.

Smyth, A.J. ad Dumanski, J. (1993). An international framework for

evaluating sustainable land management. World Soil Resources Report

73. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome,

Italy.

Triantaphyllou E., Kovalerchuk, Jr Mann L., M. & Knapp G. (1997).

Determining the most important criteria in maintenance decision

making. Journal of quality in maintenance Engineering. Louisiana State

university, USA. Vol.3 No.1.

Triantaphyllou, E. & Mann, St. (1989). An Examination of effectiveness

of multi Dimensional decision making methods: A Decision making

paradox, Pennsylvania University, USA. Elsevier Publisher, B.V. 0167-

6236/89.

Triantaphyllou, E. (2000). Multi-criteria Decision Making Methods: A

comparative Study. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Tunstall, D. (1992). Developing environmental indicators: definitions

framework and issues.(draft Paper) Background materials for the world

resources institute workshop on global environmental indicators.

Washington DC.


-118-

UN Commission on Sustainable Development, CSD. (2001, April).

Indicators of sustainable development- framework and methodologies,

paper No.3, , New York.

UNCSD. (1996). Indicators of Sustainable Development: Framework and

Methodologies. United Nations, New York.

UNDP. (1998). Sustainable water resources management, New York.

UNDP. (1999). Developing sustainable livelihood indicators: reviewing

lessons learnt and a framework for action.

UNESCO Working Group M.IV. (1999). Sustainability Criteria for Water

Resource Systems.: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Van der Grift, B., & Van Dael, J.G.F. (1999, September). Problem-

oriented approach and the use of indicators, KIWA NV, Research &

Consultancy, Department Water Resources and Water Management,

Nieuwegein, The Netherlands, Lelystad.

Van der Zaag, P. (2001). Principles of Integrated Water Resources

Management, WaterNet module IWRM 0.1, 1st draft; 1, IHE Delft.

Voogd, H. (1983). Multicriteria Evaluation for Urban Regional Planning.

Great Britain, London.

Walmsley, J., (2002). Framework for measuring sustainable

development in catchments systems, Environmental Management, Vol.

29.

Walmsley. J., Carden. M, Revenga. C, Sagona. & Smith. M. (2001,

October). Indicators of sustainable development for catchments

management in South Africa - Review of indicators from around the

world. Water SA, Vol. 27 No. 4

World Bank. (1993). Water resources management, a policy paper. The

World Bank, Washington DC., USA.

World Bank. (1994). A Guide for the Formulation of Water Resources


-119-

Strategy. Technical paper 263. The World Bank, Washington, D.C., USA.

World Bank. (1994). Making Development Sustainable. The World Bank,

Washington DC., USA.

World Bank. (1995). Monitoring Environmental Progress. The World

Bank, Washington DC., USA.

World Bank. (1997). World Development Indicators. The World Bank,

Washington DC., USA.

World Bank. (1999). Environmental Performance Indicators. A Second

Edition Note, Environmental Economic Series, World Bank Environment

Department, Washington DC., USA.

World Bank. (2003). Water Resources Sector Strategy: strategic

directions for World Bank engagement. The World Bank, Washington DC.

World Commission on Environment and Development, (WCED). (1987).

Our Common Future (The Brundtland Report.Oxford).Oxford University

Press, UK.

World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our

Common Future. Oxford University Press.

Zimmermann, H.J., Gutsche, L. (1991). Multi-Criteria Analyses. Berlin,

Germany.

Appendix (1)


1-120

LLIISSTT OOFF AAPPPPEENNDDIICCEESS

Appendix (1) 1.1 – 1.9

Appendix (2) 2.1 – 2.2

Appendix (3) 3.1 – 3.3

Appendix (4) 4.1 – 4.3

Appendix (5) 5.1 – 5.34

Appendix (1)


1-121

AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX ((11))

TTAABBLLEE ((11..11)):: CCOORREE IINNDDIICCAATTOORRSS AANNDD TTHHEE DDRRIIVVIINNGG FFOORRCCEE--

SSTTAATTEE--RREESSPPOONNSSEE FFRRAAMMEEWWOORRKK ((CCSSDD)) ,, ((UUNN CCOOMMMMIISSSSIIOONN OONN SSUUSSTTAAIINNAABBLLEE DDEEVVEELLOOPPMMEENNTT,, AAPPRRIILL 22000011))

SSOOCCIIAALL Theme Sub-theme Indicator DF S R

EEQQUUIITTYY Poverty Percent of Population Living below the Poverty Line

X

Gini Index of Income Inequality X

Unemployment Rate X Gender Equality Ratio of Average Female Wage to Male

Wage X

Health Nutrition Status Nutritional Status of Children X

Mortality Mortality Rate Under 5 Years Old X Life Expectancy at Birth X Sanitation Percent of Population with Adequate

Sewage Disposal Facilities X

Drinking Water Population with Access to Safe Drinking Water

X

Healthcare Delivery Percent of Population with Access to Primary Health Care Facilities

X

Immunization Against Infectious Childhood Diseases

X

Contraceptive Prevalence Rate X Education Level Secondary or Primary School

Completion Ratio X

Education Literacy Adult Literacy Rate X Housing Living

Conditions Floor Area per Person X

Security Crime Number of Recorded Crimes per 100,000 Population

X

PPOOPPUULLAATTIIOONN

Population Change Population Growth Rate X

Population of Urban Formal and Informal Settlements

X

ENVIRONMENTAL Theme Sub-theme Indicator DF S R

Appendix (1)


1-122

AATTMMOOSSPPHHEERREE Climate Change Emissions of Greenhouse Gases X

Ozone Layer Depletion

Consumption of Ozone Depleting Substances

X

Air Quality Ambient Concentration of Air Pollutants in Urban Areas

Agriculture

Arable and Permanent Crop Land Area X

Use of Fertilizers X Use of Agricultural Pesticides X Forests Forest Area as a Percent of Land Area X Wood Harvesting Intensity X Desertification Land Affected by Desertification X Land Urbanization Area of Urban Formal and Informal

Settlements X

Oceans, Seas and Coasts

Coastal Zone Algae Concentration in Coastal Waters X

Percent of Total Population Living in Coastal Areas

X

Fisheries Annual Catch by Major Species X FFRREESSHH WWAATTEERR Water Quantity Annual Withdrawal of Ground and

Surface Water as a Percent of Total Available Water

X

Water Quality BOD in Water Bodies X Concentration of Faecal Coliform in

Freshwater X

Ecosystem Area of Selected Key Ecosystems X Protected Area as a Percent of Total

Area X

Biodiversity

Species Abundance of Selected Key Species X

ECONOMIC Theme Sub-theme Indicator DF S R EECCOONNOOMMIICC

SSTT

RRUU

CCTT

UURR

EE

Economic Performance GDP per Capita X

Investment Share in GDP X Trade Balance of Trade in Goods and

Services X

Financial Status Debt to GNP Ratio X Total ODA Given or Received as a

Percent of GNP X

Appendix (1)


1-123

Consumption and Production Patterns

Material Consumption Intensity of Material Use X

Energy Use

Annual Energy Consumption per Capita

X

Share of Consumption of Renewable Energy Resources

X

Intensity of Energy use X Waste Generation and

Management Generation of Industrial and Municipal Solid Waste

X

Generation of Hazardous Waste X Generation of Radioactive Waste X

Waste Recycling and Reuse X

Transportation Distance Traveled per Capita by Mode of Transport

X

INSTITUTIONAL Theme Sub-theme Indicator DF S R Institutional Framework

Strategic Implementation of SD

National Sustainable Development Strategy

X

International Cooperation Implementation of Ratified Global Agreements

X

Institutional Capacity

Information Access Number of Internet Subscribers per 1000 Population

X

Communication Infrastructure

Main Telephone Lines per 1000 Population

X

Science and Technology

Expenditure on Research and Development as a % of GDP

X

Disaster Preparedness and Response

Economic and Human Loss Due to Natural Disasters

X

TTAABBLLEE ((11..22)):: WWAATTEERR--RREELLAATTEEDD IINNDDIICCAATTOORRSS OOFF OOEECCDD SSEETT OOFF KKEEYY IINNDDIICCAATTOORRSS ((OOCCEEDD,, 11999999))

Issue Pressure State Response

Emissions of N and P in water and soil

BOD/DO in inland waters

Population connected to secondary and /or tertiary sewage treatment plants

N and P from fertiliser use and livestock

Concentration of N and P in inland waters

User charges for waste water treatment

Eutrophication

Market share of phosphate-free detergents

Appendix (1)


1-124

Issue Pressure State Response Emission of heavy metals

Concentrations of heavy metals and organic compounds in environmental media

Emission of organic compounds

Toxic contamination

Consumption of pesticides

Acidification Exceedance of critical loads of pH in water

Water resources Intensity of use of water resources (abstractions/ available resources)

Frequency, duration and extent of water shortages

Water prices and charges for sewage treatment

Biodiversity Protected areas as % of national territory and by type of ecosystem

Appendix (1)


1-125

Table (1.3): Directly water-related indicators of the European System of Environmental

Pressure Indices ·

World Economic Forum, 2002 Environmental Sustainability Index, An initiative of the

Global Leaders of Tomorrow Environment Task Force,

http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/indicators/ESI

Category Indicator

Water consumption Resource Depletion

Inputs of phosphate to agricultural land

Index of heavy metal emissions to water

Emissions of persistent organic pollutants (POPs)

Dispersion of Toxic Substances

Consumption of toxic chemicals

Emissions of nutrients by households Emissions of nutrients by industry Pesticides used per hectare of utilised agriculture area Nitrogen quantity used per hectare of utilised agriculture area Emissions of organic matter from households Emissions of organic matter from industry

Water pollution

Non-treated urban waste water

Urban Environmental Problems Non-treated urban wastewater

Marine Environment and Coastal Zones Tourism intensity

Appendix (1)


1-126

Table (1.4): The MCSD list of indicators for sustainable development

(Http://home.um.edu.mt/islands/indicators.htm)

P = Pressure, S = State, R = Response.

Theme N° Type Indicator Name 1 P Population growth rate

Demography and population 2 R Total fertility rate 3 S Women per hundred men in the labour force 4 S Human poverty index (HPI)

Standard of living, employment, social inequities, poverty, unemployment 5 R Employment rate

6 P School enrolment gross ratio 7 S Difference between male and female school enrolment ratios 8 S Production of cultural goods

9 R Share of private and public finances allocated to the professional training

Culture, education, training, awareness improvement

10 R Public expenditure for the conservation and value enhancement of natural, cultural and historical patrimony

11 S Life expectancy at birth 12 S Infant mortality rate Health, public health 13 R Access to safe drinking water 14 P Annual energy consumption per inhabitant 15 P Number of passenger cars per 100 inhabitants 16 S Main telephone lines per 100 inhabitants

Consumption and production patterns

17 S Distribution of food consumption per income decile 18 P Urban population growth rate 19 P Loss of agricultural land due to the urbanisation 20 S Urbanisation rate

Habitat and urban systems

21 S Floor area per person 22 P Population change in mountain areas Rural and dry areas,

mountains and hinterland 23 R Existence of program(s) concerning the less favoured rural zones

24 P Exploitation index of forest resources 25 S Forest area Forests 26 R Forest protection rate 27 P Artificialized coastline / total coastline 28 P Number of tourists per km of coastline

Littoral and "littoralisation"

29 P Number of moorings in yachting harbours

Appendix (1)


1-127

Theme N° Type Indicator Name 30 S Population growth in Mediterranean coastal regions 31 S Population density in coastal regions 32 S Coastline erosion

33 R Protected coastal area 34 P Oil tanker traffic 35 S Global quality of coastal waters 36 S Density of the solid waste disposed in the sea 37 S Coastal waters quality in some main “hot spots” 38 S Quality of biophysical milieu 39 R Protection of specific ecosystems 40 R Existence of monitoring programs concerning pollutant inputs

41 R Wastewater treatment rate before sea release for coastal agglomerations over 100 000 inhabitants

Sea

42 R Harbour equipment ratio in unballasting facilities 43 P Distribution of GDP (Agriculture, Industry, Services) 44 P Foreign Direct Investment 45 S External debt / GDP 46 S Saving / investment 47 S Public deficit / GDP 48 S Current payments / GDP

Global economy

49 S Employment distribution (Agriculture, Industry, Services) 50 P Use of agricultural pesticides 51 P Use of fertilisers per hectare of agricultural land 52 P Share of irrigated agricultural land 53 P Agriculture water demand per irrigated area 54 S "Arable land" per capita 55 S Rate of food dependence 56 S Annual average of wheat yield

Agriculture

57 R Water use efficiency for irrigation 58 P Value of halieutic catches at constant prices 59 P Number and average power of fishing boats 60 S Fishing production per broad species groups 61 S Production of aquaculture

Fisheries, aquaculture

62 R Public expenditures on fish stocks monitoring 63 P Industrial Releases into water 64 S Intensity of material use Mines, industry 65 R Number of mines and carries rehabilitated after exploitation

66 S Turnover distribution of commerce according to the number of employees

67 S Share of merchant services to the enterprises Services and commerce

68 R Existence of legislations on the hypermarket setting up restriction

Energy 69 P Energy intensity

Appendix (1)


1-128

Theme N° Type Indicator Name 70 P Energy balance 71 R Share of consumption of renewable energy resources 72 P Average annual distance covered per passenger car 73 S Structure of transport by mode 74 S Density of the road network

Transports

75 R Share of collective transport 76 P Number of nights per 100 inhabitants 77 P Number of secondary homes over total number of residences 78 P Number of bed-places per 100 inhabitants 79 P Public expenditure on tourism development 80 P Number of international tourists per 100 inhabitants 81 S Share of tourism receipts in the exportations 82 S Currency balance due to tourism activities

Tourism

83 R Public expenditure on tourism sites conservation 84 P Exploitation index of renewable resources 85 P Non-sustainable water production index 86 S Share of distributed water not conform to quality standards 87 S Water global quality index

88 R Share of collected and treated wastewater by the public sewerage system

89 R Existence of economic tools to recover the water cost in various sector

90 R Drinking water use efficiency

Freshwater and Wastewater

91 R Share of Industrial wastewater treated on site 92 P Ratio of land exploitation 93 S Land use change

Soils, vegetation and desertification

94 S "Arable land" change 95 P Wetland area 96 P Number of turtles catched per year 97 P Share of fishing fleet using barge 98 S Threatened species

Biological diversity, ecosystems

99 R Total expenditure on protected areas management 100 P Generation of municipal solid waste 101 P Generation of hazardous wastes 102 P Imports and exports of hazardous wastes 103 P Generation of industrial solid waste 104 S Area of land contaminated by hazardous wastes 105 S Distribution of municipal wastes 106 R Minimisation of waste production 107 R Cost recovery index of municipal wastes 108 R Destination of household wastes

Solid, industrial and hazardous waste

109 R Collection rate of household wastes Air quality 110 P Emissions of greenhouse gasses

Appendix (1)


1-129

Theme N° Type Indicator Name 111 P Emissions of sulphur oxides 112 P Emissions of nitrogen oxides 113 P Consumption of ozone depleting substances 114 S Frequency of excess over air standard (ozone) 115 R Expenditure on air pollution abatement

116 R Share of clean fuels consumption in total motor fuels consumption

117 R Share of agglomerations over 100 000 inhabitants equipped with a air pollution monitoring network

118 P Number of sites with high risk 119 S Economic impact of natural disasters 120 S Burnt area per year

Natural and technological risks

121 R Existence of intervention plans 122 R Number of direct employments linked to the environment

123 R Number of associations involved in environment and/or sustainable development

Actors of the sustainable development

124 R Number of enterprises engaged in “environment management" processes

125 R Public expenditure on environmental protection as a percent of GDP

126 R Existence of environment national plans and/or sustainable development strategies

Policies and strategies of the sustainable development

127 R Number of Agendas 21 adopted by local authorities

International trade, Free trade zone and environment

128 P Openness rate of GDP

Others Mediterranean exchanges

129 P Net migration rate

Mediterranean cooperation in the fields of environment and sustainable development

130 R Public development assistance coming from abroad

WWFFDD CCLLAASSSSIIFFIICCAATTIIOONN

This Directive, under Article 8 which establishes “Monitoring of surface water status, groundwater status and protected areas” proposes a comprehensive set of indicators for assessing the quality of waters, as well as a series of standards and measures for the protection and improvement of the quality of waters. The status of water bodies is determined, based on these indicators, to be improved or maintained accordingly. Regarding Groundwater, the quantitative and chemical status of the resource is monitored. The parameter for the classification of quantitative status is the groundwater level regime. The core parameters for the determination of groundwater chemical status are:

• oxygen content, • pH value, • conductivity, • nitrate,

Appendix (1)


1-130

• ammonium. The quality elements for the classification of ecological status of Rivers, Lakes, Transitional waters, Coastal waters, and Artificial and heavily modified surface water bodies involve monitoring of:

• parameters indicative of biological quality elements • parameters indicative of hydromorphological quality elements • parameters indicative of all general physico-chemical quality elements • Thermal conditions • Oxygenation conditions • Salinity • Acidification status • Nutrient conditions • Transparency, and • Tidal regime for the transitional and coastal waters • priority list pollutants, and • other pollutants discharged in significant quantities.

Article 6 of the WFD establishes a “Register of protected areas”, include:

• areas designated for the abstraction of water intended for human consumption, • areas designated for the protection of economically significant aquatic species, • bodies of water designated as recreational waters, including areas designated as bathing waters, • nutrient-sensitive areas, including areas designated as vulnerable zones, areas designated for the protection of

habitats or species where the maintenance or improvement of the status of water is an important factor in their protection.

Appendix (2)


٢٫1


Table (2.1) : The total current population for 2003 according to water strategic sector study

MMUUNNIICCIIPPAALLIITTYY Population 2002 PPOOPPUULLAATTIIOONN 22000033

Beit Hanoun 31655 32605 Beit Lahia 49823 51318

Jabalia 141065 145297 Gaza 429134 442008

Buraij 30406 31318 Nussirat 54004 55624 Maghazi 20357 20968

Deir Al-Balah 57216 58932 Al-Zawaida 12979 13368

al-Qarara 14248 14675 Bani Suhila 27602 28430

Abbassan Jadida 4748 4890 Abbassan Kabira 16032 16513

Koza,a 8140 8384 Khan Yones 16418 16911

Rafah 144611 148949 Total 1,206,193 1,242,379

Appendix (2)


22-

Table (2.2): Annual Domestic Production and Quantity Consumed in Gaza Governorates (LEKA statistical report)

Municipality Municipal Production

(m3)

Mekoroth Production

(m3)

Private Production (m3)

Total (m3) Quantity Consumed (m3)

% Efficiency Population per capita Production l/c/d

ABASAN EL-JADIDAH

0 197,681 49,816 247,497 185,643 75 4,748 107

ABASAN EL-KABIRA

0 478,138 160,519 638,657 524,030 82 16,032 90

BANI SUHAILA

0 586,035 260,154 846,189 621,145 73 27,602 62

BEIT HANUN 1,952,999 0 0 1,952,999 1,199,961 61 31,655 104 Beit Lahia 3,703,559 0 0 3,703,559 2,168,798 59 49,823 119

BUREIJ 289,197 333,730 284,810 907,737 692,224 76 30,407 62 DAIR El-

BALAH 2,143,468 135,190 433,425 2,712,083 1,462,172 54 57,217 70

GAZA 26,791,631 0 0 26,791,631 18,639,763 70 429,134 119 JABALIA 7,899,168 0 18,240 7,917,408 4,607,919 58 141,065 89

KHAN YOUNIS 6,715,064 0 0 6,715,064 3,002,760 45 164,172 50

KHZA'A 0 311,024 83,026 394,050 364,628 93 8,140 123 MAGHAZI 352,671 377,610 83,230 813,511 497,828 61 20,357 67

NUSAIRAT 403,202 992,010 657,227 2,052,439 1,318,060 64 54,004 67 QARARA 818,136 0 0 818,136 447,015 55 14,248 86

RAFAH 5,632,727 0 0 5,632,727 3,576,338 63 144,611 68 ZUWEIDA 306,182 204,730 25,204 536,116 410,060 76 12,979 87

Total/ Average

57,008,004 3,616,148 2,055,651 62,679,803 39,718,344 63 1,206,193 90

Appendix (3)


13-


Interview Sheet (1)

The main goal of this research is to formulate main management options that could be contribute in improving the water

sectors in Gaza Strip and influence the sustainability of water resources and water supply in order to face the current

challenges in growing demand.

The purpose of this questionnaire is identification of the most importance criteria that influence the selection of appropriate

management options.

The management options focused on four categories:

1. Supply Enhancement

2. Demand Management

3. Social – Developmental Policy

4. Institutional and other Policies

So, in this Questionnaire, there are sets of planning and management criteria for water resources in the Gaza Strip, Please

could you fill this questionnaire and assign the degree of importance for each item in each categories taking into

consideration the scores scale as in the following table.

1 Very Important

2 Important

3 Neutral

4 Not important

5 Not important at all

Any further comments will be appreciated.

Appendix (3)


23-

1=very important, 2=important, 3=neutral, 4=not important, 5 not important at all

Degree of importance No. Indicator

1 2 3 4 5

1. Financial / Economic viability

1

Fundability:

it is a measure of the ability to secure financial support for

capital and recurring costs to fund the option. It is

primarily a function of the amount of money needed

2

Unit cost of water production:

(Including capital and operation Costs)

3 Tariff levels

4

Affordability : it is the ratio of the highest acceptable rate to the consumer

divided by the cost per unit water

5 Reliability of price source

2. Technical viability

6 Infrastructure requirement

7 Availability of technology

8 Potential for implementation

9 Technical complexity

Appendix (3)


33-



1 2 3 4 5

10

Flexibility:

It is the ability of the option or technology to adjust to

changes in demand, expand, meet changing water quality

conditions, or any other variable technical considerations

that may influence the effectiveness of the option over the

long term.

11 Feasibility

12

Reliability of technology

Consideration is given to the susceptibility to failure and

breakdown, the reliance on constant power sources, and the

ease of repair under the conditions encountered in the Gaza

Strip.

3. Source viability

13

Reliability of sources quantities

It is a measure of availability and hydrologic certainty of the

source

14 Sustainability of quantity and quality

15 Flexibility of variable abstraction rates during

development

4. Political viability

16 Compliance with current water management strategy

Appendix (3)


43-



1 2 3 4 5

17 Political stability of the source country

18 Compatibility with international laws and existing

agreements

Institutional viability

19

Availability and capacity

It a measure of the availability and capacity to create the

managerial, regulatory, legal, and political institutions

needed to implement option.

20

Reliability of relevant institutions

It is a measure of to the ability of Institutions over time to

manage and operate the option with no loss of service.

Environmental viability

21 Impacts on the protected areas

22 Impact on land use

23 Impact on Aquifer balance

24 Impact on Aquifer quality

25 Impacts on physical and natural environment in general

7. Social viability

26 Public acceptance

27 Fulfillment of the development needs.

28 Impact on public health

29 Culture and awareness

30 General standard of living and employment

Appendix (4)


14-


Interviews Sheet (2) The main goal of this research is to formulate main management options that could be contribute in improving the water

sectors in Gaza Strip and influence the sustainability of water resources and water supply in order to face the current

challenges in growing demand.

The purpose of this questionnaire is identification of the most importance criteria that influence the selection of appropriate

management options.

The management options focused on three categories:

1. Supply Enhancement

2. Demand Management and Developmental Policy

3. Social, Institutional and other Policies

So, in this Questionnaire, there is sets of planning and management indicators, Please could you fill this questionnaire and

define the degree of importance for each item in according to corresponding criteria taking into consideration the scores

scale as in the following table.

1 Very Important (++)

2 Important (+)

3 Neutral (0)

4 Not important (-)

5 Not important at all (--)

Any further comments will be appreciated.

Appendix (4)


24-

1= very important, 2= important, 3= neutral, 4= not important, 5= not important at all Indicators

CCRRIITTEERRIIAA

Fund

abili

ty

Rel

iabi

lity

of

sour

ces

quan

titie

s

Ava

ilabi

lity

and

capa

city

(in

stitu

tiona

l)

Impa

ct o

n pu

blic

hea

lth

Infr

astr

uctu

re

requ

irem

ent

Polit

ical

st

abili

ty o

f the

so

urce

cou

ntry

Feas

ibili

ty

• Supply Enhancement

Desalination of brackish water


Storm water harvesting


Wastewater treatment

Water import and regional conveyance • Demand Management and development activities

irrigation improvements Water conservation and water saving strategies

Water Tariff

Adoption for water allocation mechanism

Land and crop management

Infrastructure improvement

Surface and groundwater protection

• Social, Institutional Policies and other

Public awareness and information campaign

Appendix (4)


34-

Indicators

CCRRIITTEERRIIAA

Fund

abili

ty

Rel

iabi

lity

of

sour

ces

quan

titie

s

Ava

ilabi

lity

and

capa

city

(in

stitu

tiona

l)

Impa

ct o

n pu

blic

hea

lth

Infr

astr

uctu

re

requ

irem

ent

Polit

ical

st

abili

ty o

f the

so

urce

cou

ntry

Feas

ibili

ty


Economic polices


Promulgation and enforcement of legislation, water law

Appendix (5) Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management In the Gaza Strip

5-4


ELECTRE II

Table (1): Concordance Table

Criteria

Alternatives

Sea water

desalination

Storm w

ater harvesting

Exploitation of

existing resources*

Wastew

ater treatm

ent

Water conservation

and water saving

strategies

Infrastructure im

provement

irrigation im

provements

Land and crop

managem

ent

Econom

ic polices

Water Tariff

Surface and groundw

ater protection

Environm

ental polices



information

campaign

Promulgation and

enforcement of

legislation, water

Desalination of

brackish water**

Water im


Sea water desalination 0 0.85 1 0.71 0.71 0.7 0.86 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Storm water harvesting 0.72 0 1 0.43 0.58 0.85 0.72 0.86 0.72 0.72 0.86 0.86 1 0.86 0.86 1 0.86 Exploitation of existing resources* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.42 0.43

Wastewater treatment 0.86 0.71 1 0 0.85 0.85 1 0.86 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Water conservation and water saving strategies

0.72 0.72 1 0.57 0 0.71 0.86 0.72 1 1 0.86 1 0.86 1 0.86 1 1

Infrastructure improvement 0.58 0.86 1 0.44 0.58 0 0.58 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.72 1 0.86

irrigation improvements 0.58 0.57 1 0.57 0.57 0.56 0 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.86 0.86 1 1 1 0.86 0.86

Land and crop management 0.43 0.7 1 0.28 0.28 0.7 0.42 0 0.71 0.71 0.56 0.85 0.7 0.7 0.85 0.85 0.71

Economic polices 0.43 0.57 1 0.14 0.57 0.56 0.43 0.72 0 1 0.58 1 0.71 0.85 0.71 0.85 0.71 Water Tariff 0.43 0.57 1 0.14 0.57 0.56 0.43 0.72 1 0 0.58 1 0.71 0.85 0.71 0.85 0.71 Surface and groundwater protection 0.72 0.71 1 0.42 0.42 0.56 0.71 0.86 0.72 0.72 0 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 1 0.86

Environmental polices 0.29 0.57 1 0 0.43 0.56 0.43 0.72 0.86 0.86 0.58 0 0.71 0.85 0.71 0.85 0.71 Institutional capacity 0.44 0.57 1 0.29 0.29 0.56 0.72 0.58 0.59 0.59 0.73 0.73 0 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.73

Appendix (5) Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in the Gaza Strip

5-5

Criteria

Alternatives

Sea water

desalination

Storm w

ater harvesting

Exploitation of

existing resources*

Wastew

ater treatm

ent

Water conservation

and water saving

strategies

Infrastructure im

provement

irrigation im

provements

Land and crop

managem

ent

Econom

ic polices

Water Tariff

Surface and groundw

ater protection

Environm

ental polices



information

campaign

Promulgation and

enforcement of

legislation, water

Desalination of

brackish water**

Water im


building Public awareness and information campaign 0.44 0.43 1 0.15 0.29 0.42 0.44 0.58 0.72 0.72 0.59 0.72 0.72 0 0.72 0.86 0.73

Promulgation and enforcement of legislation, water

0.29 0.42 1 0.29 0.14 0.56 0.57 0.72 0.57 0.57 0.58 0.71 0.85 0.85 0 0.86 0.73

Desalination of brackish water ** 0.15 0 1 0.15 0.14 0 0.29 0.15 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0 0.72

Water import and regional conveyance 0.29 0.14 0.86 0.29 0.42 0.28 0.42 0.29 0.57 0.57 0.43 0.57 0.42 0.57 0.42 0.57 0

threshold for strong graph = 0.725

threshold for week graph = 0.593

Note:

* Exploitation of existing resources in all analysis tables means utilization of deep aquifer

** Desalination of brackish in all analysis means abstraction from groundwater above safe yield


5-6

ELECTRE II:

Table (2): Discordance table

Criteria

ALTERNATIVES

Sea water

desalination

Storm w

ater harvesting


Wastew

ater treatm

ent

Water conservation

and water saving

strategies

Infrastructure im

provement

irrigation im

provements

Land and crop m

anagement

Economic polices

Water Tariff

Surface and groundw

ater protection

Environmental

polices



information

campaign

Promulgation and

enforcement of

legislation, water

Desalination of

brackish water

Water im


Sea water desalination 0 0.25 0 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storm water harvesting 0.5 0 0 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.5 0.25 0 0.25 0.25 0 0.5 Exploitation of existing resources 1 0.75 0 1 1 1 1 0.75 0.75 0.75 1 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.25 1

Wastewater treatment 0.25 0.25 0 0 0.25 0.25 0 0.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Water conservation and water saving strategies 0.5 0.5 0 0.25 0 0.25 0.25 0.5 0 0 0.25 0 0.25 0 0.25 0 0

Infrastructure improvement 0.5 0.5 0 0.5 0.5 0 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0 0.5 irrigation improvements 0.5 0.5 0 0.5 0.25 0.5 0 0.5 0.25 0.25 0.5 0.25 0 0 0 0.25 0.25 Land and crop management 0.25 0.5 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.25 0 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 Economic polices 0.5 0.5 0 0.25 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.5 0 0 0.25 0 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 Water Tariff 0.5 0.5 0 0.25 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.5 0 0 0.25 0 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 Surface and groundwater protection 0.75 0.75 0 0.5 0.25 0.25 0.5 0.75 0.25 0.25 0 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.5 0 0.25

Environmental polices 0.5 0.5 0 0.25 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.25 0.25 0 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 Institutional capacity building 0.5 0.5 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.25 0.5 0.25 0 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.5

Public awareness and information campaign 0.5 0.5 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.25 0 0.25 0.25 0.25


0.5 0.5 0 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.25 0.25 0 0.25 0.25


5-7

Criteria

ALTERNATIVES

Sea water

desalination

Storm w

ater harvesting

Exploitation of

existing resources

Wastew

ater treatm

ent

Water conservation

and water saving

strategies

Infrastructure im

provement

irrigation im

provements

Land and crop

managem

ent

Econom

ic polices

Water Tariff

Surface and groundw

ater protection

Environm

ental polices



information

campaign

Promulgation and

enforcement of

legislation, water

Desalination of

brackish water

Water im


Desalination of brackish water 1 0.75 0 1 1 0.75 1 0.75 0.75 0.75 1 0.75 0.5 0.75 0.75 0 1

Water import and regional conveyance 1 0.75 0.25 1 1 1 1 0.75 1 1 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.25 0

threshold for strong graph = 0.333 threshold for week graph = 0.407


5-8

ELECTRE II

Table (3): Strong Graph

Criteria

Alternatives

Sea water

desalination

Storm w

ater harvesting


Wastew

ater treatm

ent

Water conservation

and water saving

strategies

Infrastructure im

provement

irrigation im

provements

Land and crop m

anagement

Economic polices

Water Tariff

Surface and groundw

ater protection

Environmental

polices



information

campaign

Promulgation and

enforcement of

legislation, water

Desalination of

brackish water

Water im


Sea water desalination 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Storm water harvesting 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 Exploitation of existing resources 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Wastewater treatment 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Water conservation and water saving strategies 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Infrastructure improvement 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 irrigation improvements 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 Land and crop management 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0

Economic polices 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Water Tariff 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Surface and groundwater protection 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1

Environmental polices 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Institutional capacity building 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0

Public awareness and information campaign 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

Promulgation and enforcement of legislation, 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1


5-9

Criteria

Alternatives

Sea water

desalination

Storm w

ater harvesting

Exploitation of

existing resources

Wastew

ater treatm

ent

Water conservation

and water saving

strategies

Infrastructure im

provement

irrigation im

provements

Land and crop

managem

ent

Econom

ic polices

Water Tariff

Surface and groundw

ater protection

Environm

ental polices



information

campaign

Promulgation and

enforcement of

legislation, water

Desalination of

brackish water

Water im


water

Desalination of brackish water 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Water import and regional conveyance 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


5-10

ELECTRE II

Table (4): Weak Graph Table

Criteria

Alternatives


Storm w

ater harvesting


Wastew

ater treatment

Water conservation

and water saving

strategies

Infrastructure im

provement

irrigation im

provements

Land and crop m

anagement

Economic polices

Water Tariff

Surface and groundw

ater protection




information cam

paign

Promulgation and

enforcement of

legislation, water

Desalination of

brackish water

Water im




Infrastructure improvement 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0

irrigation improvements 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1

Land and crop management 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1





5-11

Criteria

Alternatives


Storm w

ater harvesting

Exploitation of existing

resources

Wastew

ater treatment

Water conservation

and water saving

strategies

Infrastructure im

provement

irrigation im

provements

Land and crop

managem

ent

Econom

ic polices

Water Tariff

Surface and groundw

ater protection

Environm

ental polices



information cam

paign

Promulgation and

enforcement of

legislation, water

Desalination of

brackish water

Water im



0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1




5-12

ELECTRE II

Table (5): Strong Graph Cycle

Criteria

Alternatives


Storm w

ater harvesting


Wastew

ater treatment

Water conservation

and water saving

strategies

Infrastructure im

provement

irrigation im

provements

Land and crop m

anagement

Economic polices

Water Tariff

Surface and groundw

ater protection




information cam

paign

Promulgation and

enforcement of

legislation, water

Desalination of

brackish water

Water im





irrigation improvements 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 Land and crop management 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0





5-13

Criteria

Alternatives


Storm w

ater harvesting


resources

Wastew

ater treatment

Water conservation

and water saving

strategies

Infrastructure im

provement

irrigation im

provements

Land and crop

managem

ent

Econom

ic polices

Water Tariff

Surface and groundw

ater protection

Environm

ental polices



information cam

paign

Promulgation and

enforcement of

legislation, water

Desalination of

brackish water

Water im



0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0




5-14

ELECTRE II

Table (6) : Weak graph cycle

Criteria

Alternatives


Storm w

ater harvesting


Wastew

ater treatment

Water conservation

and water saving

strategies

Infrastructure im

provement

irrigation im

provements

Land and crop m

anagement

Economic polices

Water Tariff

Surface and groundw

ater protection




information cam

paign

Promulgation and

enforcement of

legislation, water

Desalination of

brackish water

Water im


Sea water desalination 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1

Storm water harvesting 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0

Exploitation of existing resources 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Wastewater treatment 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1

Water conservation and water saving strategies

0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1


irrigation improvements 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1

Land and crop management 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1

Economic polices 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Water Tariff 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Surface and groundwater protection

0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1

Environmental 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1


5-15

Criteria

Alternatives


Storm w

ater harvesting


resources

Wastew

ater treatment

Water conservation

and water saving

strategies

Infrastructure im

provement

irrigation im

provements

Land and crop

managem

ent

Econom

ic polices

Water Tariff

Surface and groundw

ater protection

Environm

ental polices



information cam

paign

Promulgation and

enforcement of

legislation, water

Desalination of

brackish water

Water im


polices Institutional capacity building 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1

Public awareness and information campaign

0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0




5-16

ELECTRE II

Table (7): Probability Table

Alternative/Positions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 N

Wastewater treatment 0.87 0.11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16.87

Sea water desalination 0.13 0.87 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16.13

Water conservation and water saving strategies 0 0 0.52 0.48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14.52

Storm water harvesting 0 0 0.48 0.52 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14.48

irrigation improvements 0 0 0 0 0.3 0.31 0.29 0.09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11.71

Land and crop management 0 0 0 0 0.3 0.31 0.29 0.09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11.71

Infrastructure improvement 0 0 0 0 0.28 0.28 0.3 0.14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11.7

Surface and groundwater protection 0 0 0 0 0.12 0.09 0.11 0.56 0.05 0.05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10.3

Promulgation and enforcement of legislation, water 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.05 0.34 0.34 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.06 0 0 0 7.78

Institutional capacity building 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.05 0.34 0.34 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.06 0 0 0 7.78

Economic polices 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.07 0.07 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.08 0.01 0 0 6.22

Environmental polices 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.07 0.07 0.26 0.26 0.25 0.08 0.01 0 0 6.22

Water Tariff 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.07 0.07 0.26 0.26 0.25 0.08 0.01 0 0 6.22

Public awareness and information campaign 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.62 0.05 0 0 5.02

Water import and regional conveyance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.53 0.4 0 2.72

Desalination of brackish water 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 0.6 0 2.4

Exploitation of existing resources 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

ELECTRE II


5-17

Table (8): Dominance Table

Criteria

Alternatives

Wastew

ater treatment


Storm w

ater harvesting

Water conservation

and water saving

strategies

Infrastructure im

provement

irrigation im

provements

Land and crop m

anagement

Surface and groundw

ater protection

Promulgation and

enforcement of

legislation, water


Economic polices


Water Tariff


information cam

paign

Desalination of

brackish water

Water im



Wastewater treatment 436.5 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 Sea water desalination 63.5 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 Storm water harvesting 0 0 242.5 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 Water conservation and water saving strategies 0 0 257.5 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 Infrastructure improvement 0 0 0 0 232 232 381 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 irrigation improvements 0 0 0 0 268 250 391.5 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 Land and crop management 0 0 0 0 268 250 391.5 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 Surface and groundwater protection 0 0 0 0 119 108.5 108.5 459 469 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 Promulgation and enforcement of legislation, water 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 250 397 397 397 416.5 500 494.5 500 Institutional capacity building 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 250 397 397 397 416.5 500 494.5 500 Economic polices 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 103 103 250 250 395.5 500 482.5 500 Environmental polices 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 103 103 250 250 395.5 500 482.5 500 Water Tariff 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 103 103 250 250 395.5 500 482.5 500 Public awareness and information campaign 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 83.5 83.5 104.5 104.5 104.5 500 471.5 500


5-18

Criteria

Alternatives

Wastew

ater treatment


Storm w

ater harvesting

Water conservation

and water saving

strategies

Infrastructure im

provement

irrigation im

provements

Land and crop

managem

ent

Surface and groundw

ater protection

Promulgation and

enforcement of

legislation, water


Econom

ic polices

Environm

ental polices

Water Tariff


information cam

paign

Desalination of

brackish water

Water im



resources

Desalination of brackish water 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 202.5 500 Water import and regional conveyance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.5 5.5 17.5 17.5 17.5 29.5 297.5 500 Exploitation of existing resources 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


5-19

Regime Method

Table (9): Probability Table

Criteria

Alternatives


Storm w

ater harvesting


resources

Wastew

ater treatment

Water conservation

and water saving

strategies

Infrastructure im

provement

irrigation im

provements

Land and crop

managem

ent

Econom

ic polices

Water Tariff

Surface and groundw

ater protection

Environm

ental polices



information cam

paign

Promulgation and

enforcement of

legislation, water

Desalination of

brackish water

Water im


Sea water desalination 0 0.13 1 0 0 0.06 0.93 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Storm water harvesting 0.87 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Exploitation of existing resources 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Wastewater treatment 1 1 1 0 1 0.99 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Water conservation and water saving strategies 1 1 1 0 0 0.75 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Infrastructure improvement 0.94 1 1 0.01 0.25 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 irrigation improvements 0.07 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Land and crop management 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.49 0.03 0.16 0.49 1 1

Economic polices 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0.5 0.12 1 0.04 0.31 0.75 1 1 Water Tariff 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0.5 0 0.12 1 0.04 0.31 0.75 1 1 Surface and groundwater protection 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0.88 0.88 0 1 0.25 0.83 1 1 1

Environmental polices 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0.51 0 0 0 0 0 0.31 0 1 1 Institutional capacity building 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0.97 0.96 0.96 0.75 1 0 1 1 1 1

Public awareness and information campaign 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0.84 0.69 0.69 0.17 0.69 0 0 0.32 1 1


5-20

Criteria

Alternatives


Storm w

ater harvesting


Wastew

ater treatment

Water conservation

and water saving

strategies

Infrastructure im

provement

irrigation im

provements

Land and crop m

anagement

Economic polices

Water Tariff

Surface and groundw

ater protection




information cam

paign

Promulgation and

enforcement of

legislation, water

Desalination of

brackish water

Water im



0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0.51 0.25 0.25 0 1 0 0.68 0 1 1




5-21

Regime Method

Table (10): Sensitivity Probability table

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Total

Wastewater treatment 0.99 0 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16.98 Water conservation and water saving strategies 0.01 0.95 0.01 0.01 0.02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15.92

Infrastructure improvement 0 0.05 0.93 0.01 0.01 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15.14

Storm water harvesting 0 0 0.05 0.92 0.02 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14.01 Sea water desalination 0 0 0 0.06 0.01 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13.05 irrigation improvements 0 0 0 0 0.03 0.97 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12.03

Institutional capacity building 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.97 0.02 0 0 0.01 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 10.94

Surface and groundwater protection 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.03 0.94 0 0 0 0.01 0.01 0 0 0 0 9.84

Economic polices 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.04 0.86 0.05 0 0.01 0 0.03 0 0 0 8.72 Water Tariff 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.09 0.82 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.03 0 0 0 7.88 Public awareness and information campaign 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.05 0.11 0.82 0 0 0.03 0 0 0 7.12


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.02 0.13 0.82 0 0.03 0 0 0 6.11

Land and crop management 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.84 0.05 0 0 0 5

Environmental polices 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.03 0.14 0.83 0 0 0 4.2 Desalination of brackish water 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3

Water import and regional conveyance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2


5-22

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Total



5-23

Regime Method

Table (11): Sensitivity Dominance Table

Criteria

Alternatives

Wastew

ater treatment

Water conservation

and water saving

strategies

Infrastructure im

provement

Stormw

ater harvesting


irrigation im

provements


Surface and groundw

ater protection

EECCOO

NNOO

MMII CC

PP OO

LL II CCEESS

Water Tariff


information cam

paign

Promulgation and

enforcement of

legislation, water

Land and crop m

anagement


Desalination of

brackish water

Water im



Wastewater treatment 494 495 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 Water conservation and water saving strategies 6 481 484 491 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500

Infrastructure improvement 5 19 490 493 495 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 Storm water harvesting 0 16 10 486 495 499 499 499 499 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 Sea water desalination 0 9 7 14 495 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 irrigation improvements 0 0 5 5 5 500 500 500 500 500 500 499 500 500 500 500 Institutional capacity building 0 0 0 1 0 0 483 492 492 498 499 500 500 500 500 500 Surface and groundwater protection 0 0 0 1 0 0 17 489 489 489 490 500 497 500 500 500

Economic polices 0 0 0 1 0 0 8 11 250 451.5 476 482 483 500 500 500 Water Tariff 0 0 0 1 0 0 8 11 250 451.5 476 483 485 500 500 500 Public awareness and information campaign 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 11 48.5 48.5 479 486 500 500 500 500


0 0 0 0 0 0 2 10 24 24 21 482 483 500 500 500

Land and crop management 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 18 17 14 18 461 500 500 500 Environmental polices 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 17 15 14 17 39 500 500 500 Desalination of brackish water 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 500 500


5-24

Criteria

Alternatives

Wastew

ater treatment

Water conservation

and water saving

strategies

Infrastructure im

provement

Stormw

ater harvesting


irrigation im

provements


Surface and groundw

ater protection

EECCOO

NNOO

MMII CC

PP OO

LL II CCEESS

Water Tariff


information cam

paign

Promulgation and

enforcement of

legislation, water

Land and crop

managem

ent

Environm

ental polices

Desalination of

brackish water

Water im



resources

Water import and regional conveyance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 500

Exploitation of existing resources 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


5-25

Evamix Method

Table (12): Qualitative Dominance Table

Criteria

Alternatives

Sea water

desalination

Storm w

ater harvesting

Exploitation of

existing resources

Wastew

ater treatm

ent

Water conservation

and water saving

strategies

Infrastructure im

provement

irrigation im

provements

Land and crop

managem

ent

Econom

ic polices

Water T

ariff

Surface and groundw

ater protection

Environm

ental polices



information

campaign

Promulgation and

enforcement of

legislation, water

Desalination of

brackish water

Water im


Sea water desalination 0 0.13 1 -0.15 -0.01 0.12 0.28 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.28 0.71 0.56 0.56 0.71 0.85 0.71

Storm water harvesting -0.13 0 1 -0.28 -0.14 -0.01 0.15 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.29 0.43 0.43 0.44 1 0.73

Exploitation of existing resources -1 -1 0 -1 -1 -1 -0.86 -0.85 -0.85 -0.85 -0.86 -0.85 -0.86 -0.86 -0.86 -0.58 -0.43

Wastewater treatment 0.15 0.28 1 0 0.28 0.41 0.43 0.58 0.86 0.86 0.58 1 0.71 0.85 0.71 0.85 0.71 Water conservation and water saving strategies

0.01 0.14 1 -0.28 0 0.13 0.28 0.44 0.43 0.43 0.44 0.57 0.56 0.71 0.71 0.86 0.58

Infrastructure improvement -0.12 0.01 1 -0.41 -0.13 0 0.01 0.02 0.16 0.16 0.31 0.3 0.29 0.44 0.16 1 0.58

irrigation improvements -0.28 -0.15 0.86 -0.43 -0.28 -0.01 0 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.15 0.44 0.28 0.56 0.43 0.57 0.44

Land and crop management -0.57 -0.16 0.85 -0.58 -0.44 -0.02 -0.3 0 -0.01 -0.01 -0.29 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.7 0.43

Economic polices -0.57 -0.15 0.85 -0.86 -0.43 -0.16 -0.3 0.01 0 0 -0.14 0.14 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.56 0.15 Water Tariff -0.57 -0.15 0.85 -0.86 -0.43 -0.16 -0.3 0.01 0 0 -0.14 0.14 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.56 0.15 Surface and groundwater protection

-0.28 -0.16 0.86 -0.58 -0.44 -0.31 -0.15 0.29 0.14 0.14 0 0.28 0.13 0.27 0.28 0.71 0.43

Environmental polices -0.71 -0.29 0.85 -1 -0.57 -0.3 -0.44 -0.13 -0.14 -0.14 -0.28 0 -0.02 0.13 0 0.56 0.15


5-26

Criteria

Alternatives

Sea water

desalination

Storm w

ater harvesting

Exploitation of

existing resources

Wastew

ater treatm

ent

Water conservation

and water saving

strategies

Infrastructure im

provement

irrigation im

provements

Land and crop

managem

ent

Econom

ic polices

Water T

ariff

Surface and groundw

ater protection

Environm

ental polices



information

campaign

Promulgation and

enforcement of

legislation, water

Desalination of

brackish water

Water im


Institutional capacity building -0.56 -0.43 0.86 -0.71 -0.56 -0.29 -0.28 -0.12 -0.12 -0.12 -0.13 0.02 0 0.15 0.01 0.57 0.3

Public awareness and information campaign -0.56 -0.43 0.86 -0.85 -0.71 -0.44 -0.56 -0.12 -0.13 -0.13 -0.27 -0.13 -0.15 0 -0.13 0.57 0.16


-0.71 -0.44 0.86 -0.71 -0.71 -0.16 -0.43 -0.13 -0.13 -0.13 -0.28 0 -0.01 0.13 0 0.57 0.3

Desalination of brackish water -0.85 -1 0.58 -0.85 -0.86 -1 -0.57 -0.7 -0.56 -0.56 -0.71 -0.56 -0.57 -0.57 -0.57 0 0.15

Water import and regional conveyance -0.71 -0.73 0.43 -0.71 -0.58 -0.58 -0.44 -0.43 -0.15 -0.15 -0.43 -0.15 -0.3 -0.16 -0.3 -0.15 0


5-27

Evamix Method

Table (13): Standard Qualitative Dominance Table

Criteria

Alternatives


Storm w

ater harvesting


resources

Wastew

ater treatment

Water conservation and

water saving strategies

Infrastructure im

provement

irrigation improvem

ents

Land and crop

managem

ent

Econom

ic polices

Water T

ariff

Surface and groundwater

protection

Environm

ental polices



information cam

paign

Promulgation and

enforcement of legislation,

water

Desalination of brackish

water

Water im


Sea water desalination 0 0 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0 0 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.05

Storm water harvesting 0 0 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0.01 0.03

Exploitation of existing resources -0.01 -0.01 0 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 0 -0.15

Wastewater treatment 0 0 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0.01 0 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.09

Water conservation and water saving strategies 0 0 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.05

Infrastructure improvement 0 0 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0.01 0.03

irrigation improvements 0 0 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.01

Land and crop management 0 0 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0 0.02

Economic polices 0 0 0.01 -0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Water Tariff 0 0 0.01 -0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


5-28

Criteria

Alternatives


Storm w

ater harvesting


resources

Wastew

ater treatment



Infrastructure im

provement

irrigation improvem

ents

Land and crop

managem

ent

Econom

ic polices

Water T

ariff

Surface and groundwater

protection

Environm

ental polices



information cam

paign

Promulgation and

enforcement of legislation,

water


water

Water im


Surface and groundwater protection 0 0 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0 0.02

Environmental polices -0.01 0 0.01 -0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -0.01

Institutional capacity building 0 0 0.01 -0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Public awareness and information campaign 0 0 0.01 -0.01 -0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -0.01

Promulgation and enforcement of legislation, water -0.01 0 0.01 -0.01 -0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -0.02

Desalination of brackish water -0.01 -0.01 0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 0 -0.01 0 0 -0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 -0.06

Water import and regional conveyance -0.01 -0.01 0 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -0.05


5-29

Evamix Method

Table (14): Total Dominance Table

Criteria

Alternatives


Storm w

ater harvesting


resources

Wastew

ater treatment



Infrastructure im

provement

irrigation improvem

ents

Land and crop

managem

ent

Econom

ic polices

Water T

ariff

Surface and groundw

ater protection

Environm

ental polices



information cam

paign

Promulgation and

enforcement of

legislation, water


water

Water im


Sea water desalination 0 0 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0 0 0.01 0.01 0.01 Storm water harvesting 0 0 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0.01 Exploitation of existing resources -0.01 -0.01 0 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 0

Wastewater treatment 0 0 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0.01 0 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 Water conservation and water saving strategies 0 0 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Infrastructure improvement 0 0 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0.01

irrigation improvements 0 0 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Land and crop management 0 0 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0

Economic polices 0 0 0.01 -0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Water Tariff 0 0 0.01 -0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Surface and groundwater protection 0 0 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0

Environmental polices -0.01 0 0.01 -0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Institutional capacity building 0 0 0.01 -0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


5-30

Criteria

Alternatives


Storm w

ater harvesting


resources

Wastew

ater treatment



Infrastructure im

provement

irrigation improvem

ents

Land and crop

managem

ent

Econom

ic polices

Water T

ariff

Surface and groundw

ater protection

Environm

ental polices



information cam

paign

Promulgation and

enforcement of

legislation, water


water

Water im


Public awareness and information campaign 0 0 0.01 -0.01 -0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Promulgation and enforcement of legislation, water -0.01 0 0.01 -0.01 -0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Desalination of brackish water -0.01 -0.01 0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 0 -0.01 0 0 -0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0

Water import and regional conveyance -0.01 -0.01 0 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


5-31

Evamix Method

Table (15) : Sensitivity Dominance Table

Criteria

Alternatives

Wastew

ater treatment




Storm w

ater harvesting

Infrastructure im

provement

irrigation improvem

ents

Surface and groundw

ater protection

Land and crop

managem

ent

Econom

ic polices

Water T

ariff


Promulgation and

enforcement of

legislation, water

Environm

ental polices


information cam

paign

Water im



water


resources

Wastewater treatment 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500

Sea water desalination 0 486 489 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500

Water conservation and water saving strategies 0 14 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500

Storm water harvesting 0 1 0 488 488 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500

Infrastructure improvement 0 0 0 12 487 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500

irrigation improvements 0 0 0 12 13 495 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500

Surface and groundwater protection 0 0 0 0 0 5 491 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500


5-32

Criteria

Alternatives

Wastew

ater treatment




Storm w

ater harvesting

Infrastructure im

provement

irrigation improvem

ents

Surface and groundw

ater protection

Land and crop

managem

ent

Econom

ic polices

Water T

ariff


Promulgation and

enforcement of

legislation, water

Environm

ental polices


information cam

paign

Water im



water


resources

Land and crop management 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 485 486 494 500 494 500 500 500 500

Economic polices 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 255.5 487 490 497.5 500 500 500 500

Water Tariff 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 244.5 474 479 497.5 500 500 500 500

Institutional capacity building 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 13 26 497.5 500 500 500 500 500

Promulgation and enforcement of legislation, water 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 21 13 482 484 500 500 500

Environmental polices 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2.5 12 21 479 500 500 500

Public awareness and information campaign 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 21 21 500 500 500

Water import and regional conveyance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 500 500


5-33

Criteria

Alternatives

Wastew

ater treatment




Storm w

ater harvesting

Infrastructure im

provement

irrigation improvem

ents

Surface and groundw

ater protection

Land and crop

managem

ent

Econom

ic polices

Water T

ariff


Promulgation and

enforcement of

legislation, water

Environm

ental polices


information cam

paign

Water im



water


resources

Desalination of brackish water 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 500

Exploitation of existing resources 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


5-34

Evamix Method

Table (16) : Sensitivity probability Table

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Total

Wastewater treatment 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 Sea water desalination 0 0.97 0.03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15.97 Water conservation and water saving strategies 0 0.03 0.97 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15.03

Storm water harvesting 0 0 0 0.97 0 0.02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13.82 Infrastructure improvement 0 0 0 0.02 0.95 0.03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12.99 irrigation improvements 0 0 0 0 0.05 0.94 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12.04

Surface and groundwater protection 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0.97 0.02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10.99

Land and crop management 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.02 0.95 0 0.02 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 9.95 Economic polices 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.03 0.94 0 0.01 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 8.89 Water Tariff 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.06 0.89 0.02 0.03 0 0 0 0 0 7.98 Institutional capacity building 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.08 0.89 0 0.02 0.01 0 0 0 7.01

Promulgation and enforcement of legislation, water 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0.07 0.88 0 0.04 0 0 0 6.01

Environmental polices 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.07 0.89 0.04 0 0 0 5.03 Public awareness and information campaign 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0.08 0.91 0 0 0 4.1

Water import and regional conveyance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3

Desalination of brackish water 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2



5-35

Weighted Summation Method

Table (17): Sensitivity Dominance Table

Criteria

Alternatives

Wastew

ater treatm

ent

Sea water

desalination

Water conservation

and water saving

strategies

Storm w

ater harvesting

Infrastructure im

provement

irrigation im

provements

Surface and groundw

ater protection

Land and crop

managem

ent

Econom

ic polices

Water T

ariff


Promulgation and

enforcement of

legislation, water

Environm

ental polices


information

campaign

Water im


Desalination of

brackish water

Exploitation of

existing resources

Wastewater treatment 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 Sea water desalination 0 474 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 Water conservation and water saving strategies 0 26 476 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500

Storm water harvesting 0 0 24 481 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 Infrastructure improvement 0 0 0 19 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 irrigation improvements 0 0 0 0 0 306 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 Surface and groundwater protection 0 0 0 0 0 194 322 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 Land and crop management 0 0 0 0 0 21 178 500 500 500 500 494 500 500 500 500 Economic polices 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 250 475 497 500 500 500 500 500 Water Tariff 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 250 475 497 500 500 500 500 500 Institutional capacity building 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 25 319 495 500 500 500 500 Promulgation and enforcement of legislation, water 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 181 487 500 500 500 500

Environmental polices 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 13 500 500 500 500 Public awareness and information campaign 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 500 500 500

Water import and regional conveyance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 493 500 Desalination of brackish water 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 500 Exploitation of existing resources 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


5-36

Weighted Summation Method

Table (18): Sensitivity probability Table

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Total Wastewater treatment 0.99 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16.99 Sea water desalination 0.01 0.94 0.05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15.96 Water conservation and water saving strategies 0 0.05 0.90 0.05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15

Storm water harvesting 0 0 0.05 0.91 0.04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14.01 Infrastructure improvement 0 0 0 0.04 0.96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13.04 irrigation improvements 0 0 0 0 0 0.59 0.39 0.02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11.57 Surface and groundwater protection 0 0 0 0 0 0.39 0.26 0.36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11.14

Land and crop management 0 0 0 0 0 0.02 36 0.62 0 0 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 10.4 Economic polices 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.94 0.06 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.94 Water Tariff 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.94 0.02 0.06 0 0 0 0 0 7.94 Institutional capacity building 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.05 0 0.89 0.59 0.35 0.01 0 0 0 6.73


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0 0.07 0.36 0.61 0.03 0 0 0 6.42

Environmental polices 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.04 0.96 0 0 0 5.04 Public awareness and information campaign 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4.0

Water import and regional conveyance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.99 0.01 2.99

Desalination of brackish water 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0.99 2.01



5-37

Table (4.7): scores of the policy and management options with corresponding to the most important criteria

Where : ++ : big negative effect (represent the degree of importance =1)

+ : small negative effect (represent the degree of importance =2)

0 : no effect (represent the degree of importance =3)

- : small positive effect (represent the degree of importance =4)

-- : big positive effect (represent the degree of importance

Criteria AALLTTEERRNNAATTIIVVEESS

Sea w

ater desalination

Storm

water

harvesting

Exploitation of

existing resources

Wastew

ater treatm

ent

Water

conservation and

water

saving strategies

Infrastructure im

provement

irrigation im

provements

Land and

crop m

anagement

Economic polices

Water Tariff

Surface and

groundwater

protection

Environmental

polices


Public aw

areness and

information

campaign

Promulgation

and enforcem

ent of

legislation, w

ater law

Desalination

of brackish w

ater

Water im


Fundability + + -- ++ + ++ + 0 + + + + + + 0 - -- impact on public health + ++ 0 + ++ ++ + 0 0 0 + 0 + + + + +

Availability and capacity of instituions

+ + -- ++ ++ + ++ + + + + + + + + - --

Reliability of the source quantity ++ ++ - + 0 0 + ++ 0 0 - 0 + 0 + - 0

Feasibility + + + - ++ ++ + + + ++ ++ + + + 0 + - --

Infrastructure requirement + + ++ 0 ++ + ++ 0 ++ + + ++ + 0 0 0 + +

Political stability + + 0 -- ++ ++ 0 ++ + + + ++ + 0 + + -- ++

hierarchical approach for integrated water resources … · 2009-02-16 · hierarchical approach...

Documents