resources

Article
Urban Water Security: Definition and
Assessment Framework
Hassan Tolba Aboelnga 1,2, *, Lars Ribbe 2 , Franz-Bernd Frechen 1 and Jamal Saghir 3
1 Department of Sanitary and Environmental Engineering (DESEE), University of Kassel, Kurt-Wolters-Str. 3,
34125 Kassel, Germany; [email protected]
2 ITT, Cologne University of Applied Sciences, Betzdorfer Str 2, 50679 Cologne, Germany;
[email protected]
3 Institute for the Study of International Development, Peterson Hall, McGill University, 3460 McTavish Street,
Montreal, QC H3A 0E6, Canada; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected] or [email protected]




Received: 16 October 2019; Accepted: 20 November 2019; Published: 25 November 2019


Abstract: Achieving urban water security is a major challenge for many countries. While several
studies have assessed water security at a regional level, many studies have also emphasized the
lack of assessment of water security and application of measures to achieve it at the urban level.
Recent studies that have focused on measuring urban water security are not holistic, and there is still
no agreed-upon understanding of how to operationalize and identify an assessment framework to
measure the current state and dynamics of water security. At present, there is also no clearly defined
and widely endorsed definition of urban water security. To address this challenge, this study provides
a systematic approach to better understand urban water security, with a working definition and an
assessment framework to be applied in peri-urban and urban areas. The proposed working definition
of urban water security is based on the United Nations (UN) sustainable development goal on water
and sanitation and the human rights on water and sanitation. It captures issues of urban-level
technical, environmental, and socio-economic indicators that emphasize credibility, legitimacy, and
salience. The assessment framework depends on four main dimensions to achieve urban water
security: Drinking water and human beings, ecosystem, climate change and water-related hazards,
and socio-economic factors (DECS). The framework further enables the analysis of relationships and
trade-off between urbanization and water security, as well as between DECS indicators. Applying this
framework will help governments, policy-makers, and water stakeholders to target scant resources
more effectively and sustainably. The study reveals that achieving urban water security requires a
holistic and integrated approach with collaborative stakeholders to provide a meaningful way to
improve understanding and managing urban water security.

Keywords: urban water security; drinking water; sanitation; ecosystem; socio-economic; climate
change; water-scarce cities

1. Introduction
The world is becoming predominantly urban, dominated by human settlements and economic
activities. According to the 2018 revision of World Urbanization Prospects [1], more than half of the
global population—4.2 billion people—lives in urban areas, and this number is projected to grow by
68% to 2.5 billion people by 2050. Urbanization, urban water security, and economic growth move
in tandem. However, for growth to be sustainable, the urban water security implications of rapid
urbanization need to be at the center of the national and municipal development agenda [2–4].

Resources 2019, 8, 178; doi:10.3390/resources8040178 www.mdpi.com/journal/resources

Resources 2019, 8, 178 2 of 19

The concept of urban water security is a multi-faceted one and is interrelated with the broader
frameworks and concepts of urban metabolism, ecological security, integrated urban water management,
the web of water–energy–food securities, risk management, resilient and adaptive water management,
and water-sensitive cities [2–6]. A clear understanding of the synergies and trade-offs between these
frameworks will also provide more clarity on what urban water security means and will help with
systematically operationalizing the concept of water security, including at the urban level.
Urban areas have been experiencing major transitions and are facing the pressures of increasing
demands due to population and economic growth, coupled with the climate change extremes of floods
and droughts [7,8]. These conditions pose threats to socio-economic development and human and water
security, such as inadequate water and sanitation services, failing storm water management, and water
quality and ecosystem degradation [9–11]. Eighty percent of GDP is produced in cities—so there are
major economic repercussions [10]. Thus, ensuring urban water security is an urgent challenge that may
threaten humanity’s food, economic, ecological, and national security if not properly addressed [12–17].
Water security is one of the top priorities for policy-makers and governments.
Water security as a concept has received greater consideration over the past twenty years in a
series of studies and debates, and has become a common currency among researchers, development
partners, and policy-makers focused on adding value to urban water management [18,19]. Most water
security assessments have been undertaken at a regional and national level, which may not always be
applicable at the local level. Understanding water security is a complex undertaking, with different
definitions, interpretations, and assessments used across disciplines; conceiving it variously as national,
political, technical, or human security [20–25]. Water security is also typically a primary goal of water
management, along with related concepts such as integration, sustainability, adaptability, resiliency,
and the water, energy, and food nexus [26–30].
Recent studies have demonstrated the evolution of numerous definitions and assessment
frameworks for water security over the past decade [31]. However, there is still no agreed-upon
understanding of how to operationalize and identify an assessment framework to measure the current
state and the dynamics of water security, including at the urban level. Moreover, there is no clear
and widely endorsed definition of urban water security [30–35]. Water security is framed in different
ways; some frameworks focus on risks, while others have adopted a broad understanding with a
focus on the development of water resources to meet human needs [30,36,37]. There is a significant
similarity and overlap between the three widely-used definitions of water security: Those of Global
Water Partnership, World Bank (Grey and Sadoff), and UN-Water [38–41].
UN-Water has adopted a holistic and interdisciplinary definition, capturing all perspectives and
dimensions, and thus it should be the basis of the national water security framework. Most national
water strategies are built upon the principle of integrated water resources management (IWRM) as a
process and as a good framework for achieving water security and linking water with society [42].
However, IWRM implementation has been criticized for failing to provide comprehensive solutions to
the challenges, uncertainties, and complexity of water management [43].
Many studies have emphasized the lack of assessment of water security and application of water
security measures at the local level [44–46]. These should reflect the considerable variation in dynamics
of water security at the local level, in order to address urban water challenges effectively and provide
decision-makers with robust policy instruments and measures to achieve urban water security [31,47].
Among the broad definitions and assessment frameworks for water security, many well-established
arrays of indicators have been applied at the city level to provide different perspectives on water
security [48]. The most widely used indicators include:

• Stand-alone indexes, such as the water stress index and the water poverty index [49–51]. These are
conceived to be applied at all levels, including at the city level, but they are not salient and narrow
enough to capture the dynamics and multiple aspects of urban water security [52–54]. In addition,
the thresholds used are often arbitrary and not based on scientific principles.
Resources 2019, 8, 178 3 of 19

• Composite indicators, such as Asian Development Bank’s urban water security index [55,56],
which forms part of its national water security rankings, using averages of all urban areas, and is
thus likely to be used by decision-makers at the urban level. A city-specific water index can be
developed and applied [43,57–60] by including the city blueprint framework (CBF) to capture
issues of urban water security, but it seeks specifically to measure the implementation of integrated
Resources 2019,management
water resources 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW
(IWRM) in different cities, and also to benchmark 3 of 21
cities on their
resilience
 at the social, economic, and environmental dimensions [60–63].
Composite indicators, such as Asian Development Bank’s urban water security index [55,56],
which forms part of its national water security rankings, using averages of all urban areas, and
is thus
We note that likely
that to be used
there by decision-makers
is significant at the urban
overlap, and level. A city-specific
sometimes even water index can bebetween the
confusion,
developed
utility benchmarks, which andmeasure
applied [43,57–60]
operatingby including the city blueprint
and financial framework
performance as(CBF)
parttoofcapture
the management
issues of urban water security, but it seeks specifically to measure the implementation of
and regulatory system; and resources
integrated water water security
management indicators, which
(IWRM) in different areand
cities, broader in scope
also to benchmark and linked to
cities
decision-makerson their resilience
rather at the social, economic,
than managerial targets.and environmental dimensions [60–63].
This paper We
aimsnoteto
thataddress the
that there is knowledge
significant gapsometimes
overlap, and by providing a new
even confusion, working
between definition and
the utility
benchmarks, which
assessment framework with measure
different operating and financial
dimensions performance
of urban waterassecurity.
part of the management and
regulatory system; and water security indicators, which are broader in scope and linked to decision-
makers rather than managerial targets.
2. MethodologyThis
to Develop the Assessment Framework for Urban Water Security
paper aims to address the knowledge gap by providing a new working definition and
assessment framework with different dimensions of urban water security.
The proposed framework has been developed according to the needs and special characteristics
2. Methodology
of urban water security, so to as
Develop the Assessment
to evaluate currentFramework for Urban
and future state Water Securitysecurity in a scientifically
of water
sound way, usingThe a standard methodology for constructing indicators
proposed framework has been developed according to the needs and special based oncharacteristics
the definition of urban
of
water security. urban water security, so as to evaluate current and future state of water security in a scientifically
sound way, using a standard methodology for constructing indicators based on the definition of
The methodology for operationalizing urban water security is based on six systematic steps,
urban water security.
as shown in Figure 1, starting for
The methodology with (1) understanding
operationalizing urban water how water
security is on
is based managed
six systematicin asteps,
water-scarce
as city;
shown inby
(2) what we mean Figure
urban1, starting
water with (1) understanding
security; (3) then how water is managed
proposing in a water-scarce
a working definition;city; (2)
(4) putting in
what we mean by urban water security; (3) then proposing a working definition; (4) putting in place
place an urban water security framework based on a working definition that includes sustainable
an urban water security framework based on a working definition that includes sustainable
developmentdevelopment
goal on water goal onand
watersanitation SDG6
and sanitation SDG6and theUnited
and the United Nations
Nations (UN)rights
(UN) human human rights to water
to water
and(5)
and sanitation; sanitation; (5) interpreting
interpreting this frameworkfor
this framework for decision-makers;
decision-makers; and (6) andmeasuring the index. the index.
(6) measuring

1. Understanding the urban water

system (identify stakeholders, water
balance, assessment of water
6. Measuring urban water infrastructure)
security (assign weights,
aggregation, analysis
results of dimensions,
indicators, and the whole
system to inform 2. Working definition (identify
decision-makers) what water security means)

Methodological
framework for assessing
urban water security

5. Normalization and
3. Proposing working
presentation of the results
definition to urban water
security (gain stakeholder
perspective, prioritize
4. Setup boundary and problems)
quantification of the
assessment framework
(drinking water, ecosystem,
climate change, and socio-
economic)

Figure 1.Figure 1. The framework

The framework cycleto
cycle to operationalize
operationalize urban water security.
urban water security.

2.1. Understanding the Urban Water System

Many cities are at risk of running out of water, with water supply crises rated as one of the
top global threats in terms of likelihood and impact, both on the quantity and quality of freshwater
resources, as per the Global Risks report 2019 [64]. The typical mode of water supply in urban systems
 Resources 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 21
Resources 2019, 8, 178 4 of 19
2.1. Understanding the Urban Water System
Many cities are at risk of running out of water, with water supply crises rated as one of the top
global
is designed to threats continuous
provide in terms of likelihood and impact,
safe, clean both water
drinking on the quantity and quality
[65]. Today, of freshwater
increased urbanization and
resources, as per the Global Risks report 2019 [64]. The typical mode of water supply in urban systems
climate change are putting a great pressure on water supply, and as a result, 1.2 billion people are
is designed to provide continuous safe, clean drinking water [65]. Today, increased urbanization and
receiving water less
climate thanare24putting
change h a day under
a great intermittent
pressure water
on water supply, and supply systems,
as a result, 1.2 billion which
people areare running in
receiving
downward spiral water less than
(simplified in 24 h a day2)
Figure under intermittent water supply systems, which are running in
[66–68].
downward spiral (simplified in Figure 2) [66–68].
Intermittent water supply can cause severe urban water insecurity, with water quality degradation
Intermittent water supply can cause severe urban water insecurity, with water quality
and public health problems,
degradation and public increased leakage
health problems, and leakage
increased accelerated wear and
and accelerated weartear, illegal
and tear, uses, lowered
illegal
uses,and
service quality, lowered service quality,
ineffective demandand ineffective
management demand management
[69–71]. [69–71].

Figure 2. TheFigure
downward spiral ofspiral
2. The downward intermittent water
of intermittent supply
water supplyIWS/Source [65].
IWS/Source [65]. NRW,
NRW, non-revenue water.
non-revenue
water.
The key to developing an assessment framework for urban water security is gaining a better
The key to developing an assessment framework for urban water security is gaining a better
understanding of the urban water system and the factors that influence its insecurity. So, the first
understanding of the urban water system and the factors that influence its insecurity. So, the first step
step is necessarily a diagnostic
is necessarily a diagnosticapproach
approach to to answer
answer the following
the following questions:questions:
How is water How
managed is and
water managed
operated, what are the constraints acting upon the infrastructure,
and operated, what are the constraints acting upon the infrastructure, and what strategies and what strategies can be can be
introduced to the infrastructure to achieve urban water security?
introduced to the infrastructure to achieve urban water security?
This diagnostic has been elaborated in a recent papers [71,72], which outlined conducting a
water balance
This diagnostic hasin the case of
been a water-scarceincity
elaborated a (Madaba, Jordan): Measuring
recent papers [71,72],inflow
which andoutlined
outflow andconducting a
water balanceexamining the causes
in the case of aofwater-scarce
the high level ofcity
water(Madaba,
losses in theJordan):
distributionMeasuring
network, the vulnerabilities
inflow and outflow and
of the water system that cause insecurity, water-related risks, and emerging water-related issues,
examining the causes of the high level of water losses in the distribution network, the vulnerabilities of
such as intermittent water supply in the context of changing climate and increasing demand.
the water systemThe study
that offered
cause recommendations
insecurity, to reduce therisks,
water-related physical
andlosses as an important
emerging component of
water-related issues, such as
intermittent water
water losses that affect
supply urban
in the water security
context through an
of changing infrastructure,
climate repair, economic,
and increasing awareness,
demand.
and pressure (IREAP) framework as a way of systematically engaging the non-revenue water (NRW)
The study offered
challenge recommendations
in Jordan [71]. to reduce the physical losses as an important component of
water losses that affect urban water security through an infrastructure, repair, economic, awareness,
and pressure2.2. Working Definition of Urban Water Security
(IREAP) framework as a way of systematically engaging the non-revenue water (NRW)
challenge in Jordan [71]. step involves defining the term “urban water security”. The working definition sets
The second
up the criteria and benchmarks by which the system will be evaluated. It is clear: There is no widely

2.2. Working Definition of Urban Water Security

The second step involves defining the term “urban water security”. The working definition sets
up the criteria and benchmarks by which the system will be evaluated. It is clear: There is no widely
recognized definition of urban water security [31]. In terms of widely-referenced definitions (Table 1),
a recent review has identified 25 definitions of water security, of which only three relate to the urban
level [73].
Resources 2019, 8, 178 5 of 19

Resources 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 21

Table 1. Common global water security definitions.
recognized definition of urban water security [31]. In terms of widely-referenced definitions (Table
1), a recent review has identified
Definition 25 definitions
of Water of water security, of which only three relate References
Security to the
urban level [73].
Water security, at any level—from the household to the global—means that every
person has access to enough safe water,
Table at an affordable
1. Common cost, to
global water security lead a clean,
definitions. Global Water
healthy, and productive life, while ensuring that the natural environment is Partnership [40]
Definition of Water Security References
protected and enhanced.
Water security, at any level—from the household to the global—means that every
Global Water
Water security isperson has access to enough
the availability safe water, at
of an acceptable an affordable
quantity and cost, to lead
quality a clean, for
of water Partnership
World Bank
healthy, and productive life, while ensuring that the natural
health, livelihoods, ecosystems, and production, coupled with an acceptable level environment is
[40] and Sadoff [25]
Grey
protected and enhanced.
of water-related risks to people, environments, and economies.
Water security is the availability of an acceptable quantity and quality of water World Bank
Water securityforis the capacity
health, of ecosystems,
livelihoods, a population and to safeguard
production, sustainable
coupled access to
with an acceptable Grey and
adequate quantities leveland
of water-related
acceptablerisks to people,
quality environments,
of water and economies.
for sustaining livelihoods, Sadoff [25]
Water security
human well-being, is the capacity of adevelopment,
and socio-economic population to safeguard sustainable
for ensuring access to
protection UN-Water [41]
adequate quantities
against water-borne pollutionand andacceptable quality of
water-related water for and
disasters, sustaining livelihoods,
for preserving
UN-Water
human well-being,
ecosystems and socio-economic
in a climate of peace and development, for ensuring protection
political stability. [41]
against water-borne pollution and water-related disasters, and for preserving
ecosystems in a climate of peace and political stability.
2.3. The Proposed Working Definition of Urban Water Security
2.3. The Proposed Working Definition of Urban Water Security
To build a definition for urban water security, we have examined the existing definitions and found
To build a definition for urban water security, we have examined the existing definitions and
that the UN-Water definition
found that hasdefinition
the UN-Water the merits ofmerits
has the beingof holistic yetyet
being holistic general. Inorder
general. In order tomore
to be be more useful,
useful,
further analysis and further analysis andisspecification
specification required.is Asrequired.
shown As shown in Figure
in Figure 3, the
3, the UNUNwater
water security is is based of
security
based of broad framework of different dimensions and cross sectors to achieve sustainable water
broad framework of different dimensions and cross sectors to achieve sustainable water management.
management.

United
Figure 3.Figure Nations
3. United framework
Nations framework ofof water
water security
security [74] [74].

This study suggests changes in the UN-Water definition to derive perspectives from the sustainable
development goal of clean water and sanitation “SDG6” and the UN human rights of water and
sanitation in Resolution 64/292, which specifies different elements embedded in urban water security [74].
We propose an urban water security definition which emphasizes the role of water stakeholders to
define the elusive terminologies embedded in the definition, such as adequate and acceptable, as it
will not be a one-size-fits-all proposition.
Therefore, urban water security can be defined as the dynamic capacity of the water system and
water stakeholders to safeguard sustainable and equitable access to adequate quantities and acceptable
quality of water that is continuously, physically, and legally available at an affordable cost for sustaining
livelihoods, human well-being, and socio-economic development, for ensuring protection against
Resources 2019, 8, 178 6 of 19

water-borne pollution and water-related disasters, and for preserving ecosystems in a climate of peace
and political stability.

3. Urban Water Security Assessment Framework

3.1. Setup the System Boundary and the Assessment Framework

The study considers the entire urban water cycle in peri-urban and urban areas, including the
social, economic, institutional, and environmental dimensions that affect the performance of urban
water systems. The urban water system includes main processes in the water cycle: Drinking water
production, water treatment plants, drinking water storage and distribution, and wastewater collection,
treatment, and discharge.
The system boundary is determined by two factors: The spatial and temporal scales. The spatial
scale refers to the physical size of the system. In the context of the present research, the urban area
comprises the following features: The entire geographical area of a city, all its inhabitants, and all
users of its water resources. The temporal scale is set enough to measure the dynamic status of urban
water security.
Based on the working definition of urban water security and the definition of the system boundary,
the next step is the core of the assessment: Selection and categorization of a tailored set of indicators at
the urban level. The index is based on a weighted aggregate score to assess water security in urban
areas. Design of the framework includes: Scoping to identify issues and problems and to set priorities;
examining risks and development of criteria; and a review of data availability. At the end of the design
stage, the goal is to have developed sets of indicators to measure urban water security.
It is crucial to understand the dynamics of water security and their associated holistic perspectives,
which can provide the foundation of the assessment with robust indicators and variables to divide the
Resources 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 21
urban water security into four main dimensions, as shown in Figure 4.

Urban Water Security

Framework

Figure 4. Urban water security assessment framework.

Figure 4. Urban water security assessment framework.

3.1.1. Drinking Water and Human Well-being

Availability and diversity of domestic water resources (e.g., desalination, water reuse, rainwater
harvesting) should be analyzed, considering accessibility, rationality, and efficiency of water and
energy systems, as well as quality, adequacy and equity, and dependency on other sources (Table 2).
Water availability is one of the common indicators for measuring water scarcity in terms of the
water stress index [75,76]. Diversity of water resources is key to achieving urban water security, as it
mitigates the risk of dependency on one water source by securing alternative sources and mitigations
to meet the demand (e.g., desalination, wastewater reuse, water harvesting) [77].
It is of paramount importance to improve the capacity of the system to safeguard sustainable
Resources 2019, 8, 178 7 of 19

3.1.1. Drinking Water and Human Well-being

Availability and diversity of domestic water resources (e.g., desalination, water reuse, rainwater
harvesting) should be analyzed, considering accessibility, rationality, and efficiency of water and
energy systems, as well as quality, adequacy and equity, and dependency on other sources (Table 2).

Table 2. Dimensions, indicators, and variables of drinking water and human well-being.

Dimensions Indicators Variables Units

(Total water resources)/
Availability m3 /capita/year
(Total population)
Reused wastewater/production of
%
wastewater
Diversity
Contribution of alternative water
%
sources %
Contribution of alternative energy
%
sources %

Water quantity (Authorized consumption )/

Consumption L/capita/day
(Total population)
Non-revenue water %
Infrastructure Leakage Index =
(Current Annual Real Losses CARL/
Unavoidable Annual Real Losses
UARL)
Reliability
Metered water (percentage of
households whose water %
consumption is metered)
Energy efficiency in the network %
Commercial losses from
%
non-revenue water
Proportion of drinking water
Wastewater treatment plant samples meeting WHO and local %
standards
Water quality standards
Proportion of samples of wastewater
Drinking water quality treatment plant meeting WHO and %
locally applicable quality standard
Proportion of population using
(No. of piped water supply users)/
safely managed drinking water %
Accessibility (Total population) × 100
services
Proportion of population using
(No. of piped wastewater users)/
safely managed sanitation services %
(Total population) × 100
SDG (6.2.1a)
Average supply time compliance
Adequacy and equity Average number of hours/days h/day
with minimum service standard
The percent of annual volumes
abstracted from
Transboundary/imported
transboundary/imported water %
water dependency ratio
bodies to total annual available
water resources

Water availability is one of the common indicators for measuring water scarcity in terms of the
water stress index [75,76]. Diversity of water resources is key to achieving urban water security, as it
mitigates the risk of dependency on one water source by securing alternative sources and mitigations
to meet the demand (e.g., desalination, wastewater reuse, water harvesting) [77].
It is of paramount importance to improve the capacity of the system to safeguard sustainable and
integrated water supply from different sources [10]. In addition, energy plays a great role in securing
and driving water to households and operating wastewater treatment plants [78]. Lack of energy
supplies forces many cities with intermittent water supply to reduce energy supply time [64,65].
Resources 2019, 8, 178 8 of 19

The UN human right to water specifies that the water supply must be sufficient and continuous [10].
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), between 50 and 100 L of water per person per
day are required to ensure that most basic requirements are met and that few health concerns arise [79].
Water consumption is paramount to achieving water security when water is scarce, which requires
consuming it in the most rational and sustainable way to reserve the water available [80].
The major objectives of the water system and infrastructure involve improving the capacity of
water utilities to supply water to consumers [81]. Infrastructure reliability requires ensuring the
right quantity at the required pressure and of adequate quality. In an unreliable system, shortages
may result from failures of a system’s physical components [64,65]. We consider the indicators
of non-revenue water and the energy efficiency of the network to measure the reliability of the
system [62,81]. Non-revenue water (NRW) includes physical losses, commercial losses, and unbilled
authorized consumption. Infrastructure leakage puts many cities in a vicious circle, and it can be
measured using the infrastructure leakage index (ILI), which is the ratio between current annual real
losses (CARL) and the unavoidable background leakage rate (UARL) [71,79,82].
Water quality is a major component of urban water security [83]. Issues of water quality are
more acute in intermittent water systems, due principally to infiltration, regrowth within pipes,
and the detachment of the bacterial biofilm following variations in pressure and velocity [68,69,83].
After water is supplied to the customers, when there is no flow in the network, people must store
water in roof top tanks for several days to meet their demand, thereby providing more chances for
microbial regrowth and degradation of the water quality [64,65]. This ultimately results in incidents of
opportunistic pathogens and negative effects on public health. In addition, the physical accessibility
of safely managed water and sanitation services is key to achieving the human right to water and
sanitation [40,41].
Ensuring access to water and sanitation for all is a basic human right and is fundamental to
achieve the sustainable development goal on safely managed water and sanitation services SDG6 [74].
For the purpose of this research, the indicator of average supply time is used to measure the adequacy
and equity in water supply systems. Adequacy in this study means that the actual supply of water is
sufficient to meet everybody’s needs, and this also includes the timing perspective. Equity implies
that all people within a district metered area receive fair distribution of the limited amount of water
available during the few hours of supply [64,65]. Adequacy and equity in water supply are one of the
main challenges faced in water-scarce cities with intermittent water distribution systems, in which
water wastage is at the highest pressure nodes and scarcity at the lowest pressure nodes [64,69,83].
Service intermittency poses a great threat to guaranteeing people’s access to limited water supply, and
inabilities to meet the water demand equally negatively impact customers’ satisfaction, with high
coping costs and inequitable water distribution. [65,68].
Dependency ratio—the risk of dependence on one source of water—can be measured by the
percentage of the total renewable water resources originating outside the city [84]. It is a relevant
indicator of the threats to urban water security—to measure the possibility of tensions, failures, and/or
conflict over water use and sharing. Thus, a climate of peace and political stability is a mandatory
factor for imported/transboundary water sources in order achieve urban water security [41]. Water
dependency in cities can be created by insufficient water and risks to public health within the boundaries
of city or by dependency on upstream flows outside the city or country [85].

3.1.2. Ecosystems
The key to achieving urban water security is to have a balance between the exploitation of water
resources and sustaining and protecting urban ecosystem services as “natural infrastructure” that is
critical to people’s well-being and livelihoods (e.g., pollution and contamination, level of water stress,
good ambient water quality, exploiting green roofs and green areas, effectiveness of the infrastructure)
(Table 3) [9,16,30].
Resources 2019, 8, 178 9 of 19

Table 3. Dimensions, indicators, and variables of ecosystem.

Dimensions Indicators Units

Percentage of safely treated
State of pollution %
wastewater flows (SDG6.3.1b)
Proportion of samples of water
Bodies of water with good sources (surface water or ground
%
ambient water quality water) meeting WHO and locally
applicable quality standards
Change in the extent of
Change in quantity of water
water-related ecosystems over (% change/year).
contained within these ecosystems
time (SDG 6.6.1):
Surface area of green roofing in
Green roofing %
relation to total roof surface area
Green surface area in relation to
Green surfaces (drainage factor) %
total surface area
Effectiveness of storm network
Sewer system blockages No. blockages/km/year
and wastewater network

State of pollution in terms of untreated wastewater is one of the major risks to ambient water
quality, public health, and urban water security if it is not treated and discharged properly [82].
Although wastewater presents a risk of pollution, it can also provide many opportunities if this
untapped resource is treated as an additional source of water and is properly harnessed to mitigate
water scarcity [76,77,86].
The indicator bodies of water with good ambient water SDG target 6.3.2 aims to improve water
quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping, and minimizing the release of hazardous chemicals
and materials [10,19]. Surface water and groundwater quality can be compared to ambient water
quality standards, for both chemical and biological pollutants [31]. The change in extent of water-related
ecosystem is also a relevant indicator to urban water security, which measures the quantity of water
contained in various water-related ecosystems [87].
Green roofing is another often untapped resource for urban agriculture, which can boost water
security by maximizing the benefits of water from rainwater harvesting [43,58]. Green surface is one of
the crucial features of a productive green infrastructure for humans’ well-being, sustainability, and
health ecosystem [88,89]. As a drainage factor, it can intercept water from the canopy and stem areas
and enhance infiltration into the soil and root systems [56–59,90].
Green areas include all types of urban green spaces that can contribute to the livability, sustainability,
and resilience of cities, thus achieving urban water security [56]. The storm water network and sewage
system are critical to the resilience of the urban water system [43,90]. If they fail to accommodate the
full load and to work properly, it can cause infrastructure failures and serious social and economic
losses [43,61]. Sewer blockage can represent one of the main threats to the effectiveness of the sewage
system, as the system should achieve the goal of discharging water efficiently [78].

3.1.3. Climate Change and Water-Related Hazards

Climate change, which may be exacerbated by water infrastructure, has an impact on water-related
risks, including flood risk and health-related risks [8,57]. As shown in (Table 4), the dimension of
climate change and water-related hazards can be measured by the following indicators; public health,
frequency of floods, No. of droughts, flood prone areas, precipitation and temperature.
Resources 2019, 8, 178 10 of 19

Table 4. Dimensions, indicators, and variables of climate change and water related hazards.

Dimensions Indicators Units

Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions
Tons CO2equ/year/inhabit
emitted from the system
Public health (water-borne Number of potable water
number/year per 100,000 people
diseases) contamination incidents (diarrhea)
Frequency of floods Number of floods over three years number/years
No. of droughts number/year
Surface area of flood-prone area in
Flood-prone areas %
regard to total surface area
Average annual precipitation mm/year
Average annual temperature Celsius degree

The urban water system contributes to climate change in terms of greenhouse gas emissions from
energy consumption, water and wastewater treatment, and discharge [78,91].
Public health is one of the core components of urban water security in shaping the city’s metabolism.
Water-borne diseases represent a huge risk to public health. Many incidents of water-borne diseases is
an indicator of urban water insecurity [92].
Urban flooding may be caused by heavy and/or prolonged rainfall which exceeds the capacity
of the drainage system [92,93]. Flooding and droughts are natural hazards, with great economic and
social impacts on cities [94]. The growing threat of urban flooding has been a critical test of cities’
resilience in the face of climate change [94]. Flood-prone areas need protection and proactive measures
to mitigate the risks [89,91].
Climate change and water security challenges are primarily about adaptation and making
development climate-resilient. This requires the improvement of our knowledge of climate impacts
and effective technologies and their application and building local capacity for improved preparedness
and adaptation.

3.1.4. Socio-Economic Development

Particular attention must be paid to the actual and potential role of social and economic factors and
their impacts on water demand and supply, which may hamper the system’s ability to meet people’s
basic needs and to achieve urban water security [12–17]. These factors include energy consumption in
the water and wastewater system, water and sanitation tariffs, affordability, budget directed to water
and wastewater services, cost recovery, illegal uses, and customers’ complaints (Table 5) [78,88].
Water supply systems are heavily dependent on energy to deliver water at an optimal pressure to
reach households. Energy consumption is related to many factors, such as topography of the area;
distance from source to tap; and type, capacity, and efficiency of pump stations [78].
Water tariff should be a good indicator by which to evaluate the economic value of scarce water;
thus, targeted tariffs and smart subsidies would contribute to achieving urban water security. In many
cities, water is highly subsidized by the government. Thus, the water tariff is too low to cover the
operation and maintenance costs and it discourages efficient use of water [62].
Cost recovery is a robust performance indicator of a well-managed water utility. It is essential
to ensure long-term sustainability of water services [62]. Sound water management also requires
that users consider both the financial costs of supplying services and the costs that their use of water
imposes on others (externalities, as well as “opportunity costs”—which represent the true costs) [62].
Water tariff and the high level of non-revenue water are key components of cost recovery in many
water-scarce cities. Illegal uses represent one of the major socio-economic threats to urban water
security, which can erode the equality of water distribution and cause huge human and economic
losses [79,81,82].
Resources 2019, 8, 178 11 of 19

Water service fees to cover financial costs and ensure minimum water security are essential for
two reasons. First, they provide the user with information on the cost of providing the service, thereby
inducing more considerate use than if the service were free and encouraging conservation. Second,
revenues from tariffs provide financing for water resources protection, infrastructure maintenance,
and ensuring equitable and reliable service delivery [56–59,90].
Affordability is a key factor especially for vulnerable people who cannot afford to pay for
water [49–51]. This indicator can give an approximate measure of the affordability, but it does not
include the high coping costs of intermittent water supply [69–71].
The national budget for water and sanitation is crucial to placing water security as a top
priority [24,25]. Thus, maximizing public financing is essential, but it is not enough to bridge the
financial gaps. Commercial financing from the private sector is also needed to achieve urban water
security [13–15].
Customer satisfaction is a key indicator of urban water security, as it means that the utility is
capable of operating and managing the water system in a manner that satisfies the water demand.
In an intermittent water supply system, complaints about leakage and lack of water are among the
main issues that put pressure on water utility governance [78].

Table 5. Socio-economic dimensions, indicators, and variables.

Dimensions Indicators Units

Average energy consumption in
Water energy consumption kW h/m3
cubic meter urban water supply.
Average energy consumption in
Wastewater energy consumption kW h/m3
cubic meter wastewater treatment
Water tariffs Water tariff per 15 m3 $/m3
Sanitation tariffs Wastewater tariff per 15 m3 $/m3
Financial Water, sanitation and
hygiene (WASH) expenditure as %
percentage of household income
Affordability
Water and Wastewater Services
(WWS) Charges as percentage of %
average household income
Percentage of national budget
%
directed to WWS %
Operation and maintenance cost Operating expenditure/operating
%
recovery revenue
No. of illegal uses number/year/10,000 subscribers
No. of total complaints (leakage,
number/year/10,000 subscribers
no water, blockage)

In sum, these perspectives signal the direction of change required to improve water security.
A more water-secure city can be achieved by improving the four dimensions and their indicators.

3.2. Normalization and Interpreretaion of the Results

Normalization is a key step of the decision-making process to covert the results of each component
in different units into a common scale and comparable units. Normalization and presentation of the
results of the indicators should be aggregated in order to reflect the status and aspirational values of
each indicator, since they have different units, so that that indicators are dimensionless in a range from
1 to 5. This process will allow us to better understand the bottlenecks, identify future intervention
strategies, and facilitate communication between different water stakeholders.
The establishment of ranges and scores for each indicator of achieving urban water security is
aspirational and hangs on the dynamic capacity of the water system and stakeholders to achieve the
ambitious UN sustainable development goals on water and sanitation (SDG6).
Resources 2019, 8, 178 12 of 19

The below Tables 6–9 present the urban water security index scores on a scale from 1 to 5 for each
variable, where 1 represents poor water security and 5 represents excellent water security.

Table 6. Thresholds of drinking water and human well-being.

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 References
Fresh water per capita <500 500–800 800–1000 1000–1700 >1700 [51,75]
Reused wastewater/production of
<10 10–30 30–50 50–70 >70 [77]
wastewater
Contribution of alternative water sources % <5 5–15 15–30 30–60 >60 Authors
Contribution of alternative energy sources % <5 5–15 15–30 30–60 >60 Authors
Authorized consumption per person per day ≤20 21–50 51–90 91–100 ≥101 [81]
Non-revenue water ≥25 25–20 20–15 15–10 10–0 [79]
Infrastructure leakage index = CARL/UARL ≥3 3–2.5 2.5–2.0 2.0–1.5 ≤1.5 [79,82]
Metered water (percentage of households
0–60 61–70 71–80 81–90 91–100 [79]
whose water consumption is metered)
Energy efficiency in the network <40 40–50 50–60 60–80 >80 Authors
Commercial losses from non-revenue water ≥25 25–20 20–15 15–10 10–0 [79]
Proportion of drinking water samples
0–60 61–70 71–80 81–90 91–100 [82]
meeting WHO and local standards
Proportion of samples of wastewater
treatment plant meeting WHO and locally 0–60 61–70 71–80 81–90 91–100 [93]
applicable quality standards
Proportion of population using safely
0–60 61–70 71–80 81–90 91–100 [92]
managed drinking water services (SDG 6.1)
Proportion of population using safely
0–60 61–70 71–80 81–90 91–100 [92]
managed sanitation services (SDG 6.2.1a):
Average supply time compliance with
<8 8–16 17–20 21–23 24 [79]
minimum service standard
Percentage of annual volumes extracted
from transboundary/imported water to total >60 60–40 40–20 20–10 <10 Authors
annual available water resources

Table 7. Thresholds of ecosystem.

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 References
Percentage of safely treated wastewater flows
0–60 61–70 71–80 81–90 91–100 [86]
(SDG6.3.1b)
Proportion of samples of water sources (surface
water or ground water) meeting WHO and locally 0–60 60–70 70–80 80–90 90–100 [82]
applicable quality standards
Change in quantity of water contained within
>60 60–40 40–20 20–10 <10 [87]
these ecosystems per year
Surface area of green roofing in relation to total
<5 5–15 15–30 30–60 >60 Authors
roof surface area
Green surface area in relation to total surface area <5 5–15 15–30 30–60 >60 Authors
Sewer system blockages (no. blockages/km/year) >300 200–300 100–200 50–100 <50 [62]
Resources 2019, 8, 178 13 of 19

Table 8. Thresholds of climate change and water-related hazards.

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 References
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions emitted from
>3.5 3.5–2.5 2.5–1.5 1.5–0.5 <0.5 [91]
the system
Number of potable water contamination incidents
≥1000 800–500 500–100 100–30 ≤30 [92]
(diarrhea)
Number of deaths due to flood over 3 years ≥1000 800–500 500–100 100–30 ≤30 Authors
No. of droughts
Surface area of flood-prone area in relation to total
>20 20–15 15–10 10–5 <5 Authors
surface area
Average annual precipitation <100 100–300 300–500 500–700 >700 Authors
Average annual temperature >40 35–40 30–35 25–30 <25 Authors

Table 9. Thresholds of socio-economic.

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 References
Per unit energy consumption for urban water
>4.5 4.5–3.5 3.5–2.5 2.5–1.5 1.5 [78]
supply
Average energy consumption in cubic meter
>1 1–0.75 0.75–0.5 0.5–25 <0.25 [78]
wastewater treatment
Water tariff per 15 m3 <0.5 0.5–0.75 0.75–1 1–1.5 >1.5 [62]
Wastewater tariff per 15 m3 <0.5 0.5–0.75 0.75–1 1–1.5 >1.5 [62]
Total annual operating revenues per population
served/ gross national income (GNI) per capita; >1 0.8–1.0 0.8–0.6 0.6-0.4 <0.4 [62]
expressed in percentage
Percentage of national budget directed to WWS % <1 1–5 5–10 10–20 >20 Authors
Operation and maintenance cost recovery 0–60 60–70 70–80 80–90 90–100 [62]
No. of illegal uses >300 200–300 100–200 50–100 <50 Authors
No. of total complaints (leakage, no water,
>300 200–300 100–200 50–100 <50 Authors
blockage)

The resulting scores on the urban water index can be interpreted and identified to measure the
level of urban water security, as in the below Table 10 [92].

Table 10. Grades of urban water security.

Grading Urban Water Security Level of Security

Urban water security is poor at meeting the basic
<1.5 Poor needs of the people. Lack of water governance and
management is a major concern in all dimensions.
Policies and measures are not enough to achieve
1.5–2.5 Fair urban water security, with major concerns in almost
all dimensions.
Urban water security is satisfactory to meet the basic
2.5–3.5 Reasonable needs, with gaps in some dimensions that affect the
resilience and sustainability of the system.
Sound policies and management exist for achieving
3.5–4.5 Good urban water security for most of the dimensions, but
some improvements are still needed.
Well-managed and water-secure city that is capable
of meeting demands and resilient to future shocks
>4.5 Excellent
and risks. The index shows high level of security for
all dimensions.
Resources 2019, 8, 178 14 of 19

3.3. Measuring the Urban Water Index

For composite indices, weighting and aggregation are familiar challenges due to their sensitivity
and subjectivity. It should be recognized that assigning explicit weightings, by definition, represents
only one viewpoint. Thus, water stakeholders should define the weighting system to be appropriate in
the local context.
The output of the urban water security index is calculated by aggregating the values of the
variables. In the study, equal weights are assigned to all dimensions, indicators, and variables.
This implies that all components are equally important. However, if there is a case where one of the
indicators is more important than the other, weights in proportion to significance can be used.
The formulas are simplified when the weights are normalized such that they sum up to 1, i.e.,
n
X
wi = 1
i=1

For such normalized weights, the weighted mean is then:

n
X
x= wi. xi
i=1

Note that one can always normalize the weights by making the following transformation on the
original weights:
w
wi = P i
j=1 w j

Using the normalized weight yields the same results as when using the original weights:
n Pn
X wi xi
x= wi xi = Pi=n 1
i=1 i = 1 wi

4. Conclusions
Framing the challenge of urban water security goes beyond single-issue indicators such as water
quantity, water quality, or access to water sanitation. Rather, we must think holistically about the four
dimensions of DECS—drinking water and human beings, ecosystem, climate change and water-related
hazards, and socio-economic—in order to arrive at concrete solutions that can shift the vicious cycle of
water insecurity into a virtuous cycle of sustainable and secure cities.
The dominant threats to urban water security vary geographically and over time. Urban water
security is not a stagnant goal; it is a dynamic process affected by changing climate, political structures,
economic growth, and resource degradation. The proposed working definition of urban water security
encompasses the challenges of urban and peri-urban areas in achieving the goal of secure water for
all by underlining the principles of UN human rights and sustainable development goals of safely
managed water and sanitation. Urban water security is defined as the dynamic capacity of the water
system and water stakeholders to safeguard sustainable and equitable access to adequate quantities
of an acceptable quality of water that is continuously physically and legally available to meet water
demand at an affordable cost; in order to sustain livelihoods, human well-being, and socio-economic
development, to ensure protection against water-borne pollution and water-related disasters, and to
preserve ecosystems in a climate of peace and political stability.
This study develops a novel urban water security assessment framework The interconnections
and implications of each indicator in the DECS framework prove that we cannot achieve urban water
security via water quantity and quality alone, but must also change the way we look at the quantity of
water—from relying on a sole source of fresh water, to a diversity of water resources—and preserving
the urban water in climate of peace and political stability. Developing the urban water security indexes
Resources 2019, 8, 178 15 of 19

is a complex undertaking, given weighting and aggregation issues, but it is essential to be able to
quantify the impacts. However, there is a need for indexes which define some components as more
important, and therefore, more researches are required to define the relative weight of these indexes.
Despite clear evidence of dwindling water resources and increasing water demands in water-scarce
cities, many cities continue to count on conventional solutions based on the assumption of plentiful
water resources and on silo-oriented solutions to increase the quantity of water resources, neglecting
other dimensions and indicators.
Effective management of drinking water in terms of availability, accessibility, water quality,
and adequacy of urban water systems is critical in order to sustain inclusive and integrated urban
water systems. Diversity of water resources is critical to achieving urban water security and hedging
against the risks associated with water resource exhaustion or contamination, such as high-water
turbidity in wells during flashfloods and reliance on imported water from outside the city. Reliance on
external water supplies poses risks, including competition over water during times of drought and
the threat of illegal water uses. Integrated urban water management is essential in order to increase
the resilience of urban water systems to external climate extremes. This can be achieved by turning
risks into opportunities and diversifying the water resources; for instance, through wastewater reuse,
desalination, rainwater harvesting, and replenishing groundwater.
This study can help water stakeholders and policy-makers target scant resources more effectively
and sustainably. The developed framework is also generally applicable and can be applied to urban
and potentially peri-urban areas in any part of the world. It is suggested to carry out assessment and
monitoring programs on a regular basis to measure progress, and also to benchmark urban water
security in cities and to develop an environment of competition among cities and utilities to improve
the DECS dimensions.
We emphasize that urban water security is a complex and cross-cutting challenge that needs to be
addressed holistically in order to achieve SDG 6. It is not only rooted in a single indicator such as the
availability of fresh water resources to meet the increasing demands, but also in the dynamics of the
DECS framework, including poor water governance, institutional fragmentation, and ineffective water
policies. Thus, we acknowledge the following limitations:

• Stakeholder engagement is key to designing and applying the DECS framework to achieve mutual
understanding among water stakeholders of the terms, scores, and weights of each indicator
to inform decision making about the state of urban water security and the actions needed for
its improvement.
• In order to adequately incorporate the dynamics of urban water security, there is a need for water
stakeholder participation, data considerations, trade-off analyses among the various components
of DECS framework, governance tools, and incorporating climate risks and resilience.
• The assessment framework needs to go through sensitivity analysis and validation stages, applying
it to real-life case studies representing different scales.

Author Contributions: H.T.A. and L.R. designed this research. H.T.A. carried out this research with L.R., F.-B.F.
and J.S. L.R. and J.S. revised the analysis and the paper. F.-B.F. and L.R. supervised and took part in the design,
implementation, and analysis.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Acknowledgments: The authors are thankful to Richard Damania, the Global Lead Economist in the World Bank’s
Water Practice, for his valuable comments and feedback on this paper.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Resources 2019, 8, 178 16 of 19

References
1. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. World Urbanization
Prospects: The 2018 Revision; (ST/ESA/SER.A/420); United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs,
Population Division: New York, NY, USA, 2019.
2. Maheshwari, B.; Singh, V.; Thoradeniya, B. Balanced Urban Development: Options and Strategies for Liveable
Cities; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2016.
3. Artioli, F.; Acuto, M.; McArthur, J. The water-energy-food nexus: An integration agenda and implications for
urban governance. Polit. Geogr. 2017, 61, 215–223. [CrossRef]
4. Scanlon, B.; Ruddell, B.; Reed, P.; Hook, R.; Zheng, C.; Tidwell, V.; Siebert, S. The food-energy-water nexus:
Transforming science for society. Water Resour. Res. 2017, 53, 3550–3556. [CrossRef]
5. Aboelnga, H.; Khalifa, M.; McNamara, I.; Ribbe, L.; Sycz, J. The Water-Energy-Food Security Nexus: A Review of
Nexus Literature and Ongoing Nexus Initiative for Policymakers; Nexus Regional Dialogue Programme (NRD):
Bonn, Germany, 2018; pp. 25–30.
6. Brown, R.R.; Keath, N.; Wong, T.H.F. Urban water management in cities: Historical, current and future
regimes. Water Sci. Technol. 2009, 59, 847–855. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7. Sadoff, C.W. Securing Water, Sustaining Growth: Report of the GWP/OECD Task Force on Water Security and
Sustainable Growth; University of Oxford: Oxford, UK, 2015.
8. Haddeland, I.; Heinke, J.; Biemans, H.; Eisner, S.; Flörke, M.; Hanasaki, N.; Stacke, T. Global water resources
affected by human interventions and climate change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014, 111, 3251–3256.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
9. Wheater, H.S.; Gober, P. Water security and the science agenda. Water Resour. Res. 2015, 51, 5406–5424.
[CrossRef]
10. UNESCO World Water Assessment Programme. The United Nations World Water Development Report 2019:
Leaving No One Behind; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2019.
11. Gheuens, J.; Nagabhatla, N.; Perera, E. Disaster-Risk, Water Security Challenges and Strategies in Small
Island Developing States (SIDS). Water 2019, 11, 637. [CrossRef]
12. Jimenez Cisneros, B.E.; Oki, T.; Arnell, N.W.; Benito, G.; Cogley, J.G.; Doll, P.; Jiang, T.; Mwakalila, S.S.
Freshwater resources. In Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability; Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge, UK, 2014.
13. World Economic Forum. Global Risks Report 2015; WEF: Davos, Switzerland, 2015.
14. Steffen, W.; Richardson, K.; Rockström, J.; Cornell, S.E.; Fetzer, I.; Bennett, E.M.; Biggs, R.; Carpenter, S.R.;
de Vries, W.; de Wit, C.A.; et al. Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet.
Science 2015, 347, 6223. [CrossRef]
15. Mekonnen, M.M.; Hoekstra, A.Y. Four billion people facing severe water scarcity. Sci. Adv. 2016, 2, e1500323.
[CrossRef]
16. Hartley, K.; Tortajada, C.; Biswas, A.K. Confronting global security in an era of water instabilities. Foreign
Policy J. 2017. Available online: https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2017/02/03/confronting-global-
security-in-an-era-of-water-instabilities/ (accessed on 22 November 2019).
17. Gerlak, A.K.; House-Peters, L.; Varady, R.; Albrecht, T.; Zuniga Teran, A.; de Grenade, R.; Scott, C.A. Water
security: A review of place-based research. Environ. Sci. Policy 2018, 82, 79–89. [CrossRef]
18. Chad, S.; Christopher, A.S. Putting water security to work: Addressing global challenges. Water Int. 2018, 43,
1017–1025. [CrossRef]
19. Vorosmarty, C.J.; McIntyre, P.B.; Gessner, M.O.; Dudgeon, D.; Prusevich, A.; Green, P.; Glidden, S.; Bunn, S.E.;
Sullivan, C.A.; Liermann, C.R.; et al. Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity. Nature
2010, 467, 555–561. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
20. Pahl-Wostl, C. Transitions towards Adaptive Management of Water Facing Climate and Global Change.
Water Resour. Manag. 2007, 21, 49–62. [CrossRef]
21. Bakker, K. Water security: Research challenges and opportunities. Science 2012, 337, 914–915. [CrossRef]
22. Garfin, G.M.; Scott, C.A.; Wilder, M.; Varady, R.G.; Merideth, R. Metrics for assessing adaptive capacity and
water security: Common challenges, diverging contexts, emerging consensus. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain.
2016, 21, 86–89. [CrossRef]
Resources 2019, 8, 178 17 of 19

23. Halbe, J.; Pahl-Wostl, C.; Sendzimir, J.; Adamowski, J. Towards Adaptive and Integrated
ManagementParadigms to Meet the Challenges of Water Governance. Water Sci. Technol. J. Int. Assoc. Water
Pollut. Res. 2013, 67, 2651–2660. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
24. Van Beek, E.; Arriens, V.L. Water Security: Putting the Concept into Practice; Global Water Partnership Stockholm:
Stockholm, Sweeden, 2014; p. 52.
25. Grey, D.; Sadoff, C.W. Sink or Swim? Water security for growth and development. Water Policy 2007, 9,
545–571. [CrossRef]
26. Biswas, A.K. Integrated water resources management: A reassessment. Water Int. 2004, 29, 248–256.
[CrossRef]
27. Cairns, R.; Krzywoszynska, A. Anatomy of a buzzword: The emergence of ‘the water-energy-food nexus’ in
UK natural resource debates. Environ. Sci. Policy 2016, 64, 164–170. [CrossRef]
28. Al-Saidi, M.; Elagib, N.A. Towards understanding the integrative approach of the water, energy and food
nexus. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 574, 1131–1139. [CrossRef]
29. Giordano, M.; Shah, T. From IWRM back to integrated water resources management. Int. J. Water Resour.
Dev. 2014, 30, 364–376. [CrossRef]
30. Clement, F. From water productivity to water security: A paradigm shift. In Water Security Principles,
Perspectives and Practices; Lankford, B.A., Ed.; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2013; pp. 148–165.
31. Allan, J.V.; Kenway, S.J.; Head, B.W. Urban water security-what does it mean? Urban Water J. 2018, 15,
899–910. [CrossRef]
32. Cook, C.; Bakker, K. Debating the concept of water security. In Water Security: Principles, Perspectives and
Practices; Lankford, B.A., Ed.; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2013; pp. 49–63.
33. Nazif, S.; Karamouz, M.; Yousefi, M.; Zahmatkesh, Z. Increasing water security: An algorithm to improve
water distribution performance. Water Resour. Manag. 2013, 27, 2903–2921. [CrossRef]
34. Howlett, M.P.; Cuenca, J.S. The use of indicators in environmental policy appraisal: Lessons from the design
and evolution of water security policy measures. J. Environ. Policy Plan 2017, 19, 229–243. [CrossRef]
35. Damkjaer, S.; Taylor, R. The measurement of water scarcity: Defining a meaningful indicator. Ambio 2017, 46,
1–19. [CrossRef]
36. Giordano, M. Water security. In The International Encyclopedia of Geography: People, the Earth, Environment, and
Technology; Richardson, D., Ed.; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2017. [CrossRef]
37. Garrick, D.; Hall, W.J. Water security and society: Risks, metrics, and pathways. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour.
2014, 39, 611–639. [CrossRef]
38. Zeitoun, M.; Lankford, B.; Krueger, T.; Forsyth, T.; Carter, R.; Hoekstra, A.Y.; Taylor, R.; Varis, O.; Cleaver, F.;
Boelens, R.; et al. Reductionist and integrative research approaches to complex water security policy
challenges. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2016, 39, 143–154. [CrossRef]
39. Hoekstra, A.Y.; Buurman, J.; van Ginkel, K.C.H. Urban water security: A review. Environ. Res. Lett. 2018,
13, 053002. [CrossRef]
40. Global Water Partnership. Towards Water Security: A Framework for Action; GWP: Stockholm, Sweden, 2000.
41. UN-Water, Water Security and Global Water Agenda: A UN-Water Analytical Brief ; United Nations University,
Institute for Water, Environment and Health: Hamilton, ON, Canada, 2013.
42. Hussein, H. An analysis of the framings of water scarcity in the Jordanian national water strategy. Water Int.
2019, 44, 6–13. [CrossRef]
43. Phillis, Y.A.; Kouikoglou, V.S.; Verdugo, C. Urban sustainability assessment and ranking of cities. Comput.
Environ. Urban Syst. 2017, 64, 254–265. [CrossRef]
44. Cook, C.; Bakker, K. Water security: Debating an emerging paradigm. Global Environ. Chang. 2012, 22,
94–102. [CrossRef]
45. Grey, D.; Garrick, D.; Blackmore, D.; Kelman, J.; Muller, M.; Sadoff, C. Water security in one blue planet:
Twenty-First century policy challenges for science. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 2013, 371, 20120406. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
46. Srinivasan, V.; Konar, M.; Sivapalan, M. A dynamic framework for water security. Water Security 2017, 1,
12–20. [CrossRef]
47. Rouse, M.J. Institutional Governance and Regulation of Water Services; IWA Publishing: London, UK, 2013.
48. Falkenmark, M. The massive water scarcity now threatening Africa: Why isn’t it being addressed? Ambio
1989, 18, 112–118. [CrossRef]
Resources 2019, 8, 178 18 of 19

49. Sullivan, C. Calculating a water poverty index. World Dev. 2002, 30, 1195–1210. [CrossRef]
50. Lawrence, P.R.; Meigh, J.; Sullivan, C. The Water Poverty Index: An International Comparison; Department of
Economics, Keele University: Keele, UK, 2002.
51. Jensen, O.; Wu, H. Urban water security indicators: Development and pilot. Environ. Sci. Policy 2018, 83,
33–45. [CrossRef]
52. Gassert, F.; Luck, M.; Landis, M.; Reig, P.; Shiao, T. Aqueduct Global Maps 2.1: Constructing Decision-Relevant
Global Water Risk Indicators; World Resources Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2014.
53. Komnenic, V.; Ahlers, R.; Van Der Zaag, P. Assessing the usefulness of the water poverty index by applying
it to a special case: Can one be water poor with high levels of access? Phys. Chem. Earth Parts A B C 2009, 34,
219–224. [CrossRef]
54. Asian Development Bank (ADB). Asia Water Development Outlook 2013; ADB: Manila, Philippines, 2013.
55. Asian Development Bank (ADB). Asia Water Development Outlook 2016; ADB: Manila, Philippines, 2016.
56. Van Leeuwen, C.J. City blueprints: Baseline assessments of sustainable water management in 11 cities of the
future. Water Resour. Manag. 2013, 27, 5191–5206. [CrossRef]
57. Van Leeuwen, C.J.; Koop, S.H.A.; Sjerps, R.M.A. City blueprints: Baseline assessments of water management
and climate change in 45 cities. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2016, 18, 1113–1128. [CrossRef]
58. Siemens. The Green City Index, Economist Intelligence Unit; Siemena: Munich, Germany, 2012.
59. Arcadis. Sustainable Cities Water Index: Which Cities Are the Best Placed to Harness Water for Future
Success? Arcadis: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2015.
60. Berg, S. Developments in best-practice regulation: Principles, processes, and performance. Electr. J. 2000, 13,
11–18. [CrossRef]
61. Berg, S.; Marques, R.C. Quantitative studies of water and sanitation utilities: A benchmarking literature
survey. Water Policy 2011, 13, 591–606. [CrossRef]
62. Danilenko, A.; Van den Berg, C.; Macheve, B.; Moffitt, L.J. The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Blue
Book 2014: The International Benchmarking Network for Water and Sanitation Utilities Databook; World Bank
Publications: Washington, DC, USA, 2014.
63. World Economic Forum (WEF). The Global Risks Report 2019. Geneva: World Economic Forum. Available
online: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Global_Risks_Report_2019.pdf (accessed on 16 October 2019).
64. Kala, V.; Sunil, D.; Gorantiwar, S.M. Intermittent water supply under water scarcity situations. Water Int.
2007, 32, 121–132. [CrossRef]
65. Charalambous, B.; Laspidou, C. Dealing with the Complex Interrelation of Intermittent Supply and Water Losses;
IWA Publishing: London, UK, 2017; pp. 22–28.
66. Sashikumar, N.; Mohankumar, M.S.; Sridharan, K. Modelling an Intermittent Water Supply. World Water
Environ. Resour. Congr. 2003, 118, 261.
67. Ingeduld, P.; Pradhan, A.; Svitak, Z.; Terrai, A. Modelling intermittent water supply systems with EPANET.
In Proceedings of the Water Distribution Systems Analysis Symposium, Cincinati, OH, USA, 27–30 August
2006; pp. 1–8.
68. LeChevallier, M.; Gullick, R.; Karim, M.; Friedman, M.; Funk, J. The potential for health risks from intrusion
of contaminants into the distribution system from pressure transients. J. Water Health 2003, 1, 3–14. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
69. Choe, K.; Varley, R.; Bilani, H. Coping with Intermittent Water Supply: Problems and Prospects, Environmental
Health Project; Activity Report No. 26.; USAID: Washington, DC, USA, 1996.
70. Coelho, S.T.; James, S.; Sunna, N.; Abu Jaish, A.; Chatila, J. Controlling water quality in intermittent supply
systems. Water Sci. Technol. Water Supply 2003, 3, 119–125. [CrossRef]
71. Aboelnga, H.; Saidan, M.; Al-Weshah, R.; Sturm, M.; Ribbe, L.; Frechen, F. Component analysis for optimal
leakage management in Madaba, Jordan. J. Water Supply Res. Technol. Aqua. 2018, 67, 384–396. [CrossRef]
72. Saidan, M.; Khasawneh, H.; Aboelnga, H.; Meric, S.; Kalavrouziotis, I.; Jasem, A.; Hayek, B.; Al-Momany, S.;
Al Malla, M.; Porro, J. Baseline carbon emission assessment in water utilities in Jordan using ECAM tool.
J. Water Supply Res. Technol. Aqua. 2019, 68, 460–473. [CrossRef]
73. Falkenmark, M. Fresh water—Time for a modified approach. Ambio 1986, 15, 192–200.
74. UNESCO and UNESCO i-WSSM. Water Security and the Sustainable Development Goals (Series l); Global Water
Security Issues (GWSI) Series; UNESCO Publishing: Paris, France, 2019.
Resources 2019, 8, 178 19 of 19

75. Falkenmark, M.; Lundqvist, J.; Widstrand, C. Macro-Scale water scarcity requires micro-scale approaches.
Nat. Resour. Forum 1989, 13, 258–267. [CrossRef]
76. Jimenez, B.; Asano, T. Water Reclamation and Reuse around the World: An International Survey of Current Practice,
Issues and Needs; IWA Publishing: London, UK, 2008; pp. 27–48.
77. Howard, G.; Bartram, J.; World Health Organization. Water, Sanitation and Health Team. Domestic Water
Quantity, Service Level and Health; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2003.
78. Wakeel, M.; Chen, B.; Hayat, T.; Alsaedi, A.; Ahmad, B. Energy consumption for water use cycles in different
countries: A review. Appl. Energy 2016, 178, 868–885. [CrossRef]
79. Waldron, T. Managing and Reducing Losses from Water Distribution Systems. Manual 10, Executive Summary;
Environmental Protection Agency: Brisbane, Australia, 2005; ISBN 0724294988.
80. Arfanuzzaman, M.; Rahman, A.A. Sustainable water demand management in the face of rapid urbanization
and ground water depletion for social–ecological resilience building. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2017, 10, 9–22.
[CrossRef]
81. World Health Organization. Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality, 4th ed.; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017;
ISBN 978-92-4-154995-0.
82. Mara, D.; Kramer, A. The 2006 WHO Guidelines for Wastewater and Greywater Use in Agriculture: A Practical
Interpretation; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
83. Karpi, A. Letter to the Editor. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 1993, 3, 3. [CrossRef]
84. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Review of World Water Resources by Country;
Water Report No. 23; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2003.
85. Mancosu, N.; Snyder, R.; Kyriakakis, G.; Spano, D. Water Scarcity and Future Challenges for Food Production.
Water 2015, 7, 975–992. [CrossRef]
86. Rodríguez, M.; Cuevas, M.; Huertas, F.; Martínez, G.; Moreno, B. Indicators to evaluate water sensitive urban
design in urban planning. WIT Trans. Built Environ. 2015, 371–382. [CrossRef]
87. Dickens, C.; Rebelo, L.-M.; Nhamo, L. Guidelines and Indicators for Target 6.6 of the SDGs: Change in the
Extent of Waterrelated Ecosystems over Time. In CGIAR Research Program on Water, Land and Ecosystems;
International Water Management Institute: Colombo, Sri Lanka, 2017; 44p.
88. Grafton, Q.A.; Daniell, K.; Nauges, C.; Rinaudo, J.; Wah Chan, N. Understanding and Managing Urban Water in
Transition, 1st ed.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2015; 318p.
89. Cornejo, P.; Santana, M.; Hokanson, D.; Mihelcic, R.J.; Zhang, Q. Carbon footprint of water reuse and
desalination: A review of greenhouse gas emissions and estimation tools. J. Water Reuse Desalin. 2014, 4, 238.
[CrossRef]
90. Koop, S.H.; van Leeuwen, C.J. Application of the improved city blueprint framework in 45 municipalities
and regions. Water Resour. Manag. 2015, 29, 4629–4647. [CrossRef]
91. Smith, K.; Liu, S.; Chang, T. Contribution of urban water supply to greenhouse gas emissions in China.
J. Ind. Ecol. 2015, 20, 792–802. [CrossRef]
92. Assefa, Y.; Babel, M.; Sušnik, J.; Shinde, V. Development of a generic domestic water security index, and its
application in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Water 2018, 11, 37. [CrossRef]
93. Asian Development Bank. Asian Water Development Outlook 2016: Strengthening Water Security in Asia and the
Pacific; Asian Development Bank: Mandaluyong City, Philippines, 2016.
94. Damania, R.; Desbureaux, S.; Rodella, A.; Russ, J.; Zaveri, E. Quality Unknown: The Invisible Water Crisis;
World Bank Publications: Washington, DC, USA, 2019.

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).