Assessment of the Urban Water Security in a Severe Water Stress Area–Application to Palestinian Cities

: This paper presents an assessment of the urban water security in a severe water stress area using a semi-quantitative risk-based approach. Water security indicators are selected according to the recommendations of international institutions, the literature review and the opinion of a panel of water experts. Selected indicators cover three ﬁelds: water resources, water services and water governance. The ﬁeld of water resources is described by indicators related to the water resources availability, annual precipitation and the ratio of treated water, while the water services ﬁeld is described by indicators related to the water service coverage, water losses and the continuity of water supply. Water governance includes three indicators: role and responsibility, access to water information and stakeholder engagement. Water security assessment is conducted in three stages: (i) data collection for ﬁve Palestinian cities in the West Bank of Jordan, (ii) determination of the risk score for each indicator using collected data and an expert’s opinion, (iii) determination of the global water security score and water security index using the matrix risk assessment and the wise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA) methods. Results show that water risk is ranked as extreme for all cities. Risk related to water resources is a major contributor to global risk, followed by water governance.


Introduction
This paper presents an assessment of water security in major Palestinian cities. This issue is of major concern to the Palestinian population because of the severe water stress in this area, the complex geopolitical situation and the degraded water infrastructure and services [1][2][3][4][5][6]. Since this situation could become more critical, both local and national Palestinian authorities have to work together to establish strategies to ensure a safe water supply for the population, which is mainly concentrated in the cities. This research contributes to this goal through the development and use of a scientific approach for the assessment of water security in major Palestinian cities. It also contributes to scientific efforts for establishing knowledge in the field of water security through the assessment of water security in urban areas subjected to high water security challenges.
In the past two decades, water security received important attention from policymakers, international institutions and scholars. According to the UN human rights, water supply must be sufficient and continuous [7]. The World Health Organization (WHO) considers that between 50 and 100 L of water per person per day are required to ensure basic human requirements and health concerns [8].
According to [9], water security refers to the "availability of an acceptable quantity and quality of water to meet the society needs in terms of health, livelihoods, ecosystems and economic activity production with acceptable level of water-related risks to people, environments and economies". security data for five major Palestinian cities, (iii) risk analysis of collected data using a semi-quantitative approach [26][27][28][29] and the wise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA) [30] and, finally, (iv) the determination of the water security score and index for selected Palestinian cities.

Overview
This research aims at the assessment of water security in Palestinian cities in the West Bank of Jordan [9][10][11]. It is conducted using a semi-quantitative approach [26][27][28][29], which includes the following steps: selection of the water security indicators according to the water security challenges in the Palestinian territories, determination of the security score and weight for each indicator and, finally, determination of the water security score and index for selected cities.
Since the assessment of the water security is based on the consideration of a multitude of criteria and indicators, it requires the use of multi criteria decision making (MCDM) methods. These methods provide capacities to determine the value, degree of importance and the priority order for a number of alternatives and to select the best alternative [31][32][33][34]. According to recent papers [32,35,36] and the use of experts' judgment in this work, the risk matrix analysis method [8,13,22,36,37], as well as the wise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA) [30] were used in this research. The list of indicators was determined following the literature review [14,15,23,24,38,39] and the opinions of a panel of experts in the water sector in Palestine. Figure 1 summarizes the architecture of the set of indicators used in the assessment of water security in Palestinian cities. This system was established according to the literature review, the recommendations of international institutions [2,40,41] and discussions with a panel of 25 experts in the Palestinian water sector. The water security indicators were classified into three categories: water resources (WR), water services (WS) and water governance (WG).

Water Security Indicators
Water 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW  3 of 17 quantitative approach [26][27][28][29] and the wise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA) [30] and, finally, (iv) the determination of the water security score and index for selected Palestinian cities.

Overview
This research aims at the assessment of water security in Palestinian cities in the West Bank of Jordan [9][10][11]. It is conducted using a semi-quantitative approach [26][27][28][29], which includes the following steps: selection of the water security indicators according to the water security challenges in the Palestinian territories, determination of the security score and weight for each indicator and, finally, determination of the water security score and index for selected cities.
Since the assessment of the water security is based on the consideration of a multitude of criteria and indicators, it requires the use of multi criteria decision making (MCDM) methods. These methods provide capacities to determine the value, degree of importance and the priority order for a number of alternatives and to select the best alternative [31][32][33][34]. According to recent papers [32,35,36] and the use of experts' judgment in this work, the risk matrix analysis method [8,13,22,36,37], as well as the wise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA) [30] were used in this research. The list of indicators was determined following the literature review [14,15,23,24,38,39] and the opinions of a panel of experts in the water sector in Palestine. Figure 1 summarizes the architecture of the set of indicators used in the assessment of water security in Palestinian cities. This system was established according to the literature review, the recommendations of international institutions [2,40,41] and discussions with a panel of 25 experts in the Palestinian water sector. The water security indicators were classified into three categories: water resources (WR), water services (WS) and water governance (WG).   The water resource category was selected according to the recommendations of the IWA [41], the OECD [11] and Ginkel et al. [18]. It includes indicators that impact the availability and quality of the water resources, such as the water resources availability (WRA) [41], annual precipitation (AP) [11,41] and the ratio of treated wastewater (RTW). The water resources availability (WRA) measures the yearly percentage of the volume of water used to water availability, including natural water resources and imported water. It was selected according to the recommendations of the IWA [41]. The annual precipitation (AP) measures the cumulated annual rainfall. It is recommended by the OECD [11,40]. The ratio of treated wastewater (RTW) refers to the percentage of the volume of treated wastewater to the volume of wastewater generated by the city. It is recommended by [41]. This indicator depends on three sub-indicators: wastewater coverage (WWC), state of the sewage system (SoS) and the wastewater treatment level (WTL). WWC measures the percentage of the population connected to the sanitation system. SoS and WTL are qualitative indicators that describe the state of the sewage system and the wastewater treatment capacity, respectively.

Water Security Indicators
The water services category describes the quality of the water services to citizens. It includes the water service coverage (WC) [41], water losses (WL) [41] and the continuity of the water supply (CWS) [41]. WC measures the percentage of the population connected to the drinking water service, while WL refers to the percentage of water losses in the water distribution system. The continuity of the water supply (CWS) indicates the annual percentage of the total time of the water supply service to the population.
Indicators for the water governance were determined following the OECD recommendations [40]. They include the following indicators: roles and responsibilities (RR), access to the water information (AWI) and stakeholder engagement (SE). The first indicator refers to the existence of regulations and practices that clearly define the role and responsibility of water stakeholders in the water governance. AWI refers to the existence of an information system about the main water indicators and the ease of access to this system. Finally, stakeholder engagement (SE) measures the degree of engagement of water stakeholders in the water governance system.

Use of the Semi-Quantitative Approach
A semi-quantitative approach is used for the assessment of the water security risk. The evaluation of the risk score (RS) of an event on a given system is based on the use of the likelihood score (LS) and severity score (SS) of this event. The former is related to the probability of occurrence of the event, while the latter refers to the impact of this event on the system. The risk score is determined according to the following expression: RS = LS × SS Five levels are used for both the severity and likelihood scores [36,42]. Tables 1 and 2 provide these scores, as well as their related levels. The determination of the water risk level and the security index is based on the severity score and likelihood score. Tables 3 and 4 show the scoring system. It includes 4 values for the water security level (WSL) and 4 values for the water security index (WSI), which correspond successively to low risk with WSI = 4, medium risk with WSI = 3, high risk with WSI = 2 and extreme risk with WSI = 1. Since the water security assessment is based on a multi-criteria analysis, it requires the determination of criteria weights. The wise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA) method is used for this determination [30]. Its application includes two steps. In the first step, the indicators are ranked according to experts' opinions. The total score of the indicator sj is determined by the equation: where Ai designates the score given by expert i, while n is the number of experts.
The weights of the indicators are then determined according to the following expressions: Water 2020, 12, 2060 6 of 18 where kj, qj and wj are intermediary parameters used in the calculation.

Overview
This study focuses on five Palestinian cities, namely Jenin, Tulkarm, Ramallah, Jericho and Hebron, which were selected for both their demographic importance and geographic recovery of the West Bank of Jordan (Table 5). Data were collected for five years from the Palestinian water authorities, as well as from the cities. The determination of the water security scores is based on the literature review, national and international reports and a panel of 25 Palestinian water experts. The panel of experts includes 4 experts from governmental organizations, 4 from non-governmental organization (NGO), 3 policy-makers, 4 from municipalities and 10 academics. The following sections first present data collection and analysis for the water security categories (water resources, water services and water governance) and then the determination of the global water index.

Water Resources
Assessment of the security of water resources is based on three indicators: water resources availability (WRA), annual precipitation (AP) and the ratio of treated water (RTW). Table 6 provides data collected for the water resources availability (WRA) for the period 2013-2017. It shows that this ratio is close to 100%, which means that the situation of the five cities is critical because they consume the totality of the water provided by both natural resources and imported water. According to these data and experts' opinion, the severity score for these cites is classified as "catastrophic, SS = 5", while the likelihood level is classified as "almost certain, LS = 5" (Table 7).   According to these data and experts' opinion, the severity of the risk is classified as "catastrophic, SS = 5" for Jericho and "moderate, SS = 3" for the other cities. The likelihood score is classified as "almost certain, LS = 5" for all the cities (Table 7).   According to these data and experts' opinion, the severity of the risk is classified as "catastrophic, SS = 5" for Jericho and "moderate, SS = 3" for the other cities. The likelihood score is classified as "almost certain, LS = 5" for all the cities (Table 7).   Table 8 summarize the experts' opinion about the importance of the water resources indicators and the weights of these indicators, as determined by the SWARA method. According to experts' opinion, the water resources availability (WRA) is ranked first with a high weight w = 0.405, while the annual precipitation (AP) is ranked second with w = 0.324, the ratio of treated water (RTW) is considered as less important with w = 0.271.   Table 8 summarize the experts' opinion about the importance of the water resources indicators and the weights of these indicators, as determined by the SWARA method. According to experts' opinion, the water resources availability (WRA) is ranked first with a high weight w = 0.405, while the annual precipitation (AP) is ranked second with w = 0.324, the ratio of treated water (RTW) is considered as less important with w = 0.271.
The ratio of treated water (RTW) depends on three sub-indicators: wastewater coverage (WWC), the state of the sewage system (SoS) and water treatment level (WTL). Table 9    The ratio of treated water (RTW) depends on three sub-indicators: wastewater coverage (WWC), the state of the sewage system (SoS) and water treatment level (WTL). Table 9 Jenin  78  78  81  82  Tulkarm  80  82  85  75  77  Ramallah  87  Jericho  0  27  55  19  8  Hebron  56  66  66  70  70   Table 10 shows the qualitative evaluation of the state of SoS and WTL by the water authorities and water experts. SoS is classified as very good in Jericho due to the young age of the sanitation system, while the state of this system is classified as bad and very bad in Jenin and Tulkarm,    Table 10 shows the qualitative evaluation of the state of SoS and WTL by the water authorities and water experts. SoS is classified as very good in Jericho due to the young age of the sanitation system, while the state of this system is classified as bad and very bad in Jenin and Tulkarm, respectively, due to aging, leakage, insufficient diameters and a lack of maintenance. Concerning the water treatment  According to data presented in Tables 9 and 10, water authority and experts' opinions, the severity and likelihood scores were established for WWC, SoS and WTL. Table 11 provides the values for these indicators. For the wastewater coverage (WWC), the risk is extreme for Jericho and Hebron, high for Tulkarm and for other cities. The risk for the sewage system (SoS) is extreme for Jenin and Tulkarm, high for Ramallah and Hebron and low for Jericho. The risk for the water treatment level (WTL) is extreme for Hebron and Tulkarm and high for other cities.  Table 12 summarizes the experts' opinion about the importance and weights of the sub-indicators related to the ratio of treated water (RTW). Wastewater coverage (WWC) is ranked first, with w = 0.38, while the water treatment level (WTL) is ranked second with w = 0.33. The state of sewage system (SoS) is considered as less important with w = 0.29. The risk score of the ratio of treated water (RTW) is determined from Tables 11 and 12. The obtained results are given in Table 13. The risk is classified extreme for Tulkarm and Hebron and high for Jenin, Ramallah and Jericho.

C1.1 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
The global risk score for the water resources (WR) was determined from the risk score of the indicators WRA, AP and RTW (Tables 7 and 13) and the weights of these indicators (Table 8). Table 14 provides the obtained results. It shows that the risk of the water resources is extreme for the five cities.  Tables 11 and 12).

City
Risk Score

Water Services Indicators
Three indicators are used for the assessment of the water services risk: water coverage (WC), water losses (WL) and the continuity of water supply (CWS). Table 15 provides data about water coverage. We observe that this indicator is excellent for Ramallah and Tulkarm and very good for Jericho (WC = 89%) and Hebron (WC = 86%).  Table 16 provides data concerning water losses (WL). It is very high in Jenin and Tulkarm (40% and 44%), high in Ramallah and Hebron (23 and 30%) and acceptable in Jericho (14%). Table 17 shows data about the continuity of water supply (CWS). This indicator is excellent for Tulkarm, bad for Ramallah (54%) and Jerihco (62%) and very bad for Hebron (3%) and Jenin (17%).

Jenin 17
Tulkarm 100 Ramallah 54 Jericho 62 Hebron 3 According to data presented in Tables 15-17, water authority and experts' opinion, the severity and likelihood scores were established for water coverage (WC), water losses (WL) and the continuity of water supply (CWS). The risk is low to medium for water coverage. It is high to extreme for water losses. The risk of the continuity of water supply is high in Jerico, low in Tulkarm and extreme in the other cities. Figure 4 shows the experts' opinion concerning the importance of the water services indicators. The continuity of water supply (CWS) is ranked first with w = 0.385, followed by the ratio of water losses (WL) with w = 0.334 and the ratio of water coverage (WC) with w = 0.281. of water supply (CWS). The risk is low to medium for water coverage. It is high to extreme for water losses. The risk of the continuity of water supply is high in Jerico, low in Tulkarm and extreme in the other cities. Figure 4 shows the experts' opinion concerning the importance of the water services indicators. The continuity of water supply (CWS) is ranked first with w = 0.385, followed by the ratio of water losses (WL) with w = 0.334 and the ratio of water coverage (WC) with w = 0.281. The risk score for water services is determined from the risk score of different indicators (Table  18) and the weights of these indicators (Table 19). Table 20 provides the obtained results. It shows that this risk is extreme for Jenin and Hebron, high for Ramallah and Jericho and medium for Tulkarm.  The risk score for water services is determined from the risk score of different indicators (Table 18) and the weights of these indicators (Table 19). Table 20 provides the obtained results. It shows that this risk is extreme for Jenin and Hebron, high for Ramallah and Jericho and medium for Tulkarm. Table 18. Risk score (RS) for water coverage (WC), water losses (WL) and the continuity of the water supply (CWS).

Water Governance Indicators
According to the Palestinian water law [3], water governance is shared between the Palestinian Water Authority (PWA) and the Water Sector Regulatory Council (WSRC). The former (PWA) is the main water regulator with responsibilities for regulation, planning, management, monitoring and cooperation with international agencies and donors. The latter (WSRC) was established in 2014 as a financially and administratively independent institution, which reports directly to the Palestinian cabinet of ministers. It has a role of monitoring the water services operations, including production, transportation, distribution, consumption and wastewater. However, according to experts' opinion, the separation in the roles of these two institutions is not yet clear because of the deficiency in the application of the water law. Access to water data and information about the water system is still very difficult because these data are fragmented in many institutions and bodies, which do not cooperate in data collection and sharing. A comprehensive water information system is still missing. Consequently, both the civil society and water operators meet difficulties to access reliable water data. The Palestinian water system suffers from strong centralization. According to the experts' opinion, water stakeholders, such as local authorities, water providers and civil society, are not really engaged in the water system evaluation and decision-making. Table 21 summarizes the experts' opinion about the Palestinian water governance. The severity and likelihood scores for water governance were determined according to this table and experts' opinions. Table 22 summarizes the experts' opinion. The risk is extreme for water information access (AWI) and high for both roles and responsibilities (RR) and stakeholder engagement (SE).  Figure 5 and Table 23 show the experts' opinion concerning the importance of the water governance indicators. The indicator roles and responsibilities (RR) is considered as the most important (w = 0.39), which shows the necessity to take action for the clarification of the responsibilities in the water sector. Stakeholder engagement (SE) is also considered as important (w = 0.33); this opinion is related to the low engagement of water stakeholders in water governance. Authorities should reinforce water governance through decentralization and engagement of both the private sector and the civil society in water governance. Access to water information (AWI) is considered as less important with w = 0.28. The risk score for water governance is determined from Tables 22 and 23. It is equal to 16, which indicates that this risk is classified as extreme. 3.5. Determination of the Water Security Index Figure 6 and Table 24 show the experts' opinion concerning the importance of the categories of water resources (WR), water services (WS) and water governance (WG) indicators. The category water resources is ranked first with w = 0.39, followed by water governance with w = 0.33 and water services with w = 0.28. responsibilities in the water sector. Stakeholder engagement (SE) is also considered as important (w = 0.33); this opinion is related to the low engagement of water stakeholders in water governance. Authorities should reinforce water governance through decentralization and engagement of both the private sector and the civil society in water governance. Access to water information (AWI) is considered as less important with w = 0.28. The risk score for water governance is determined from Tables 22 and 23. It is equal to 16, which indicates that this risk is classified as extreme.    The global risk score is determined from the scores of water resources (Table 14), water services (Table 20) and water governance (risk score = 16) and the correspondent weights in Table 24. Table 25 provides the details of the calculation of this score. It shows that the risk is ranked high for Tulkarm and extreme for the four other cities. It could be observed that the risk related to water resources is the major contributor to global risk, followed by water governance. services with w = 0.28.
The global risk score is determined from the scores of water resources (Table 14), water services (Table 20) and water governance (risk score = 16) and the correspondent weights in Table 24. Table  25 provides the details of the calculation of this score. It shows that the risk is ranked high for Tulkarm and extreme for the four other cities. It could be observed that the risk related to water resources is the major contributor to global risk, followed by water governance.  the collection of data related to water resources, water services and water governance, the analysis of collected data using the risk matrix and SWARA methods. It allowed the authors to determine the water security score and index for five Palestinian cities. Results show an extreme risk for water resource in Palestine because of the extreme risk of the water resources availability and the high to extreme risk of annual precipitation and the ratio of treated wastewater. This result shows that the Palestinian authorities should engage urgent actions for the protection of water resources, the increase in wastewater treatment capacity and the reduction in water consumption.
Water governance risk is ranked as extreme. Palestinian authorities should reduce this risk through a clear definition and separation of water responsibilities, a decentralization of water governance to reinforce the engagement of local authorities and other water stakeholders and, finally, the construction of a comprehensive water information system with easy access to water stakeholders.
Finally, the risk of water services is ranked high to extreme because of the high water losses and high distribution in the continuity of water services. Urgent actions are required to reduce water losses through renovation and maintenance of the water distribution system. Actions are also required to increase the capacity and efficiency of the water distribution system to improve the continuity of water services.