1 Urban Water Challenges
2 The City Blueprint
-
Provide a clear separation between indicators describing urban trends and pressures (on which local water managers have a negligible influence, e.g., current climatic conditions, demographic chances etc.) and indicators measuring IWRM performance in cities. The improved performance framework (CBF) will be more adequate in showing the potential for improvements and enhances city-to-city learning because emphasizes the city’s own IWRM performance.
-
Develop a separate framework describing the most important trends and pressures that may limit IWRM or, on the contrary, poses opportunity windows. This supplementary framework is key in providing context and may assist in the setting of priorities.
-
Include solid waste indicators as important urban performers to decrease water pollution.
-
Update existing indicators by including new developments in data accuracy and availability.
-
Design a coherent framework in which indicators and categories make a balanced contribution to the overall score, i.e., the BCI.
-
Select an aggregation method that penalizes unbalanced indicator scores in order to express the urgency to improve the lowest scoring indicators.
-
Make sure that the indicator results are easy to understand, timely and relevant, and useful for the end-users, i.e., policy makers, decision makers, water managers and citizens in general.
3 Methodology
3.1 Step 1: Development of the Trends and Pressures Framework
3.2 Step 2: Improvements of the City Blueprint Indicators
3.3 Step 3: Indicator Rearrangements and Aggregation Method
4 Results
4.1 Step 1: Development of the Trends and Pressures Framework
Indicator | Unit X | Method/Equation | Source |
---|---|---|---|
1. Urbanization rate | % per year | Score = −0.114X2 + 1.3275X + 0.1611 r = 0.999 | CIA 2014
|
2. Burden of disease | DALY’s | Classification World Health Organization | WHO 2014
|
3. Education rate | % primary education | Score = −10−5X3 + 0.0012X2 – 0.0426X + 4.3057 r = 0.974 | World 2012
|
4. Political instability | World Bank standardized | Classification of the World Bank | World 2013a
|
5.1 Urban drainage flood | %flooded | Score = 6.10−8 X – 2.10−5X−4 + 0.0014X3 – 0.0526X2 + 0.8302X – 3.8745 r = 0.992 | EEA 2015b
|
5.2. River peak discharges | % flooded | Classification of the EEA (2012) | EEA 2015b
|
5.3. Sea level rise | % flooded | Classification of the EEA (2012) | EEA 2015b
|
5.4. Land subsidence | Self-assessment | 0 = No infrastructure damage, no flood risk. 1 = Low infrastructure damage expected, no increase in flood risk expected. 2 = Infrastructure damage or <0.50 m subsidence. by 2100 in substantial urban area. 3 = Serious infrastructural damage or <1 m subsidence substantial urban area by 2100. 4 = As 3 with Imminent flood risk. | Case studies Local reports |
6.1. Freshwater scarcity | % use of renewable resource | FAO 2015
| |
6.2. Groundwater scarcity | % use of renewable resource | Classification of the IGRAC (2010) | FAO 2015
|
6.3. Salinization and seawater intrusion | Self-assessment | 0 = Both not reported and city not vulnerable 1 = Both not reported but city is vulnerable in the coming century and please use capitals in One/both 2 = one/both not reported but imminent threat 3 = one/both reported 4 = one/both reported seriously affecting the city | Case studies Local reports |
7.1. Surface water quality | WQI (Water Quality Index) | Score = [100 – WQI] / 25 | EPI 2010
|
7.2. Biodiversity | % Water (effect on ecosystems) index | For EU: % water bodies less than good qualitya
For other: Score = 100 – [Water (effects on ecosystems)/25] | EEA 2015a
EPI 2010
|
8. Heat island effect | Average of the following two scores: (1) Number of hot days >35 °C and nights >20 °Cb
(2) Green space coverage (%)c
| EEA 2015b
EEA 2012
| |
9. Economic pressure | GDP capita−1 day−1
| Score = −0.783 ln(X) + 4.115 r = 0.995 | IMF 2013
|
10. Unemployment rate | % | Score = 0.0002X2 + 0.5077X – 0.8356 r = 0.989 If <2 % score is 0 points and if x > 20 score is 4 | World 2014
|
11. Poverty rate | % <2US$ day−1
| Score = −0.0001X2 + 0.0404X + 1.1686 r = 0.994 | World 2015
|
12. Inflation rate | % year−1
| Score = 0.0025X3 – 0.0744X2 + 0.866X + 0.0389 r = 0.996 | World 2013b
|
4.2 Step 2: Improvements of the City Blueprint Indicators
4.2.1 The Use of Wastewater Treatment as Indicator for Surface Water Quality
4.2.2 Public Participation
4.2.3 Indicator Boundaries
4.2.4 Water Footprint Indicators
4.2.5 Solid Waste
4.3 Step 3: Indicator Rearrangements and Aggregation Method
I. Water quality |
1. Secondary WWT
|
2. Tertiary WWT
| |
3. Groundwater quality | |
II. Solid waste treatment |
4. Solid waste collected
|
5. Solid waste recycled
| |
6. Solid waste energy recovered
| |
III. Basic water services | 7. Access to drinking water |
8. Access to sanitation | |
9. Drinking water quality | |
IV. Wastewater treatment |
10. Nutrient recovery
|
11. Energy recovery
| |
12. Sewage sludge recycling
| |
13. WWT energy efficiency | |
V. Infrastructure | 14. Stormwater separation |
15. Average age sewer
| |
16. Water system leakages
| |
17. Operation cost recovery
| |
VI. Climate robustness |
18. Green space
|
19. Climate adaptation | |
20. Drinking water consumption | |
21. Climate-robust buildings | |
VII. Governance | 22. Management and action plans |
23. Public participation
| |
24. Water efficiency measures | |
25. Attractiveness |
4.3.1 Basic Water Services
4.3.2 Climate Robustness
4.3.3 Governance
4.3.4 Infrastructure
4.3.5 Aggregation Method
4.4 Examples
Dar es Salaam | Melbourne | Amsterdam | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Social | 1. Urbanization rate | 4 | 1 | 1 |
2. Burden of disease | 3 | 1 | 0 | |
3. Education rate | 3 | 0 | 1 | |
4. Political instability | 2 | 1 | 1 | |
Environmental | 5. Water scarcity | 2 | 1 | 1 |
6. Flood risk | 3 | 2 | 3 | |
7. Water quality | 1 | 2 | 2 | |
8. Heat risk | 3 | 4 | 1 | |
Financial | 9. Economic pressure | 4 | 0 | 1 |
10. Unemployment rate | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
11. Poverty rate | 4 | 0 | 0 | |
12. Inflation rate | 3 | 2 | 1 |