Post on 04-Jul-2020
transcript
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
Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in the Gaza Strip
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.
Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in the Gaza Strip
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
Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in the Gaza Strip
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.
Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in the Gaza Strip
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.
Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in the Gaza Strip
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
Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in the Gaza Strip
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
Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in the Gaza Strip
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
Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in the Gaza Strip
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
Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in the Gaza Strip
XI
5.1 Concluaions .......................................................................................................107
5.2 Recommendations ..............................................................................................108
5.3 Recommended Studies .......................................................................................110
REFERENCES..............................................................................................................111
LIST OF APPENDICES................................................................................................125
Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in the Gaza Strip
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
Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in the Gaza Strip
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
Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in the Gaza Strip
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
Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in the Gaza Strip
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
Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in the Gaza Strip
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.
Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in the Gaza Strip
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.
Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in the Gaza Strip
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
Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in the Gaza Strip
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.
Chapter (1) Introduction
-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:
Chapter (1) Introduction
-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
Chapter (1) Introduction
-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.
Chapter (2) Literature Review
-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”.
Chapter (2) Literature Review
-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,
Chapter (2) Literature Review
-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).
Chapter (2) Literature Review
-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
Chapter (2) Literature Review
-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.
Chapter (2) Literature Review
-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,
Chapter (2) Literature Review
-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
Chapter (2) Literature Review
-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)
Chapter (2) Literature Review
-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
Chapter (2) Literature Review
-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)
Chapter (2) Literature Review
-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
Chapter (2) Literature Review
-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.
Chapter (2) Literature Review
-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.
Chapter (2) Literature Review
-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.
Chapter (2) Literature Review
-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
Chapter (2) Literature Review
-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
Chapter (2) Literature Review
-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).
Chapter (2) Literature Review
-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
Chapter (2) Literature Review
-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
Chapter (2) Literature Review
-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).
Chapter (2) Literature Review
-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
Links information needs to
decision making process
(management level) and
execution of measures
(operational level)
Links information needs to
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)
Chapter (2) Literature Review
-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)
Chapter (2) Literature Review
-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
Chapter (2) Literature Review
-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.
Chapter (2) Literature Review
-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
Chapter (2) Literature Review
-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.
Chapter (2) Literature Review
-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).
Chapter (3) Decision Making Process for Development of Conceptual Approach for IWRM
-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.
Chapter (3) Decision Making Process for Development of Conceptual Approach for IWRM
-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:
Chapter (3) Decision Making Process for Development of Conceptual Approach for IWRM
-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).
Chapter (3) Decision Making Process for Development of Conceptual Approach for IWRM
-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
Chapter (3) Decision Making Process for Development of Conceptual Approach for IWRM
-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
Chapter (3) Decision Making Process for Development of Conceptual Approach for IWRM
-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)
Chapter (3) Decision Making Process for Development of Conceptual Approach for IWRM
-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
Chapter (3) Decision Making Process for Development of Conceptual Approach for IWRM
-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.
Chapter (3) Decision Making Process for Development of Conceptual Approach for IWRM
-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
Chapter (3) Decision Making Process for Development of Conceptual Approach for IWRM
-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.
Chapter (3) Decision Making Process for Development of Conceptual Approach for IWRM
-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.
Chapter (3) Decision Making Process for Development of Conceptual Approach for IWRM
-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:
Chapter (3) Decision Making Process for Development of Conceptual Approach for IWRM
-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.
Chapter (3) Decision Making Process for Development of Conceptual Approach for IWRM
-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
Alternatives A1 A2 A3
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.
Chapter (3) Decision Making Process for Development of Conceptual Approach for IWRM
-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
Alternatives A1 A2 A3
A1 0 0
A2 0 0
A3 0 0
Chapter (3) Decision Making Process for Development of Conceptual Approach for IWRM
-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
Alternatives A1 A2 A3
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 .
Chapter (3) Decision Making Process for Development of Conceptual Approach for IWRM
-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
Chapter (3) Decision Making Process for Development of Conceptual Approach for IWRM
-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
Chapter (3) Decision Making Process for Development of Conceptual Approach for IWRM
-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:
Chapter (3) Decision Making Process for Development of Conceptual Approach for IWRM
-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
(Beinat, E., Herwijnen van M. & Janssen, R., 2003)
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
Chapter (3) Decision Making Process for Development of Conceptual Approach for IWRM
-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=
(Beinat, E., Herwijnen van M. & Janssen, R., 2003)
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.
Chapter (3) Decision Making Process for Development of Conceptual Approach for IWRM
-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
(Beinat, E., Herwijnen van M. & Janssen, R., 2003)
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
Chapter (3) Decision Making Process for Development of Conceptual Approach for IWRM
-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:
(Beinat, E., Herwijnen van M. & Janssen, R., 2003)
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
(Beinat, E., Herwijnen van M. & Janssen, R., 2003)
),((
),(),(
11
kjDabs
kjDkjDMM
kjkj
L
LL
∑≠==
∧
=
),((
),(),(
11
kjDabs
kjDkjDMM
kjkj
T
TT
∑≠==
∧
=
Chapter (3) Decision Making Process for Development of Conceptual Approach for IWRM
-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
Chapter (3) Decision Making Process for Development of Conceptual Approach for IWRM
-58-
Electre Regime method Evamix Weighted
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.
Chapter (3) Decision Making Process for Development of Conceptual Approach for IWRM
-59-
Electre Regime method Evamix Weighted
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
Chapter (3) Decision Making Process for Development of Conceptual Approach for IWRM
-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.
Chapter (3) Decision Making Process for Development of Conceptual Approach for IWRM
-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.
Chapter (4) Proposed Hierarchical Approach for IWRM in the Gaza Strip
-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
Chapter (4) Proposed Hierarchical Approach for IWRM in the Gaza Strip
-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).
Chapter (4) Proposed Hierarchical Approach for IWRM in the Gaza Strip
-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.
Chapter (4) Proposed Hierarchical Approach for IWRM in the Gaza Strip
-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.
Chapter (4) Proposed Hierarchical Approach for IWRM in the Gaza Strip
-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
Chapter (4) Proposed Hierarchical Approach for IWRM in the Gaza Strip
-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.
Chapter (4) Proposed Hierarchical Approach for IWRM in the Gaza Strip
-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.
Chapter (4) Proposed Hierarchical Approach for IWRM in the Gaza Strip
-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).
Chapter (4) Proposed Hierarchical Approach for IWRM in the Gaza Strip
-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
Chapter (4) Proposed Hierarchical Approach for IWRM in the Gaza Strip
-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
Chapter (4) Proposed Hierarchical Approach for IWRM in the Gaza Strip
-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):
Chapter (4) Proposed Hierarchical Approach for IWRM in the Gaza Strip
-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
Chapter (4) Proposed Hierarchical Approach for IWRM in the Gaza Strip
-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
Chapter (4) Proposed Hierarchical Approach for IWRM in the Gaza Strip
-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
Chapter (4) Proposed Hierarchical Approach for IWRM in the Gaza Strip
-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.
Chapter (4) Proposed Hierarchical Approach for IWRM in the Gaza Strip
-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.
Chapter (4) Proposed Hierarchical Approach for IWRM in the Gaza Strip
-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
Chapter (4) Proposed Hierarchical Approach for IWRM in the Gaza Strip
-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.
Chapter (4) Proposed Hierarchical Approach for IWRM in the Gaza Strip
-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,
Chapter (4) Proposed Hierarchical Approach for IWRM in the Gaza Strip
-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,
Chapter (4) Proposed Hierarchical Approach for IWRM in the Gaza Strip
-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,
Chapter (4) Proposed Hierarchical Approach for IWRM in the Gaza Strip
-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,
Chapter (4) Proposed Hierarchical Approach for IWRM in the Gaza Strip
-85-
117. 15. Economic polices,
118. 16. Promulgation and enforcement of legislation, water law.
Chapter (4) Proposed Hierarchical Approach for IWRM in the Gaza Strip
-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
Chapter (4) Proposed Hierarchical Approach for IWRM in the Gaza Strip
-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:
Chapter (4) Proposed Hierarchical Approach for IWRM in the Gaza Strip
-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
Chapter (4) Proposed Hierarchical Approach for IWRM in the Gaza Strip
-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
Chapter (4) Proposed Hierarchical Approach for IWRM in the Gaza Strip
-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 + + -- ++
Chapter (4) Proposed Hierarchical Approach for IWRM in Gaza Strip
-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
Chapter (4) Proposed Hierarchical Approach for IWRM in Gaza Strip
-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
Chapter (4) Proposed Hierarchical Approach for IWRM in Gaza Strip
-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
Chapter (4) Proposed Hierarchical Approach for IWRM in Gaza Strip
-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
Chapter (4) Proposed Hierarchical Approach for IWRM in Gaza Strip
-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
Chapter (4) Proposed Hierarchical Approach for IWRM in Gaza Strip
-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
Chapter (4) Proposed Hierarchical Approach for IWRM in Gaza Strip
-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):
Chapter (4) Proposed Hierarchical Approach for IWRM in Gaza Strip
-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
Water conservation and water saving strategies 0.06 15.03 3
Storm water harvesting 0.04 13.82 4
Infrastructure improvement 0.03 12.99 5
Irrigation improvements 0.03 12.04 6
Surface and groundwater protection 0.01 10.99 7 Land and crop management 0.00 9.95 8
Chapter (4) Proposed Hierarchical Approach for IWRM in Gaza Strip
-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)
Chapter (4) Proposed Hierarchical Approach for IWRM in Gaza Strip
-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
Storm water harvesting 0.82 15.00 3
Water conservation and water saving strategies 0.80 14.01 4
Infrastructure improvement 0.77 13.04 5
Surface and groundwater protection 0.67 11.57 6
Land and crop management 0.67 11.14 7
Irrigation improvements 0.67 10.40 8
Economic polices 0.58 8.94 9
Water Tariff 0.58 7.94 9
Chapter (4) Proposed Hierarchical Approach for IWRM in Gaza Strip
-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
Chapter (4) Proposed Hierarchical Approach for IWRM in Gaza Strip
-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
Chapter (4) Proposed Hierarchical Approach for IWRM in Gaza Strip
-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
Chapter (4) Proposed Hierarchical Approach for IWRM in Gaza Strip
-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.
Chapter (4) Proposed Hierarchical Approach for IWRM 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.
Chapter (5) Conclusions & Recommendations
-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
Chapter (5) Conclusions & Recommendations
-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
Chapter (5) Conclusions & Recommendations
-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
Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in Gaza Strip
-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.
Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in Gaza Strip
-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.
Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in Gaza Strip
-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
Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in Gaza Strip
-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.
Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in Gaza Strip
-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
Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in Gaza Strip
-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.
Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in Gaza Strip
-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
Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in Gaza Strip
-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)
Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in the Gaza Strip
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)
Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in the Gaza Strip
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)
Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in the Gaza Strip
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)
Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in the Gaza Strip
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)
Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in the Gaza Strip
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)
Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in the Gaza Strip
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)
Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in the Gaza Strip
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)
Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in the Gaza Strip
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)
Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in the Gaza Strip
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)
Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in the Gaza Strip
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)
Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in the Gaza Strip
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)
Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in the Gaza Strip
٢٫1
AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX ((22))
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)
Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in the Gaza Strip
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)
Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in the Gaza Strip
13-
AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX ((33))
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)
Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in the Gaza Strip
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)
Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in the Gaza Strip
33-
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
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)
Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in the Gaza Strip
43-
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
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)
Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in the Gaza Strip
14-
AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX ((44))
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)
Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in the Gaza Strip
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
Sea water desalination
Storm water harvesting
Exploitation of existing resources
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)
Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in the Gaza Strip
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
Institutional capacity building
Economic polices
Environmental 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
AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX ((55))
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
Institutional capacity building
Public awareness and
information
campaign
Promulgation and
enforcement of
legislation, water
Desalination of
brackish water**
Water im
port and regional conveyance
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
Institutional capacity building
Public awareness and
information
campaign
Promulgation and
enforcement of
legislation, water
Desalination of
brackish water**
Water im
port and regional conveyance
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
Appendix (5) Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in the Gaza Strip
5-6
ELECTRE II:
Table (2): Discordance 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 m
anagement
Economic polices
Water Tariff
Surface and groundw
ater protection
Environmental
polices
Institutional capacity building
Public awareness and
information
campaign
Promulgation and
enforcement of
legislation, water
Desalination of
brackish water
Water im
port and regional conveyance
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
Promulgation and enforcement of legislation, water
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
Appendix (5) Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in the Gaza Strip
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
Institutional capacity building
Public awareness and
information
campaign
Promulgation and
enforcement of
legislation, water
Desalination of
brackish water
Water im
port and regional conveyance
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
Appendix (5) Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in the Gaza Strip
5-8
ELECTRE II
Table (3): Strong Graph
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 m
anagement
Economic polices
Water Tariff
Surface and groundw
ater protection
Environmental
polices
Institutional capacity building
Public awareness and
information
campaign
Promulgation and
enforcement of
legislation, water
Desalination of
brackish water
Water im
port and regional conveyance
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
Appendix (5) Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in the Gaza Strip
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
Institutional capacity building
Public awareness and
information
campaign
Promulgation and
enforcement of
legislation, water
Desalination of
brackish water
Water im
port and regional conveyance
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
Appendix (5) Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in the Gaza Strip
5-10
ELECTRE II
Table (4): Weak Graph Table
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
Desalination of
brackish water
Water im
port and regional conveyance
Sea water desalination 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Storm water harvesting 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 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 1 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 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
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
Economic polices 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 Water Tariff 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 Surface and groundwater protection 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1
Environmental polices 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 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 1 1 0 1 1 1
Appendix (5) Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in the Gaza Strip
5-11
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
managem
ent
Econom
ic polices
Water Tariff
Surface and groundw
ater protection
Environm
ental polices
Institutional capacity building
Public awareness and
information cam
paign
Promulgation and
enforcement of
legislation, water
Desalination of
brackish water
Water im
port and regional conveyance
Promulgation and enforcement of legislation, water
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1
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
Appendix (5) Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in the Gaza Strip
5-12
ELECTRE II
Table (5): Strong Graph Cycle
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
Desalination of
brackish water
Water im
port and regional conveyance
Sea water desalination 0 1 1 0 0 0 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 0 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 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 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 0 1 1 Land and crop management 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0
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 polices 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 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 0 0 0 0 1 1
Appendix (5) Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in the Gaza Strip
5-13
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
managem
ent
Econom
ic polices
Water Tariff
Surface and groundw
ater protection
Environm
ental polices
Institutional capacity building
Public awareness and
information cam
paign
Promulgation and
enforcement of
legislation, water
Desalination of
brackish water
Water im
port and regional conveyance
Promulgation and enforcement of legislation, water
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
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
Appendix (5) Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in the Gaza Strip
5-14
ELECTRE II
Table (6) : Weak graph cycle
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
Desalination of
brackish water
Water im
port and regional conveyance
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
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 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
Appendix (5) Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in the Gaza Strip
5-15
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
managem
ent
Econom
ic polices
Water Tariff
Surface and groundw
ater protection
Environm
ental polices
Institutional capacity building
Public awareness and
information cam
paign
Promulgation and
enforcement of
legislation, water
Desalination of
brackish water
Water im
port and regional conveyance
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
Promulgation and enforcement of legislation, water
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
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
Appendix (5) Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in the Gaza Strip
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
Appendix (5) Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in the Gaza Strip
5-17
Table (8): Dominance Table
Criteria
Alternatives
Wastew
ater treatment
Sea water desalination
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
Institutional capacity building
Economic polices
Environmental polices
Water Tariff
Public awareness and
information cam
paign
Desalination of
brackish water
Water im
port and regional conveyance
Exploitation of existing resources
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
Appendix (5) Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in the Gaza Strip
5-18
Criteria
Alternatives
Wastew
ater treatment
Sea water desalination
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
Institutional capacity building
Econom
ic polices
Environm
ental polices
Water Tariff
Public awareness and
information cam
paign
Desalination of
brackish water
Water im
port and regional conveyance
Exploitation of existing
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
Appendix (5) Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in the Gaza Strip
5-19
Regime Method
Table (9): Probability Table
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
managem
ent
Econom
ic polices
Water Tariff
Surface and groundw
ater protection
Environm
ental polices
Institutional capacity building
Public awareness and
information cam
paign
Promulgation and
enforcement of
legislation, water
Desalination of
brackish water
Water im
port and regional conveyance
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
Appendix (5) Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in the Gaza Strip
5-20
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
Desalination of
brackish water
Water im
port and regional conveyance
Promulgation and enforcement of legislation, water
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0.51 0.25 0.25 0 1 0 0.68 0 1 1
Desalination of brackish water 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Water import and regional conveyance 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Appendix (5) Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in the Gaza Strip
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
Promulgation and enforcement of legislation, water
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
Appendix (5) Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in the Gaza Strip
5-22
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Total
Exploitation of existing resources 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Appendix (5) Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in the Gaza Strip
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
Sea water desalination
irrigation im
provements
Institutional capacity building
Surface and groundw
ater protection
EECCOO
NNOO
MMII CC
PP OO
LL II CCEESS
Water Tariff
Public awareness and
information cam
paign
Promulgation and
enforcement of
legislation, water
Land and crop m
anagement
Environmental polices
Desalination of
brackish water
Water im
port and regional conveyance
Exploitation of existing resources
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
Promulgation and enforcement of legislation, water
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
Appendix (5) Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in the Gaza Strip
5-24
Criteria
Alternatives
Wastew
ater treatment
Water conservation
and water saving
strategies
Infrastructure im
provement
Stormw
ater harvesting
Sea water desalination
irrigation im
provements
Institutional capacity building
Surface and groundw
ater protection
EECCOO
NNOO
MMII CC
PP OO
LL II CCEESS
Water Tariff
Public awareness and
information cam
paign
Promulgation and
enforcement of
legislation, water
Land and crop
managem
ent
Environm
ental polices
Desalination of
brackish water
Water im
port and regional conveyance
Exploitation of existing
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
Appendix (5) Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in the Gaza Strip
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
Institutional capacity building
Public awareness and
information
campaign
Promulgation and
enforcement of
legislation, water
Desalination of
brackish water
Water im
port and regional conveyance
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
Appendix (5) Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in the Gaza Strip
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
Institutional capacity building
Public awareness and
information
campaign
Promulgation and
enforcement of
legislation, water
Desalination of
brackish water
Water im
port and regional conveyance
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
Promulgation and enforcement of legislation, water
-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
Appendix (5) Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in the Gaza Strip
5-27
Evamix Method
Table (13): Standard Qualitative Dominance Table
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 improvem
ents
Land and crop
managem
ent
Econom
ic polices
Water T
ariff
Surface and groundwater
protection
Environm
ental polices
Institutional capacity building
Public awareness and
information cam
paign
Promulgation and
enforcement of legislation,
water
Desalination of brackish
water
Water im
port and regional conveyance
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
Appendix (5) Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in the Gaza Strip
5-28
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 improvem
ents
Land and crop
managem
ent
Econom
ic polices
Water T
ariff
Surface and groundwater
protection
Environm
ental polices
Institutional capacity building
Public awareness and
information cam
paign
Promulgation and
enforcement of legislation,
water
Desalination of brackish
water
Water im
port and regional conveyance
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
Appendix (5) Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in the Gaza Strip
5-29
Evamix Method
Table (14): Total Dominance Table
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 improvem
ents
Land and crop
managem
ent
Econom
ic polices
Water T
ariff
Surface and groundw
ater protection
Environm
ental polices
Institutional capacity building
Public awareness and
information cam
paign
Promulgation and
enforcement of
legislation, water
Desalination of brackish
water
Water im
port and regional conveyance
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
Appendix (5) Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in the Gaza Strip
5-30
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 improvem
ents
Land and crop
managem
ent
Econom
ic polices
Water T
ariff
Surface and groundw
ater protection
Environm
ental polices
Institutional capacity building
Public awareness and
information cam
paign
Promulgation and
enforcement of
legislation, water
Desalination of brackish
water
Water im
port and regional conveyance
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
Appendix (5) Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in the Gaza Strip
5-31
Evamix Method
Table (15) : Sensitivity Dominance Table
Criteria
Alternatives
Wastew
ater treatment
Sea water desalination
Water conservation and
water saving strategies
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
Institutional capacity building
Promulgation and
enforcement of
legislation, water
Environm
ental polices
Public awareness and
information cam
paign
Water im
port and regional conveyance
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 0 486 489 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500
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
Appendix (5) Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in the Gaza Strip
5-32
Criteria
Alternatives
Wastew
ater treatment
Sea water desalination
Water conservation and
water saving strategies
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
Institutional capacity building
Promulgation and
enforcement of
legislation, water
Environm
ental polices
Public awareness and
information cam
paign
Water im
port and regional conveyance
Desalination of brackish
water
Exploitation of existing
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
Appendix (5) Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in the Gaza Strip
5-33
Criteria
Alternatives
Wastew
ater treatment
Sea water desalination
Water conservation and
water saving strategies
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
Institutional capacity building
Promulgation and
enforcement of
legislation, water
Environm
ental polices
Public awareness and
information cam
paign
Water im
port and regional conveyance
Desalination of brackish
water
Exploitation of existing
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
Appendix (5) Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in the Gaza Strip
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
Exploitation of existing resources 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Appendix (5) Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in the Gaza Strip
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
Institutional capacity building
Promulgation and
enforcement of
legislation, water
Environm
ental polices
Public awareness and
information
campaign
Water im
port and regional conveyance
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
Appendix (5) Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in the Gaza Strip
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
Promulgation and enforcement of legislation, water
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
Exploitation of existing resources 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Appendix (5) Hierarchical Approach for Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management in the Gaza Strip
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
Institutional capacity building
Public aw
areness and
information
campaign
Promulgation
and enforcem
ent of
legislation, w
ater law
Desalination
of brackish w
ater
Water im
port and regional conveyance
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 + + -- ++