Examining Water Security in the Challenging Environment in Togo, West Africa
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Background of the Study
1.2. Water Security in Sub-Saharan Africa
1.3. Water Security Assessment
2. Methodology
2.1. Study Area
2.1.1. Data Collection
2.1.2. The Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation Model (FCEM) and the Improved Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation Model (IFCEM)
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Water Security in the ONSB
3.2. Barriers to Water Security in the Sub-Basin
4. Conclusions and Recommendations
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation-International Hydrological Program. UNESCO-IHP. Final Report. In Proceedings of the 20th Session of the Intergovernmental Council, Paris, France, 4–7 June 2012; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Mekonnen, M.M.; Hoekstra, A.Y. Four billion people facing severe water scarcity. Sci. Adv. 2016, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wang, X.; Jian-yun, Z.; Shahid, S.; Elmahdi, A.; Runi-min, H.; Mahtab, A. Gini coefficient to assess equity in domestic water supply in the Yellow River. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang. 2012, 17, 65–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Srinivasan, V.; Seto, K.C.; Emerson, R.; Gorelick, S.M. The impact of urbanization on water vulnerability: A coupled human-environment system approach for Chennai, India. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2013, 23, 229–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vörösmarty, C.J.; Mclntyre, 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. In A Special Report of the Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Dai, A. Increasing Drought under Global Warming in Observations and Models. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2013, 3, 52–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Döll, P.; Jiménez-Cisneros, B.; Oki, T.; Arnell, N.W.; Benito, G.; Cogley, J.G.; Jiang, T.; Kundzewicz, Z.W.; Mwakalila, S.; Nishijima, A. Integrating risks of climate change into water management. Hydrol. Sci. J. 2015, 60, 4–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schewe, J.; Heinke, J.; Gerten, D.; Haddeland, I.; Arnell, N.W.; Clark, D.B.; Dankers, R.; Eisner, S.; Fekete, B.M.; Colón-González, F.J.; et al. Multi-model assessment of water scarcity under climate change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014, 111, 3245–3250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sadoff, C.W.; Hall, J.W.; Grey, D.; Aerts, J.C.J.H.; Ait-Kadi, M.; Brown, C.; Cox, A.; Dadson, S.; Garrick, D.; Kelman, J.; et al. Securing Water, Sustaining Growth: Report of the GWP/OECD Task Force on Water Security and Sustainable Growth; University of Oxford: Oxford, UK, 2015; 180p. [Google Scholar]
- Christensen, J.H.; Hewitson, B.; Busuioc, A.; Chen, A.; Gao, X.; Held, R.; Jones, R.; Kolli, R.K.; Kwon, W.K.; Laprise, R.; et al. Regional Climate Projections, Climate Change, 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2007; Chapter 11; ISBN 978-0-521-88009-1. [Google Scholar]
- Gain, A.K.; Giupponi, C.; Wada, Y. Measuring global water security towards sustainable development goals. Environ. Res. Lett. 2016, 11, 124015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gerten, D.; Lucht, W.; Ostberg, S.; Heinke, J.; Kowarsch, M.; Kreft, H.; Kundzewicz, Z.W.; Rastgooy, J.; Warren, R.; Schellnhuber, H.J. Asynchronous exposure to global warming: Freshwater resources and terrestrial ecosystems. Environ. Res. Lett. 2013, 8, 034032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schlosser, C.A.; Strzepek, K.M.; Gao, X.; Gueneau, A.; Fant, C.; Paltsev, S.; Rasheed, B.; Smith-Greico, T.; Blanc, É.; Jacoby, H.D.; et al. The Future of Global Water Stress: An Integrated Assessment. Earth’s Future 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Food and Agriculture Organization. Hot Issues: Water Scarcity. 2013. Available online: http://www.fao.org/nr/water/issues/scarcity.html (accessed on 22 January 2019).
- Roudier, P.; Ducharne, A.; Feyen, L. Climate change impacts on runoff in West Africa: A review. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2014, 18, 2789–2801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ministère de l’Environnement et des Ressources Forestière/Direction de l’Environnement/Troisième communication Nationale (MERF/DE/TCN). Troisième Communication Nationale sur les Changements Climatiques au Togo; Troisième communication Nationale: Paris, France, 2015.
- Ahiablame, L.; Engel, B.; Venort, T. Improving Water Supply Systems for Domestic Uses in Urban Togo: The Case of a Suburb in Lomé. Water 2012, 4, 123–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nkem, J.N.; Munang, R.; Jallow, B. Decentralizing Solutions for Rural Water Supply Under Climate Impacts in Sub-Saharan Africa. Environment 2011, 53, 14–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thornton, P.K.; Jones, P.G.; Ericksen, P.J.; Challinor, A.J. Agriculture and food systems in sub-Saharan Africa in a four-plus degree world. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Ser. A 2011, 369, 117–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA). Africa Agriculture Status Report 2014: Climate Change and Smallholder Agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa. Nairobi, Kenya. 2014, Issue No. 2. Available online: https://www.climateinvestmentfunds.org/sites/cif_enc/files/aasr-2014climate-change-and-smallholder-agriculture-in-ssa.pdf (accessed on 28 January 2019).
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Africa. In Climate Change 2014—Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability: Part B: Regional Aspects: Working Group II Contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2014; pp. 1199–1266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Munang, R.; Andrews, J. Despite Climate Change, Africa Can Feed Africa. Africa Renewal, Special Edition on Agriculture, 2014. Available online: http://www.un.org/africarenewal/magazine/special-edition-agriculture-2014/despite-climate-change-africa-can-feed-africa (accessed on 22 January 2019).
- Mourad, K.A. Marginal and Virtual Water for Sustainable Water Resources Management in Syria; Lund University: Lund, Sweden, 2012; ISBN 978-91-7473-352-5. [Google Scholar]
- Mourad, K.A.; Alshihabi, O. Assessment of future Syrian water resources supply and demand by WEAP model. Hydrol. Sci. J. 2016, 61, 393–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cimons, M. Water Shortages Amplify the Potential for Violence. How Drought fuels Conflict. 2017. Available online: https://www.popsci.com/water-shortages-fuel-conflict (accessed on 3 January 2018).
- Gueye, M.K.; Sell, M.; Strachan, J. Trade, Climate Change and Sustainable Development: Key Issues for Small states, Least Developed Countries, and vulnerable economies; Commonwealth Secretariat: London, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Oyebande, L.; Odunuga, S. Climate Change Impact on Water Resources at the Transboundary Level in West Africa: The Cases of the Senegal, Niger and Volta Basins. Open Hydrol. J. 2010, 4, 163–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Norman, E.S.; Dunn, G.; Bakker, K.; Allen, D.M.; Albuquerque, R.C. Water security assessment: Integrating governance and freshwater indicators. Water Resour. Manag. 2013, 27, 535–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Policy Research Initiative Sustainable Development Briefing Note: Canadian Water Sustainability Index. 2007. Available online: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/PH2-1-14-2007E.pdf (accessed on 22 January 2109).
- Xiao-Jun, W.; Jian-yun, Z.; Shahid, S.; Xing-hui, X.; Rui-min, H. Catastrophe theory to assess water security and adaptation strategy in the context of environmental change. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang. 2014, 19, 463–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Othman, M.; Ku-Mahamud, K.R.; Abu Bakar, A. Fuzzy evaluation method using fuzzy rule approach in multicriteria analysis. Yugoslav J. Oper. Res. 2008, 18, 95–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques et Démographique (INSEED). Togo: Profil de Pauvreté 2006–2011–2015. 2016. Available online: https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/12136951 (accessed on 28 January 2019).
- Barry, B.; Obuobie, E.; Andreini, M.; Andah, W.; Pluquet, M. The Volta River Basin. Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture Comparative Study of River Basin Development and Management. 2005. Available online: http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/assessment/files_new/research_projects/river_basin_development_and_management/VoltaRiverBasin_Boubacar.pdf (accessed on 12 September 2018).
- Wang, W.; Liu, S.; Zhang, S.; Chen, J. Assessment of a model of pollution disaster in near-shore coastal waters based on catastrophe theory. Ecol. Model. 2011, 222, 307–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loehle, C. Catastrophe theory in ecology: A critical review and an example of the butterfly catastrophe. Ecol. Model. 1989, 49, 125–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, F.; Shao, D.; Xiao, C.; Tan, X. Assessment of urban water security based on catastrophe theory. Water Sci. Technol. 2012, 66, 487–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Su, S.; Li, D.; Yu, X.; Zhang, Z.; Zhang, Q.; Xiao, R.; Zhi, J.; Wu, J. Assessing land ecological security in Shanghai (China) based on catastrophe theory. Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess. 2011, 25, 737–746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X.J.; Jian-yun, Z.; Jian-hua, W.; Rui-min, H.; ElMahdi, A.; Jin-hua, L.; Xin-gong, W.; King, D.; Shahid, S. Climate change and water resources management in Tuwei river basin of northwest China. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang. 2012, 19, 107–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jia, X.; Cai, Y.; Wang, X.; Sun, L. An improved method for integrated water security assessment in the Yellow River basin, China. Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess. 2015, 29, 2213–2227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, K.K.; Li, C.H.; Cai, Y.P.; Xu, M.; Xia, X.H. Comprehensive evaluation of water resources security in the Yellow River basin based on a fuzzy multi-attribute decision analysis approach. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2014, 18, 1605–1623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Volta Basin Authority (VBA). Assessment of the Current State of Water Management and Climate Change in the Volta Basin as part of the Establishment of an Observatory for Water Resources and Related Ecosystems. Final Report. 2014. Available online: https://www.gwp.org/globalassets/global/gwp-waf_files/wacdep/brochure_assessment_wacdep_abv_en.pdf (accessed on 6 August 2018).
- Shao, D.; Yang, F.; Xiao, C.; Tan, X. Evaluation of water security: An integrated approach applied in Wuhan urban agglomeration, China. Water Sci. Technol. 2012, 66, 79–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Falkenmark, M. The massive water scarcity threatening Africa-why isn’t it being addressed. Ambio 1989, 18, 112–118. [Google Scholar]
- Asian Development Bank (ADB). Asian Water Development Outlook: Measuring Water Security in Asia and the Pacific; Asian Development Bank: Mandaluyong City, PA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Babel, M.S.; & Shinde, V. A framework for water security assessment at basin scale. APN Sci. Bull. 2018, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- FAO-AQUASTAT. FAO Global Information System on Water and Agriculture. 2012. Available online: http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/maps/index.stm (accessed on 22 January 2019).
- Pérez-Foguet, A.; Giné, R. Analyzing water poverty in basins. Water Resour. Manag. 2011, 25, 3595–3612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ministère des Mines, de l’Energie et de l’Eau/Direction Générale de l’Eau et de l’assainissement/Département des Affaires Economiques et Sociales des Nations Unies (MMEE/DGEA/UN-DESA). Rapport de Synthèse: Gestion Intégrée des Ressources en Eau (GIRE) et Objectif du Millénaire pour le Développement (OMD) au Togo; UNEP: Nairobi, Kenya, 2009.
- United Nations Environment Programme and the Global Environment Facility (UNEP-GEF Volta) Project. Volta Basin Trans boundary Diagnostic Analysis; UNEP: Nairobi, Kenya, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Ringler, C. What’s Really Causing Water Scarcity in Africa south of the Sahara? 2013. Available online: http://www.ifpri.org/blog/what%E2%80%99s-really-causing-water-scarcity-africa-south-sahara (accessed on 17 January 2019).
- Salami, A.; Stampini, M.; Kamara, A.B. (Eds.) Development Aid and Access to Water and Sanitation in Sub-Saharan Africa: Overview; African Development Bank (AfDB) Group & Temporary Relocation Agency (TRA): Tunis-Belvedere, Tunisia, 2011; Available online: https://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Publications/WPS%20140%20Development%20Aid%20and%20Access%20to%20Water%20NV1%2022.pdf (accessed on 24 January 2019).
- United Nations Water. International Decade for Action ‘Water for Life’ 2005–2015. 2014. Available online: http://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/africa.shtml (accessed on 17 January 2019).
Sub-System | Parameters | Parameters Description or Logic | Indicators | Unit | Functional Relationship | Source |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Water-Resources Security (WRS) (B1) | Modulus of surface water | It reflects the amount of surface water resources in each part of the Basin. It can be calculated as the ratio between the total renewable surface water resources amount and the evaluation area | Modulus of surface water (C1) | 106 m3 km−2 | Positive | [40,41] |
Modulus of ground water | It reflects the amount of groundwater resources in the basin. It can be calculated as the ratio between the total renewable groundwater resources amount and the evaluation area. | Modulus of ground water (C2) | 106 m3 km−2 | Positive | [40,41] | |
Stream flow | It gives an idea on the moisture level of a year. It can be calculated through as a ration between the annual discharge in a locality and the inter-annual discharge over a period. | Stream flow index (C3) | - | Positive | [42] | |
Ground water recharge | It gives an idea of the state of ground water as well as its evolution. | Ground water recharge capacity (C4) | mm/year | Positive | [42] | |
Water availability | It reflects the amount of water resources available. It is calculated through the total amount of water resources (or surface runoff)/total population. | Per capital water resources availability (C5) | m3/capita/year | Positive | [43,44] | |
Water-Society Security (WSS) (B2) | Water consumption | It gives an idea on the total amount of water withdrawn, and which is no longer available to be used. It is calculated through the total amount of water resources withdrawn (concerns only the domestic water withdrawn) /total population. It can change under external factors and increased economic activities. | Per capital water consumption (C6) | m3/person/year | Negative | [12,31] |
Drinking water conditions | It gives an idea of the urban population having access up to standard drinking water. It can be calculated using the ratio between the urban population having access up to standard drinking water and the total urban population. | Urban population with access to improved water (C7) | % | Positive | [40] | |
It gives an idea of the rural and semi-urban population having access to standard drinking water. It can be calculated using the ratio between the rural and semi-urban population having access to standard drinking water and the total rural and semi-urban population. | Rural and semi-urban population with access to improved water (C8) | % | Positive | [40] | ||
Drinking water exposure | It gives an idea on the quality of surface water in the study area. It can be calculated as the ratio between the site-specific thermo-tolerant coliforms (30°C) and the permissible limits of these germs. | Surface water quality factor (C9) | - | Negative | [45,46] | |
Water-Economic Security (WES) (B3) | Water consumption | It expresses the total amount of water withdrawn for economic purpose (Agricultural, livestock, and industrial). It can be calculated as the ratio between the total amount of water withdrawn for economic activities and the total water* 100 | Economic water consumption rate (C10) | % | Positive | [45] |
Economic water value | It gives an idea on the revenue generated by commercial/industrial sector water use (CFA/m3). It can be measured through the ratio between the non-agricultural GPP and the non-agricultural water use in the basin. | Commercial/industrial revenue per m3 of water (C11) | FCFA/m3 | Positive | [45] | |
It gives an idea on the revenue generated by the livestock sector water use. It can be estimated through the ratio between livestock GPP and the amount of water used for the purpose. | Livestock revenue per m3 of water (C12) | FCFA/m3 | Positive | [45] | ||
Water allocation | The parameter gives an idea on how water is allocated in the sub-basin but also the price attached to the allocation depending on the activity. The price may vary from one activity to the other. | Non-agricultural water price (C13) | FCFA/m3 | Negative | [39] | |
Agricultural water price (C14) | FCFA/m3 | Negative | [39] | |||
Water-Environment Security (WEES) (B4) | Pollution level/Health of water bodies (Surface and ground water) | It depicts the pollution level of water, particularly in the rivers of the sub-basin whether directly or indirectly contaminated. It can be calculated as the ratio between the dissolved oxygen and the permissible limit. EU and OMS standards have been considered in this case. | Surface water quality factor (C15) | - | Negative | [45,46] |
It gives an idea on the quality of ground water in the study area. It can be calculated as the ratio between the site-specific pollutants (nitrates in this case) and the permissible limits of these pollutants. EU and OMS standards have been considered in this case. | Ground water quality factor (C16) | - | Negative | [45,46] | ||
The pollution level can be defined by the population having access to improved sanitation. | Population with access to improved sanitation (C17) | % | Positive | |||
The reuse of waste water gives an idea regarding the level of pollution in the sub-basin. It can be calculated as a ratio between the amount of water (industrial or domestic) re-used and the total water consumed. | Water reuse rate (C18) | % | Positive | [46] | ||
Water resources utilization | This parameter can be captured using a ratio between the total amount of water supplied or used (for any purpose) and the total amount of water resources available. It concerns both surface and ground water and captures the level of human pressure on water resources. | Water resources utilisation rate (C19) | % | Negative | [39,40,47] | |
External-Environment Security (EES) (B5) | Population growth | Increase in population growth may be associated with an increase in the water demand. | Population growth rate (C20) | % | Negative | [45] |
Land degradation | This parameter expresses the soil conditions, which play key roles in the water recharge rate but also the quality of surface water. It can be calculated as the ratio between the land degradation area (only the land with degradation indices 4 and 5 are considered) and the evaluation area. | Land degradation rate C21) | % | Negative | [42,48] | |
GDP growth | Change in the GDP reflect water use for an economic purpose. Its increases may be associated with the increase in water demand. | GDP growth rate (C22) | % | Negative | [31,39] | |
Temperature | Changes in temperature are associated with changes in the evapotranspiration, which may impact the amount of water available. In this case, the average temperature has been considered. | Temperature (C23) | °C | Negative | [31,39] |
Sub-Systems | Indicator | 2010 | 2015 | 2025 |
---|---|---|---|---|
Water-Resources Security (WRS) (B1) | Modulus of surface water (C1) (106 m3 km−2) | 0.23 | 0.23 | 0.23 |
Modulus of ground water (C2) (106 m3 km−2) | 0.125 | 0.125 | 0.125 | |
Stream flow index (C3) | 0.7 | 1.37 | 1.12 | |
Ground water recharge capacity (C4) (mm/year) | 177 | 177 | 177 | |
Per capital water resources availability (C5) (m3/capita/year) | 3860 | 3478 | 3033 | |
Water-Society Security (WSS) (B2) | Per capital water consumption (C6) (m3/person/year) | 15.51 | 20.08 | 24.64 |
Urban population with access to improved water (C7) (%) | 43 | 45 | 100 | |
Rural and semi-urban population with access to improved water (C8) (%) | 50.88 | 99.52 | 100 | |
Surface water quality factor (C9) | 21.5 | 21.5 | 21.5 | |
Water-Economic Security (WES) (B3) | Economic water consumption rate (C10) (%) | 0.49 | 0.69 | 2.09 |
Commercial/industrial (of fountain and water kiosks) revenue per m3 of water (C11) (FCFA/m3) | 75 | 75 | 75 | |
Livestock revenue per m3 of water (C12) (FCFA/m3) | 5385 | 5385 | 5385 | |
Non-agricultural (fountain and water kiosks) water price (C13) (FCFA/m3) | 315 | 315 | 315 | |
Agricultural (livestock) water price (C14) (FCFA/m3) | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Water-Environment Security (WEES) (B4) | Surface water quality factor (C15) | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
Ground water quality factor (C16) | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.09 | |
Population with access to improved sanitation (C17) (%) | 68.4 | 66.37 | 100 | |
Water re-use rate (C18) (%) | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Water resources utilization rate (C19) (%) | 0.65 | 1.1 | 2.09 | |
External-Environment Security (EES) (B5) | Population growth rate (C20) (%) | 2.84 | 2.2 | 2 |
Land degradation rate (C21) (%) | 62.25 | 77.25 | 107 | |
GDP growth rate (C22) (%) | 4.02 | 5.1 | 5.31 | |
Temperature (C23) (°C) | 29.3 | 29.3 | 30.21 |
Sub-Systems | Indicator | 2010 | 2015 | 2025 |
---|---|---|---|---|
Water-Resources Security (WRS) (B1) | Modulus of surface water (C1) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Modulus of ground water (C2) | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Stream flow index (C3) | 0 | 1 | 0.6269 | |
Ground water recharge capacity (C4) | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Per capital water resources availability (C5) | 1 | 0.5381 | 0 | |
Water-Society Security (WSS) (B2) | Per capital water consumption (C6) | 1 | 0.4995 | 0 |
Urban population with access to improved water (C7) | 0 | 0.0351 | 1 | |
Rural and semi-urban population with access to improved water (C8) | 0 | 0.9902 | 1 | |
Surface water quality factor (C9) | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
Water-Economic Security (WES) (B3) | Economic water consumption rate (C10) | 0 | 0.125 | 1 |
Commercial/industrial (of fountain and water kiosks) revenue per m3 of water (C11) | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Livestock revenue per m3 of water (C12) | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Non-agricultural water price (C13) | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
Agricultural (livestock) water price (C14) | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
Water-Environment Security (WEES) (B4) | Surface water quality factor (C15) | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Ground water quality factor (C16) | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
Population with access to improved sanitation (C17) | 0.0604 | 0 | 1 | |
Water re-use rate (C18) (%) | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Water resources utilization rate (C19) (%) | 1 | 0.6875 | 0 | |
External-Environment Security (EES) (B5) | Population growth rate (C20) (%) | 0 | 0.7619 | 1 |
Land degradation rate (C21) (%) | 1 | 0.6648 | 0 | |
GDP growth rate (C22) (%) | 1 | 0.1628 | 0 | |
Temperature (C23) (°C) | 1 | 1 | 0 |
Sub-Systems | 2010 | 2015 | 2025 |
---|---|---|---|
Water-Resources Security (WRS) (B1) | 0.2000 | 0.3804 | 0.1780 |
Water-Society Security (WSS) (B2) | 0.5000 | 0.7579 | 0.7500 |
Water-Economic Security (WES) (B3) | 0.4000 | 0.4707 | 0.6000 |
Water-Environment Security (WEES) (B4) | 0.6991 | 0.5872 | 0.6000 |
External-Environment Security (EES) (B5) | 0.7500 | 0.8452 | 0.2500 |
Water security (synthetic values) | 0.7841 | 0.8456 | 0.7814 |
System | 2010 | 2015 | 2025 |
---|---|---|---|
Water security (synthetic values) | 0.7841 | 0.8456 | 0.7814 |
Water security (modified synthetic values) | 0.1592 | 0.1994 | 0.1578 |
Level of water security | Very Insecure | Very Insecure | Very Insecure |
2010 | 2015 | 2025 | |
---|---|---|---|
Water security 1 (WRS, WSS, WES, WEES, EES) | 0.1592 | 0.1994 | 0.1578 |
Water security 2 (WSS, WES, WEES, EES, WRS) | 0.1757 | 0.223 | 0.1796 |
Water security 3 (WES, WEES, EES, WRS, WSS) | 0.1756 | 0.20546 | 0.1661 |
Water security 4 (WEES, EES, WRS, WSS, WES) | 0.1858 | 0.2189 | 0.1587 |
Water security 5 (EES, WRS, WSS, WES, WEES) | 0.1756 | 0.22559 | 0.1490 |
© 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/).
Share and Cite
Yomo, M.; Mourad, K.A.; Gnazou, M.D.T. Examining Water Security in the Challenging Environment in Togo, West Africa. Water 2019, 11, 231. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11020231
Yomo M, Mourad KA, Gnazou MDT. Examining Water Security in the Challenging Environment in Togo, West Africa. Water. 2019; 11(2):231. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11020231
Chicago/Turabian StyleYomo, Mawulolo, Khaldoon A. Mourad, and Masamaeya D. T. Gnazou. 2019. "Examining Water Security in the Challenging Environment in Togo, West Africa" Water 11, no. 2: 231. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11020231
APA StyleYomo, M., Mourad, K. A., & Gnazou, M. D. T. (2019). Examining Water Security in the Challenging Environment in Togo, West Africa. Water, 11(2), 231. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11020231