Ain Shams Engineering Journal (2018) 9, 173–186

Ain Shams University

Ain Shams Engineering Journal

www.elsevier.com/locate/asej
www.sciencedirect.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

The water poverty index as an assistant tool for

drawing strategies of the Egyptian water sector
Inas Kamal El-Din El-Gafy *

Strategic Research Unit, National Water Research Center, NWRC Admin. Bldg., El-Qanater 13621, Qalyubia, Egypt

Received 6 March 2015; revised 11 August 2015; accepted 29 September 2015

Available online 5 November 2015

KEYWORDS
Water poverty index;
Water accessibility;
Water availability;
Managing water use;
Environment;
Gender
Abstract Developing strategies for the water sector in integrated manner is essential. The present
study details the development and uses of the Water Poverty Index (WPI) to be applied as a holistic
tool for the conceptualization of water strategies in Egypt. The WPI herein considers the following:
(i) water availability; (ii) access to water taking into account energy as a factor to water system oper-
ation; (iii) capacity to manage the water system considering the gender perspective; (iv) allocation of
water uses considering the economic value of water; and (v) quality of the environment. The devel-
oped WPI was applied at the Egyptian governorates level and priorities to be achieved in their water
sector were determined. The study concluded that, WPI as a summarized index combines into a sin-
gle number a cluster of data is considered a robust tool to assist decision makers in determining
priority to conduct prospect development plans in the water sector.
Ó 2015 Ain Shams University. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under
the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction to have an informed and holistic view when making decisions

Assessing progress, determining the priority work activities,
and developing strategies for the water sector require an inter-
disciplinary approach and need a wide range of issues to be
addressed [1]. These issues should relate to water management
for sustainable development, in keeping with the principles of
integrated water resources management. With the various uses
of water and the assortment of factors that impact develop-
ment in the water sector, it is important for decision makers
* Tel.: +20 01007607094.
E-mail address: inaa_2r@yahoo.com.
Peer review under responsibility of Ain Shams University.
Production and hosting by Elsevier
regarding the water resource. Indices and indicators effort has
gone into the development of policy instruments which sup-
port decision-making in planning, targeting and prioritization.
Indices and indicators are increasingly recognized as powerful
tools for such purposes [2]. Among these indices and indicators
is the Water Poverty Index (WPI).
WPI is holistic water management tool designed to
contribute to more effective water management and water
resource evaluation, in keeping with the sustainable livelihoods
approach to evaluate development progress [3]. The Water
Poverty Index (WPI) can be estimated at local, district or
national level [3,4]. The index has found significance in policy
making as an effective water management tool, particularly in
resources allocation and prioritization processes [2].
The WPI integrates a number of aspects that refract major
preoccupations in developing countries related to physical
availability of water resources, extent of access to water and

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2015.09.008
2090-4479 Ó 2015 Ain Shams University. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
174
sanitation, people’s ability and capacity to manage water for
sustaining access, use of water for different purposes, and
the environmental factors which impact on the water supply.
In Egypt, the challenges facing the water sector are enor-
mous and require the mobilization of all resources and the man-
agement of these resources in an integrated manner [5]. In Egypt
several ministries are involved in achieving progress in the water
sector. The most significant are Ministry of Water Resources
and Irrigation, Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation,
and Ministry of Housing, Utilities and New Communities. The
previous ministries are all directly and actively participating in
the management of Egypt’s water sector. Several other min-
istries have a more indirect role with respect to law development
and enforcement and monitoring and inspection.
Egypt has endorsed several policies and strategies to
achieve progress in the water sector. General objectives of
the national policy of Egypt related to progress in the water
sector include the following[6–8]: increase of the economic
value of water, increase of the per capita GDP, protection of
the Nile and other freshwater resources from pollution, exten-
sion of sewage networks, extension of domestic supply net-
works, promotion of water conservation in domestic,
agriculture and industry use, and the support of the develop-
ment in various economic sectors.
When developing strategies in an integrated manner, deter-
mining prioritization in the water management decision is a
vital issue. To assist the water managers and policy makers in
Egypt in this area, the current research was carried out, where,
through this research, the WPIs of 22 Egyptian governorates
were developed, calculated, and analyzed. The governorates
most in need to improve their water sector were determined.
The weaknesses in the water sector and the priorities in the
water management decision at each governorate were verified.
2. Water poverty index
A set of comparative performance indices were applied to eval-
uate water sustainability and progress and priorities for water
policies intervention. Among them, as shown in Table 1, are
the water availability index, the water scarcity index, the Water
Resources Vulnerability Index, Social Water Stress Index,
Water Stress Indicator (WSI), and the Water Poverty Index
(WPI) [4,9–11].
The WPI is helpful and holistic tool to identify areas of
greatest need, thereby enabling prioritization of action in the
water sector [12]. It is a mechanism for determining the prior-
itization in developing the water sector [13]. WPI is an evalu-
ation tool to be applied at a variety of scales enabling more
informed decisions to be made [2,3].
The WPI integrates a number of aspects that refract major
concerns in the water sectors, where, five components of WPI
composite are [2,14,4,13,15] (i) Resources (R): measure the
water availability, (ii) Access (A): indicates the accessibility
of water for human use taking into account the distance to a
safe source and the time needed to collect the water for house-
hold and other needs such as irrigation and industrial use, (iii)
Capacity (c): represents human and financial capacity to man-
age the system, (iv) Use (U): captures the actual amount of
water being used and extracted from the system. The water
use includes domestic, agricultural and industrial use. The effi-
ciency of how water resources are used is also assessed in this
Inas Kamal El-Din El-Gafy
Table 1 The most applied water sustainability and manage-
ment indices.
Index Definition
Available Water AWR measures the ratio of the
Resources per capita renewable water in the hydrological
(AWR) cycle to the number of people
Water Scarcity Index WSI measures the ratio of the
(WSI) Available Water to water requirements
for basic human needs (drinking water
for survival, water for human hygiene,
water for sanitation services, and
modest household needs for preparing
food
Water Resources WRVI separates the water needs into
Vulnerability Index industrial, agricultural, and domestic
(WRVI) sectors, as well as incorporated water
lost from reservoir evaporation
Social Water Stress Index SWSI integrates the capacity of a
(SWSI) society to consider how economic,
technological, or other means affect the
overall freshwater availability status of
a region
Water Stress Indicator WSI recognizes environmental water
(WSI) requirements as an important
parameter of available freshwater
Water Poverty Index WPI is holistic water management tool
(WPI) designed to contribute to more effective
water management and water resource
evaluation. WPI combines data on the
local water resources, access, use, social
and economic capacity and water
related environmental quality to be
used by local people and water
development agencies to monitor
progress in the provision of the water at
the community, national, basin, and
region level
component, and (v) Environment (E): evaluates the factors
which impact on the water supply.
Each of the five components is made up of a number of sub-
components (indicators) that can be directly measured, col-
lected, or calculated [2,3]. The selection of sub-components
of the index differs as the countries may have different ways
of assessing their progress in water sector. Thus, countries
identify their own sub-components in keeping with the WPI
structure, maximizing the use of existing data, and minimizing
the need for more data collection [2].
Two aggregation processes are used in WPI. The first aggre-
gation was used to combine the sub-components into the five
WPI components. Once these values for the five WPI compo-
nents are obtained they are aggregated to obtain the final index
value. The most common aggregation methods that are used
for calculating the WPI and its components are the weighted
arithmetic mean (Eqs. (1) and (1.a)) and the weighted geomet-
ric mean methods (Eqs. (2) and (2.a)). The previous equations
are applied by Sullivan et al. [3], Sullivan et al. [12], Xin [13],
Sullivan et al. [14], Manandhar et al. [15], Foguet and Garriga
[16], Sullivan et al. [17], Yahaya et al. [18], Fenwick [19], and
Jemmali and Matoussi [20].
The weighted arithmetic mean method, the widely used one
is as follows:
Water poverty index for water sector strategies 175
Pn
wi Xi Behaira, Alexandria, Ismailia, Elswis, Port Said, and Cairo)
WPI ¼ Pi¼1
n ð1Þ
i¼1 wi
are located in Lower Egypt. Four of them are located in Middle
Pz Egypt (Giza, Beni suef, Fayoum, and Menia). Five are located
ws xs in Upper Egypt (Assuit, Souhag, Qena, Luxer, and Aswan) and
Xi ¼ Ps¼1
z ð1:aÞ
s¼1 ws
the five frontier governorates cover Sinai and the deserts that lie
west and east of the Nile. The five frontier governorates (North
The weighted geometric mean method is Sinai, South Sinai, Red Sea, Matruh, and New valley) did not
!1=Pn wi consider through the study due to their own characteristic
Y n i¼1

WPI ¼ Xwi i ð2Þ (desert governorates). In this study the relative comparison is
i¼1 carried out between the Egyptian governorates that are having
similar water resources condition and the development of their
!1=P z ws water sector should be the same.
Y
z s¼1

Xi ¼ xws s
s¼1
where WPI is Water Poverty Index value for a particular loca-
tion, Xi refers to WPI component i (R, A, U, C, and E), xs is
the WPI sub-components, wi and ws are the weight applied
to each component and sub-components of the WPI respec-
tively (through this study, equal weights, with value 1, are
given to each component and sub-component of the WPI
where it is assumed that all of them have the same impor-
tance), and n and z are the number of WPI component and
its sub-components respectively.
WPI has been applied in many countries. WPI can be applied
at the national scale or pilot area [17–19], basin scale [13,15,16],
community scale [20,21], or at the region scale [22–24]. After
reviewing the construction procedures of the previously devel-
oped WPI, it was found that different methods are applied in
developing each index. These methods mainly differ in the selec-
tion of sub-components (indicators) of the index.
ð2:aÞ
4. Methodology
Headed for accomplishing the objective of the research the
following activities were carried out:
(i) Calculating the WPI of each governorate. This activity
includes the following: (a) determining the appropriate
local indicators of WPI, (b) calculating the WPI sub-
indices, and (c) calculating the WPI components. The
activity included collecting data and information
required for the current research.
(ii) Building a database and GIS for WPI and its components
and sub-components for the governorates under study.
(iii) Analyzing the calculated WPI and its components and
sub-indices, and
(iv) Determining the priority work activities in the water sec-
tor at each governorate.

3. The Egyptian governorates

4.1. Selecting the WPI sub-components
Egypt is divided for administrative purposes into 27 gover-
norates. Thirteen of these governorates (Kafr EL-Sheikh, The sub-components of WPI, shown in Table 2, for the
Gharbia, Dakahlia, Damietta, El-sharkia, Monofia, Qalyubia, Egyptian environment were selected by carrying out

Table 2 Structure of WPI and its variables that are selected to be applied in Egypt at the governorate level.
WPI component Sub-component (indicators) Type Source of data
Resources (R)  R1: Water production per capita Data [25]
Access (A)  A1: % Population with access to piped water Data [25]
 A2: % Population with access to sanitation Data [25]
 A3: Per capita share of electricitya Data [25]
Capacity (C)  C1: Education index Data [26]
 C2: Under-five mortality rateb Data [25]
 C3: GDP per capita (Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Data [26]
 C4: Gender-related Development Index (GDI)c Calculated applying Eqs. (3) and (4) [25]
Use (U)  U1: Per capita potable water consumption Data [25]
 U2: Share of agriculture water in GDP Calculated applying Eq. (5) [27]
 U3: Share of Industrial water in GDP Calculated applying Eq. (6) [27]
 U4: Economic water productivity ($/m3)d Calculated applying Eq. (7) [28]
Environment (E)  E1: Water Quality Index Calculated applying Eq. (8) [29]
 E2: Agricultural Drainage Indicator Calculated applying Eq. (9) [29]
a
This indicator was selected to represent the accessibility for electricity that could be used for supplying water (pumping drinking and irrigation
or desalination.
b
This indicator was selected to represent the capacity of people to managing the use of clean water. Under-five mortality rate may be caused
due to using unclear water. The under-five mortality rate is one of the most important social indicators of development. It is an indicator of
quality of life.
c
Gender was considered as both men and women have to be involved and have an equivalent role in managing the sustainable use of water
resources and allocation of advantages.
d
The economic value of water is essential for rational allocation of scarce water across locations, uses, and users.
176
the following steps: (i) selecting preliminary set of indicators
that are considered by researchers in the previous application
of WPI in different countries was based on the literature
review on water resource management and existing indicators
of WPI, (ii) designing a questionnaire to represent the prelim-
inary set of suggested indicators, (iii) distributing the designed
questionnaire and conducting consultation with local stake-
holders and experts from different authorities in Egypt mainly
in the Ministry of Water resources and Irrigation, Ministry of
Agricultural and land Reclamation, and Egyptian Environ-
mental Affair Agency, (iv) performing statistical analyses for
the collected data and information, and finally (v) based on
the different obtained results from the previous activities the
final indicators of the index were selected.
4.2. Calculation of the WPI sub-components
Some of WPI sub-components were taken as data directly
from the source (as shown in Table 2), while, the remaining
components were calculated as follows:
4.2.1. Gender development index (C4)
The calculation of the Gender related development index
(GDI) comprises three steps that are [30] as follows:
(1) The first step is to calculate three female indices (FI) and
three male indices (MI) that are educational index, life
expectancy index, and income index which are calcu-
lated for the 22 Egyptian governorates by applying Eq.
(3) same approach as UNDP 2003 [30].
(2)
va  vmin
DI ¼ ð3Þ
vmax  vmin
where: DI Dimension Index, va Actual value of the
index sub-indicators, vmin Minimum value of the index
sub-indicators, and vmax maximum value of the index
sub-indicators.
The collated data required for calculating the index
sub-indicators are as follows:
 Female adult literacy index and female gross enrollment
index for calculating the female education index, and male
adult literacy index and male gross enrollment index for cal-
culating the male education index.
 Female max life expectancy, female min life expectancy,
and Female actual life expectancy for calculating male life
expectancy and male max life expectancy, male min life
expectancy, and male actual life expectancy for calculating
male life expectancy.
 Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for each governorate is
applied to present the female and male income index.
(3) Combining the female and male indices in a way that
penalizes differences in achievement between men and
women. The resulting index, referred to as the equally
distributed index, is calculated according to Eq. (4) same
approach as UNDP 2003 [30].
EDI ¼ ðFPS  ðFI1f Þ þ MPS  MI1f Þ
1=1f
ð4Þ
Inas Kamal El-Din El-Gafy
where: EDI is equally distributed index, FPS is the female
population share, FI is the female index, MPS is the male
population share, MI is the male index, and e measures
the aversion to inequality (the value 2 is used for e in calcu-
lating the indices. This value places a moderate penalty on
gender inequality in achievement.
(4) Calculating the overall index by combining the equally
distributed indices by applying Eq. (5) same approach
as UNDP [30].
X
i¼3
GDI ¼ EDIi =3 ð5Þ
i¼1
where, GDI is gender development index.
4.2.2. Share of agriculture and industrial water in GDP (U2 and
U3)
Share of agriculture water of governorate (j) in GDP (GDPAj )
and share of agriculture industrial water of governorate (j) in
GDP (GDPIj ) were calculated through the study by applying
Eqs. (6) and (7) respectively as follows:
GDPAj ¼ WAj  GDPAC =WAC ð6Þ
GDPIj ¼ WIj  GDPIC =WIC ð7Þ
where WAj and WIj are the agricultural and industrial water
consumption at governorate (j), GDPAC and GDPIC are the
country agricultural and industrial GDP respectively, and
WAC and WIC are the country agricultural and industrial water
consumption respectively.
4.2.3. Economic value of irrigation water (U4)
The current study considers the economic value of irrigation
water. The economic value of irrigation water is calculated
by applying Eq. (8) same approach as El-Gafy and El_Ganzori
[31]:
X
i¼n
Wej ¼ ðNij  Cij Þ=Wij ð8Þ
i¼1
where Wej is economic value of irrigation water ($/m3) at gov-
ernorate (j), Nij is return per hectare from crop (i) at gover-
norate (j) ($/hectare), Cij is cost non-water inputs used per
hectare for cultivating crop (i) at governorate (j) ($/hectare),
and Wij is quantity of water applied per hectare for crop (i)
at governorate (j) (m3/hectare), and n is the number of culti-
vated crops at governorate (j).
4.2.4. Water Quality Index (E1)
Water Quality Index (WQIj ) of governorate (j) is calculated by
applying Eq. (9) that is used by El-Sherbini and El-
Moattassem [32]:
Pn
Wi Iij
WQIj ¼ Pi¼1n ð9Þ
i¼1 Wi
where Ii is annual average of water pollution indicator (i) in
Nile level at governorate (j). Due to the availability, the consid-
ered indicators in the study are dissolved oxygen (DO), Bio-
chemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), Chemical Oxygen
Demand (COD), and Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), Wi is
the weight applied to each water quality indicator, and equal
Water poverty index for water sector strategies
weights are given to the indicators. The indicators of WQI are
normalized, as will be illustrated in Section 4.4, by applying
Eqs. (2) and (3).
4.2.5. Agricultural drainage indicator (E2)
Agricultural Drainage Indicator (ADIj ) is calculated by apply-
ing Eq. (10) as follows:
ADIj ¼ Lj =Aj ð10Þ
where Lj is a territory benefiting from covered drainage system
at governorate (j), and Aj is agricultural area at governorate (j).
4.3. Normalization of the WPI sub-components
The sub-components of WPI were normalized in order to
exclude the inflection of different dimensions and enable the
user of the index to carry out relative comparison among the
governorates to determine the priorities of accomplishing
development in the water sector in these governorates. The
normalization process is carried out by applying the Min–
Max normalization technique (continuous rescaling tech-
nique). Min–Max normalization technique assigns the lowest
ranking governorates a WPI with score of 0 and the highest
ranking one a score of 1, same approach as [33,34]. Each
sub-component of WPI score (Stij ) for a given governorate (j)
at time (t) is calculated by applying Eqs. (10) and (11) same
approach as Juwana et al. [33] and Juwana et al. [34]. Eq.
(11) is used when the MinðStj Þ of the indicator is the least pre-
ferred value and MaxðStj Þ is the most preferred value, where
Table 3 Classification of WPI and its components and sub-components and proposed priority for their development.
Classificationa
Range Class Definition
0.2 Very The governorate achieves from 0% to 20%
poor development in its water sector compared to the
highest governorate
>0.2 Poor The governorate achieves from >20% to 40%
to 0.4 development in its water sector compared to the
highest governorate
>0.4 Good The governorate achieves from >40% to 60%
to 0.6 development in its water sector compared to the
highest governorate
>0.6 Very The governorate achieves from >60% to 80%
to 0.8 good development in its water sector compared to the
highest governorate
>0.8 Excellent The governorate achieves from 80% to 100%
to 1.0 development in its water sector compared to the
highest governorate
a
The classification is based on a relative comparison with the governorate with highest WPI, components, and sub-components in the time of
assessment.
177
Eq. (12) is used for the opposite situation (for normalizing
three indicators of the Water Quality Index that are BOD,
COD, and TDS indicators):
Stia  MinðStj Þ
stij ¼ ð11Þ
MaxðStj Þ  MinðStj Þ
Stia  MinðStj Þ
stij ¼ 1  ð12Þ
MaxðStj Þ  MinðStj Þ
where Stia is the actual value of the indicator, and MinðStj Þ and
MaxðStj Þ are the minimum and maximum values of the indica-
tor across all governorates (j) at time (t).
4.4. Calculating the final WPI
Headed for selecting the method calculating the final WPI and
its components, an appraisal between the weighted arithmetic
mean (Eqs. (1) and (1.a)) and the weighted geometric mean
methods (Eqs. (2) and (2.a)) was carried out (as will be illustrat-
ing in Section 5.2). According to this appraisal, the weighted
arithmetic mean was selected to be applied in the current study.
4.5. WPI interpretation
For better interpretation for WPI and its components and
sub-components, the maximum value of 1 and the minimum
value of 0 were classified, applying the same approach as
[32–34], as shown in Table 3. The classification of WPI of each
governorate, and its components and sub-components sctij was
Priority
No. Definition
1 The components and the sub-components parameters in the
governorate should have very high priority in the water sector
strategy of the country. It requires very high attention from
decision and policy makers
2 The components and the sub-components parameters in the
governorate should have high priority in the water sector
strategy of the country. It requires high attention from decision
and policy makers
3 The components and the sub-components parameters in the
governorate should have medium priority in the water sector
strategy of the country. It requires the third priority attention
from decision and policy makers comparing to the governorates
of the above class
4 The components and the sub-components parameters in the
governorate should have low priority in the water sector strategy
of the country. It requires the fourth priority attention from
decision and policy makers comparing to the governorates of the
above class
5 Having the excellent classification does not mean that the
governorate does not need any development. However,
comparing to the other governorates, the components and the
sub-components of the index could be in the last priority in the
water sector strategy of the country
178 Inas Kamal El-Din El-Gafy

Figure 1 Appraisal between arithmetic and geometric aggregation methods.

Water poverty index for water sector strategies
determined using the categorical scaling method by applying
Eq. (13), same approach as [20]:
8 Moreover, the correlation between the final WPI calculated
>
> very poor if sctij ¼ 0:0 to 0:2
>
> poor if sct > 0:2 to 0:4
>
> The analysis showed positive correlation between the WPI cal-
< ij
SCij ¼ Good if sctij > 0:4 to 0:6
t
ð13Þ
>
>
>
> very Good if sc t
> 0:6 to 0:8
>
> ij
: However, the weighted arithmetic mean method (Eqs. (1)
Excellent if sctij > 0:8 to 1:0
5. Results and discussion
5.1. The selected WPI sub-components
Fourteen sub-components (indicators) were selected to be
applied within the developed WPI index. The selected indica-
tors of the developed WPI are illustrated in Table 2. Through
the study, energy, economic water productivity, and the gender
prospective indicators were considered within the index (these
indicators were considering for the first time within the devel-
oped index in this study). Energy was selected to represent the
accessibility for energy that could be used for supplying water
(pumping drinking and irrigation or desalination). Economic
water productivity was selected as the economic value of water
is essential for rational allocation of scarce water across loca-
tions, uses, and users. Gender was considered as both men and
women should be involved and have an equivalent role in
managing the sustainable use of water resources and allocation
of advantages.
5.2. Selecting the calculation method of WPI and its components
The correlation between the calculated capacity components
(the capacity components were selected as example represent-
ing the other WPI components) applying the weighted
arithmetic mean (Eq. (1.a)) and the weighted geometric mean
methods (Eq. (2.a)) was evaluated. The analysis showed
Figure 2 WPI of Egyptian governorates.
179
moderate to strong positive correlation between the two meth-
ods with correlation coefficient = 0.81 as shown in Fig. 1a.
by applying the two methods (Eqs. (1) and (2)) was analyzed.
culated by two methods with correlation coefficient = 0.93 as
shown in Fig. 1b.
and (1.a)) was selected to calculate the WPI and its components
in the current study since the study found that the weighted geo-
metric mean has ambiguity in some cases, where, the weighted
geometric mean method results in a zero score for the WPI com-
ponent same as for the final WPI when any of the aggregated
components has a zero value, as shown in Fig. 1b for the WPI
components at Al-Fayoum and Kafr el-Sheikh governorates
and Fig. 1d for the final WPI of Al-Minya governorate. More-
over, the analysis showed that the weighted geometric mean
method is extremely biased to the low score of WPI component
and sub-components. As an example, as shown in Fig. 1.c, if the
weighted geometric mean is applied the C component of
Dumyat governorate will have a low score and less rank com-
pared to the other governorates (such as Ismailia governorate)
in spite of that the aggregated components C1, C3, and C4 of
the governorate have high scores. The C component of Dumyat
governorate has this rank as its C2 sub-component has a low
score (0.02) in spite of that the other aggregated components
(C1, C3, and C4) have high scores.
5.3. Determining priorities in the country strategy of
development for the water sector of the Egyptian governorates
The calculated WPI and its components and sub-components
for year 2011 were analyzed to determine the priorities of mak-
ing development in their water sector applying the following
steps:
The study showed that the calculated WPIs of the Egyptian
governorates have scores that range from 0.20 (very poor) to
0.71 (very good), as shown in Fig. 2. Comparing to Cairo
180 Inas Kamal El-Din El-Gafy

a: Middle and South Delta governorates b: North Delta governorates

c : The canal governorates d: Middle Egypt

e: Upper Egypt

Figure 3 Pentagram of Egyptian governorates’ WPI components.

Water poverty index for water sector strategies 181

a: Resources component b: Resources sub-components

c: Access component d:Access sub- components

e: Capacity component f: Capacity sub- components

g: Uses component h: Uses sub-components

Figure 4 WPI components and sub-components of the Egyptian governorate.

182
i: Environment component j: Environment sub-components
Fig. 4 (continued)
governorate (the highest scoring WPI governorate) and
according to the criteria illustrated in Table 3 the following
are concluded:
(i) Al-Minya has to have the first priority in the water sec-
tor strategy of the country. It requires very high atten-
tion from decision and policy makers, where, the
governorate has a very poor WPI.
(ii) Eleven governorates (Bani Swaif, Suhaj, Asyut, Al-
Fayoum, Qina, Monufia, Behera, Sharqia, Luxer, Kafr
el-Sheikh, and Qalyubia) have poor WPI. These gover-
norates should have the second priority in the water sec-
tor strategy of the country.
(iii) Eight governorates (Gharbia, Dakahlia, Port Said,
Aswan, Alexandria, Ismailia, Damietta, and Giza) have
good WPI. These governorates should have the third
priority in the water sector strategy of the country.
(iv) Same as Cairo governorate Al-Suwayyis governorate
has a very good WPI. Al-Suwayyis governorate has a
WPI which is very near to that of Cairo governorate.
Having a very good WPI means that these governorates
need development in their water; however, they could
have the last priority in the water sector strategy of
the country comparing to the other governorates.
The benefit of ranking WPI of Egyptian governorates in
descending order is limited, as it does not specify the areas in
which variances between the governorates exist. Therefore,
the pentagram of WPI components for the WPI governorates
was developed, as shown in Fig. 3. The pentagram of WPI
components highlights the needs at each governorate to mod-
ify its water sector and determine the strengths and weaknesses
of the various WPI components. As example, as shown in
Fig. 3d, Al-Minya governorate (the lowest WPI governorate)
has three components that lie in the very poor area. Al-
Minya governorate needs to improve its R followed by A, C,
U, and E respectively.
For the development in each of the WPI sub-components of
Al-Minya governorate, the decision makers have to give prior-
ities for the sub-components staring from the lowest to the
highest one as example for A, and from Fig. 4d, the decision
makers should give priorities for A2, A3, and A1 respectively.
Moreover, headed for determining specifically the priority
activities to be achieved for accomplishing progress in the
Inas Kamal El-Din El-Gafy
water sector in all the Egyptian governorates, each WPI com-
ponent and sub-component were analyzed in detail as follows:
Resources (R): Comparing to the Cairo governorate (the
highest governorate in R), the R values of fourteen gover-
norates lie in the very poor level, and five governorates lie in
the poor level, one in the good level, and two in the excellent
level, as shown in Fig. 4a. As shown in Fig. 4b, Al-Minya gov-
ernorate has the lowest R score.
The priorities of developing the R component in the Egyp-
tian governorates are illustrated in Table 4 ranked from the
highest to the lowest one. The decision maker has to carry
out development starting with the governorates having the
highest priority (i.e. the governorates having priority 1)
according to the rank of the governorate as illustrated in
Table 4 for R. For example, the decision maker has to carry
out development for the R component in the Egyptian gover-
norates starting with Al-Minya, Asyut, Qina, Bani Swaif,
Sharqia, Beheira, Luxor, Al-Fayoum, Suhaj, Dakahlia,
Dumyat, Monufia, Aswan, and Qalyubia governorates respec-
tively. These governorates need to increase their available
water by achieving development actions such as increasing
the capacity and the number of drinking water treatment
plants, developing desalination plants, etc.
Access (A): Comparing to the Cairo governorate (the high-
est governorate in A component) the analysis of the access
component of the Egyptian governorates, as shown in
Fig. 4c, illustrated the following: (i) four governorates that
are Al-Minya, Qina, Bani Swaif, and Suhaj are the most need
governorates to improve their A component, where, the A val-
ues of theses governorates locate in the very poor level, (ii) five
governorates that are Monufia, Beheira, Asyut, and Sharqia
having A components lie in the poor level, and (iii) The A val-
ues of the other governorates lie in the good (five gover-
norates), very good (four governorates) and excellent (three
governorate beside Cairo) levels. The decision makers have
to carry out development for the A component in the Egyptian
governorates according to the priorities and the rank that are
illustrated in Table 4.
To carry out development in the A component of each gov-
ernorate, the decision makers have to improve the A sub-
components. The A sub-components of Egyptian governorates
and their levels are shown in Fig. 4d. For example, as shown in
previous figure, Al-Minya governorate needs to improve its
entire access components where the three sub-components lie
 Water poverty index for water sector strategies
Table 4 Priority and rank of the required development for the WPI components in the country strategy.
Resources Access Capacity Use Environment

G-ID Score Classification Priority Rank G-ID Score Classification Priority Rank G-ID Score Classification Priority Rank G-ID Score Classification Priority Rank G-ID Score Classification Priority Rank

G17 0.000 VP 1 1 G17 0.019 VP 1 1 G13 0.121 VP 1 1 G21 0.055 VP 1 1 G1 0.115 VP 1 1

G18 0.017 VP 1 2 G20 0.095 VP 1 2 G17 0.151 VP 1 2 G22 0.102 VP 1 2 G15 0.223 P 2 2
G20 0.020 VP 1 3 G16 0.119 VP 1 3 G16 0.242 P 2 3 G8 0.151 VP 1 3 G14 0.223 P 2 3
G16 0.027 VP 1 4 G19 0.151 VP 1 4 G2 0.281 P 2 4 G7 0.159 VP 1 4 G8 0.261 P 2 4
G10 0.039 VP 1 5 G3 0.245 P 2 5 G19 0.325 P 2 5 G16 0.176 VP 1 5 G9 0.367 P 2 5
G2 0.060 VP 1 6 G2 0.245 P 2 6 G4 0.340 P 2 6 G18 0.180 VP 1 6 G21 0.462 G 3 6
G21 0.079 VP 1 7 G18 0.263 P 2 7 G18 0.384 P 2 7 G11 0.196 VP 1 7 G12 0.483 G 3 7
G13 0.082 VP 1 8 G10 0.270 P 2 8 G20 0.398 P 2 8 G19 0.212 P 2 8 G18 0.520 G 3 8
G19 0.089 VP 1 9 G4 0.362 P 2 9 G10 0.440 G 3 9 G17 0.233 P 2 9 G19 0.529 G 3 9
G5 0.090 VP 1 10 G13 0.405 G 3 10 G3 0.459 G 3 10 G13 0.233 P 2 10 G3 0.546 G 3 10
G6 0.092 VP 1 11 G5 0.427 G 3 11 G11 0.459 G 3 11 G4 0.245 P 2 11 G13 0.556 G 3 11
G3 0.093 VP 1 12 G11 0.435 G 3 12 G6 0.491 G 3 12 G20 0.247 P 2 12 G16 0.596 G 3 12
G22 0.134 VP 1 13 G21 0.516 G 3 13 G5 0.513 G 3 13 G5 0.257 P 2 13 G17 0.613 VG 4 13
G11 0.143 VP 1 14 G22 0.530 G 3 14 G12 0.561 G 3 14 G3 0.259 P 2 14 G10 0.632 VG 4 14
G7 0.213 P 2 15 G9 0.626 VG 4 15 G22 0.580 G 3 15 G6 0.322 P 2 15 G4 0.640 VG 4 15
G4 0.215 P 2 16 G6 0.627 VG 4 16 G21 0.619 VG 4 16 G9 0.340 P 2 16 G6 0.664 VG 4 16
G8 0.287 P 2 17 G8 0.758 VG 4 17 G7 0.648 VG 4 17 G10 0.345 P 2 17 G7 0.693 VG 4 17
G12 0.312 P 2 18 G12 0.770 VG 4 18 G9 0.659 VG 4 18 G1 0.355 P 2 18 G11 0.748 VG 4 18
G1 0.385 P 2 19 G15 0.805 E 5 19 G1 0.694 VG 4 19 G2 0.362 P 2 19 G5 0.750 VG 4 19
G9 0.416 G 3 20 G7 0.806 E 5 20 G15 0.724 VG 4 20 G15 0.477 G 3 20 G2 0.767 VG 4 20
G15 0.988 E 5 21 G1 0.810 E 5 21 G8 0.751 VG 4 21 G12 0.568 G 3 21 G20 0.822 E 5 21
G14 1.000 E 5 22 G14 0.856 E 5 22 G14 0.753 VG 4 22 G14 0.713 VG 4 22 G22 0.895 E 5 22

183
 184
Table 5 Priority and rank of the required development for the WPI sub-components in the country strategy.
WPI sub-components

R1 C1 C2 C3 C4 A1 A2 A3

G- Score Classification Priority Rank G- Score Classification Priority Rank G- Score Classification Priority Rank G- Score Classification Priority Rank G- Score Classification Priority Rank G- Score Classification Priority Rank G- Score Classification Priority Rank G- Score Classification Priority Rank
ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID

G17 0.00 VP 1 1 G13 0.00 VP 1 1 G4 0.00 VP 1 1 G13 0.00 VP 1 1 G17 0.00 VP 1 1 G20 0.00 VP 1 1 G17 0.00 VP 1 1 G3 0.00 VP 1 1
G18 0.02 VP 1 2 G16 0.07 VP 1 2 G7 0.01 VP 1 2 G17 0.05 VP 1 2 G13 0.19 VP 1 2 G18 0.01 VP 1 2 G21 0.10 VP 1 2 G17 0.02 VP 1 2
G20 0.02 VP 1 3 G17 0.08 VP 1 3 G21 0.05 VP 1 3 G16 0.07 VP 1 3 G16 0.29 P 2 3 G17 0.04 VP 1 3 G20 0.22 P 2 3 G16 0.03 VP 1 3
G16 0.03 VP 1 4 G18 0.14 VP 1 4 G11 0.09 VP 1 4 G18 0.12 VP 1 4 G18 0.29 P 2 4 G16 0.04 VP 1 4 G10 0.25 P 2 4 G19 0.05 VP 1 4
G10 0.04 VP 1 5 G21 0.18 VP 1 5 G12 0.10 VP 1 5 G19 0.25 P 2 5 G19 0.33 P 2 5 G19 0.04 VP 1 5 G16 0.29 P 2 5 G20 0.07 VP 1 5
G21 0.06 VP 1 6 G19 0.22 P 2 6 G5 0.10 VP 1 6 G21 0.28 P 2 6 G20 0.38 P 2 6 G4 0.13 VP 1 6 G19 0.36 P 2 6 G11 0.07 VP 1 6
G2 0.08 VP 1 7 G4 0.31 P 2 7 G15 0.13 VP 1 7 G20 0.37 P 2 7 G22 0.57 G 3 7 G3 0.17 VP 1 7 G6 0.37 P 2 7 G13 0.11 VP 1 7
G13 0.08 VP 1 8 G20 0.43 G 3 8 G8 0.14 VP 1 8 G4 0.39 P 2 8 G3 0.62 VG 4 8 G13 0.22 P 2 8 G3 0.56 G 3 8 G5 0.12 VP 1 8
G19 0.09 VP 1 9 G10 0.45 G 3 9 G3 0.17 VP 1 9 G10 0.45 G 3 9 G2 0.62 VG 4 9 G21 0.23 P 2 9 G18 0.57 G 3 9 G4 0.13 VP 1 9
G5 0.09 VP 1 10 G3 0.48 G 3 10 G22 0.20 P 2 10 G11 0.52 G 3 10 G10 0.62 VG 4 10 G10 0.26 P 2 10 G8 0.71 VG 4 10 G18 0.21 P 2 10
G8 0.09 VP 1 11 G11 0.51 G 3 11 G10 0.23 P 2 11 G3 0.57 G 3 11 G21 0.62 VG 4 11 G22 0.30 P 2 11 G11 0.77 VG 4 11 G10 0.30 P 2 11
G3 0.09 VP 1 12 G8 0.53 G 3 12 G13 0.29 P 2 12 G8 0.58 G 3 12 G12 0.62 VG 4 12 G2 0.31 P 2 12 G5 0.81 E 5 12 G12 0.32 P 2 12
G22 0.13 VP 1 13 G5 0.56 G 3 13 G1 0.32 P 2 13 G5 0.63 VG 4 13 G4 0.67 VG 4 13 G5 0.35 P 2 13 G4 0.82 E 5 13 G2 0.35 P 2 13
G11 0.14 VP 1 14 G12 0.62 VG 4 14 G9 0.32 P 2 14 G14 0.65 VG 4 14 G11 0.71 VG 4 14 G9 0.46 G 3 14 G13 0.88 E 5 14 G22 0.36 P 2 14
G7 0.21 P 2 15 G2 0.72 VG 4 15 G20 0.41 G 3 15 G2 0.72 VG 4 15 G8 0.71 VG 4 15 G11 0.46 G 3 15 G9 0.88 E 5 15 G21 0.41 G 3 15
G4 0.21 P 2 16 G7 0.72 VG 4 16 G2 0.41 G 3 16 G22 0.77 VG 4 16 G5 0.76 VG 4 16 G7 0.60 VG 4 16 G2 0.89 E 5 16 G8 0.46 G 3 16
G6 0.29 P 2 17 G9 0.76 VG 4 17 G6 0.42 G 3 17 G9 0.80 VG 4 17 G6 0.76 VG 4 17 G8 0.71 VG 4 17 G22 0.94 E 5 17 G15 0.49 G 3 17
G12 0.31 P 2 18 G22 0.78 VG 4 18 G17 0.48 G 3 18 G1 0.81 E 5 18 G1 0.76 VG 4 18 G1 0.85 E 5 18 G14 0.96 E 5 18 G9 0.53 G 3 18
G1 0.39 P 2 19 G14 0.83 E 5 19 G19 0.50 G 3 19 G7 0.86 E 5 19 G9 0.76 VG 4 19 G6 0.90 E 5 19 G1 0.99 E 5 19 G1 0.59 G 3 19
G9 0.42 G 3 20 G1 0.89 E 5 20 G16 0.55 G 3 20 G6 0.89 E 5 20 G15 0.76 VG 4 20 G15 0.92 E 5 20 G12 0.99 E 5 20 G14 0.62 VG 4 20
G15 0.99 E 5 21 G6 0.93 E 5 21 G14 0.77 VG 4 21 G12 0.91 E 5 21 G14 0.76 VG 4 21 G14 0.99 E 5 21 G7 0.99 E 5 21 G7 0.83 E 5 21
G14 1.00 E 5 22 G15 1.00 E 5 22 G18 1.00 E 5 22 G15 1.00 E 5 22 G7 1.00 E 5 22 G12 1.00 E 5 22 G15 1.00 E 5 22 G6 1.00 E 5 22

WPI sub-components

U1 U2 U3 U4 E1 E2

G-ID Score Classification Priority Rank G-ID Score Classification Priority Rank G-ID Score Classification Priority Rank G-ID Score Classification Priority Rank G-ID Score Classification Priority Rank G-ID Score Classification Priority Rank

G17 0.00 VP 1 1 G6 0.00 VP 1 1 G2 0.00 VP 1 1 G22 0.00 VP 1 1 G3 0.11 VP 1 1 G2 0.00 VP 1 1

G16 0.04 VP 1 2 G15 0.01 VP 1 2 G6 0.03 VP 1 2 G2 0.00 VP 1 2 G1 0.23 P 2 2 G1 0.00 VP 1 2
G3 0.04 VP 1 3 G14 0.02 VP 1 3 G16 0.04 VP 1 3 G4 0.05 VP 1 3 G7 0.41 G 3 3 G15 0.00 VP 1 3
G10 0.05 VP 1 4 G1 0.02 VP 1 4 G13 0.04 VP 1 4 G20 0.06 VP 1 4 G9 0.45 G 3 4 G14 0.00 VP 1 4
G20 0.05 VP 1 5 G2 0.09 VP 1 5 G4 0.05 VP 1 5 G10 0.10 VP 1 5 G15 0.45 G 3 5 G6 0.00 VP 1 5
G18 0.07 VP 1 6 G11 0.16 VP 1 6 G19 0.07 VP 1 6 G18 0.12 VP 1 6 G14 0.45 G 3 6 G9 0.29 P 2 6
G21 0.07 VP 1 7 G7 0.16 VP 1 7 G15 0.09 VP 1 7 G8 0.15 VP 1 7 G12 0.48 G 3 7 G19 0.34 P 2 7
G5 0.08 VP 1 8 G9 0.17 VP 1 8 G9 0.09 VP 1 8 G7 0.17 VP 1 8 G11 0.50 G 3 8 G18 0.36 P 2 8
G13 0.08 VP 1 9 G22 0.19 VP 1 9 G18 0.09 VP 1 9 G19 0.18 VP 1 9 G16 0.50 G 3 9 G13 0.47 G 3 9
G4 0.09 VP 1 10 G12 0.25 P 2 10 G17 0.10 VP 1 10 G17 0.20 P 2 10 G8 0.50 G 3 10 G12 0.49 G 3 10
G8 0.09 VP 1 11 G16 0.33 P 2 11 G22 0.11 VP 1 11 G11 0.23 P 2 11 G6 0.52 G 3 11 G17 0.58 G 3 11
G11 0.11 VP 1 12 G3 0.37 P 2 12 G7 0.11 VP 1 12 G5 0.24 P 2 12 G10 0.55 G 3 12 G16 0.69 VG 4 12
G22 0.11 VP 1 13 G19 0.42 G 3 13 G21 0.12 VP 1 13 G21 0.26 P 2 13 G21 0.56 G 3 13 G10 0.71 VG 4 13
G2 0.12 VP 1 14 G18 0.44 G 3 14 G3 0.12 VP 1 14 G16 0.30 P 2 14 G4 0.56 G 3 14 G4 0.72 VG 4 14
G19 0.18 VP 1 15 G5 0.48 G 3 15 G8 0.13 VP 1 15 G13 0.31 P 2 15 G5 0.57 G 3 15 G20 0.74 VG 4 15

Inas Kamal El-Din El-Gafy

G7 0.20 VP 1 16 G13 0.51 G 3 16 G5 0.24 P 2 16 G6 0.31 P 2 16 G17 0.65 VG 4 16 G22 0.79 VG 4 16
G6 0.26 P 2 17 G17 0.63 VG 4 17 G20 0.25 P 2 17 G1 0.38 P 2 17 G13 0.65 VG 4 17 G8 0.83 E 5 17
G12 0.32 P 2 18 G20 0.64 VG 4 18 G11 0.29 P 2 18 G9 0.48 G 3 18 G18 0.68 VG 4 18 G5 0.94 E 5 18
G1 0.34 P 2 19 G4 0.79 VG 4 19 G10 0.40 P 2 19 G3 0.51 G 3 19 G19 0.72 VG 4 19 G21 0.97 E 5 19
G9 0.62 VG 4 20 G10 0.84 E 5 20 G1 0.67 VG 4 20 G15 0.81 E 5 20 G20 0.90 E 5 20 G7 0.97 E 5 20
G14 0.94 E 5 21 G8 0.91 E 5 21 G12 0.70 VG 4 21 G14 0.89 E 5 21 G2 0.92 E 5 21 G3 0.98 E 5 21
G15 1.00 E 5 22 G21 1.00 E 5 22 G14 1.00 E 5 22 G12 1.00 E 5 22 G22 1.00 E 5 22 G11 1.00 E 5 22
Water poverty index for water sector strategies
in the very poor level. The percentage of population with
access to safe water (A1), the percentage of population with
access to sanitation (A2), and the per capita share of electricity
(A3) in Al-Minya have to be increased. In general, the A sub-
components of Egyptian governorates should be improved
according to the priorities and the rank that are illustrated in
Table 5.
Capacity (C): The analysis of the C component of the Egyp-
tian governorates appeared that Cairo governorate has the
highest one. Comparing to the Cairo governorate, the lowest
scoring governorates in its capacity to manage the water sector
are Al-Fayoum followed by Al-Minya. The C values of these
two governorates lie in the very poor area, as shown in
Fig. 4e. The C values of six governorates lie in the poor level,
while the C values of the rest of the governorates lie in the
good and very good level. The decision makers have to carry
out development for the C component in the Egyptian gover-
norates starting with the governorates having very poor level
according to the priorities and the rank that are illustrated in
Table 4.
The C sub-components of the Egyptian governorates were
analyzed and the results are illustrated in Fig. 4c. In the very
poor level, for example, three out of four capacity sub-
indices lie in the very poor level at Al-Fayoum, Al Minya,
and Bani Swaif governorates. The three governorates need to
improve its economic (C3) and education (C1), followed by
their gender equity in the water management (C4) respectively.
In General, The most priorities development needed for each
governorate to improve its capacity to manage the water sector
was determined and ranked as illustrated in Table 5.
Uses (U): The lowest scoring governorates in U compo-
nents, as shown in Fig. 4g and Table 4, are Luxor, Aswan, Port
Said, Dumyat, Bani Swaif, Asyut, and Qalyubia. These gover-
norates lie in the very poor level. One governorate lies in very
good level that is Cairo (0.71), while two governorates, that are
Giza (0.57) and Al-Suwayyis (0.48), lie in good level. The other
governorates lie in the poor level (0.21–0.36).
The U sub-components of the Egyptian governorates were
analyzed and the results are illustrated in Fig. 4h. As example,
the four U sub-components of Luxor, Aswan and Dumyat lie
in the very poor level. According to Port Said, Bani Swaif, and
Qalyubia two uses sub-indices lie in the very poor level while
the other sub-indices lie in the poor level. The most priorities
development necessary for each governorate to enhance its
uses of water supply was determined and ranked as shown in
Table 5.
Environment (E): The lowest scoring governorates in E
components, as shown in Fig. 4i and Table 4, are Alexandria,
Cairo, and Al-Suwayyis. The most priorities development nec-
essary for each governorate to enhance its uses of water supply
was determined. As shown in Fig. 4j, as example, the three
governorates need to start with expanding their E2 to improve
their water sector. Moreover, Alexandria needs to improve its
water quality. The most priorities development necessary for
each governorate to enhance its uses of water supply was deter-
mined and ranked as shown in Table 5.
6. Conclusion
The current study represents the development and application
of the WPI at the community scale in Egypt illustrated through
185
calculating it all over the political Governorates in Egypt.
Within the study, a WPI for the Egyptian governorates was
developed considering its five components that are resources,
access, capacity, use, and environment. Fourteen WPI sub-
components were selected to be applied within the index.
Energy, economic water productivity, and the gender prospec-
tive indicators were considered within the developed index.
Two aggregation methods (the weighted arithmetic mean and
the weighted geometric mean) for calculating the final WPI
and its components were evaluated and the most applicable
one for the study (the weighted arithmetic mean method)
was applied.
The developed WPI was applied to carry out a relative com-
parison among 22 Egyptian governorates to assist the decision
makers in determining the priorities of making development in
their water sector. The most priorities development needed for
WPI-component and sub-components at each governorate to
improve its water sector was determined and ranked. The
study showed that all the Egyptian governorates need develop-
ment in their water sector and all of them should be considered
in the country strategy with different priorities.
In general, the analysis of the WPI of the 22 governorates
illustrated that Al-Minya has to have the first priority in the
water sector strategy of the country. Bani Swaif, Suhaj, Asyut,
Al-Fayoum, Qina, Monufia, Behera, Sharqia, Luxer, Kafr el-
Sheikh, and Qalyubia governorates have to have the second
priority respectively. In the third priority, Gharbia, Dakahlia,
Port Said, Aswan, Alexandria, Ismailia, Damietta, and Giza
governorates are located. Same as Cairo governorate, Al-
Suwayyis governorate could have the last priority in the water
sector strategy of the country comparing to the other
governorates.
The study illustrated that, in the analysis of the WPI it is
essential to assess its components and sub-components to have
a complete picture about the status of the water sector in the
study area and determine its development priorities in a precise
manner. Through the study the most priorities development
necessary for the WPI components and sub-components was
determined and ranked.
WPI helps in setting priorities of development, evaluating
progress in the plans and developing strategies. The WPI offers
a holistic and visible framework on which decisions in water
planning and management can be based. WPI could be applied
alongside other tools for integrated water resources manage-
ment. The water poverty index can be applied as an assisting
tool for drawing strategies and plan related to the Egyptian
water sector. The WPI is a powerful tool for determining pri-
orities for the decision makers. It empowers decision-makers
to act impartially by allowing them to justify their choices,
based on a rational and transparent framework.
WPI can be significantly used for monitoring the progress
of development if it is calculated on time-interval basis. The
study recommended applying the developed WPI periodically
to evaluate the progress in the water sector in each Egyptian
governorate and to determine the priorities of making develop-
ment in the sector.
References
[1] Mlote S, Sullivan C, Meigh J. Water poverty index: a tool for
integrated water management. In: Proceedings of 3rd WaterNet/
186
Warfsa symposium – water demand management for sustainable
development. Dar es Salaam; 2002 30–31 October.
[2] Garriga R, Foguet A. Unraveling the linkages between water,
sanitation, hygiene and rural poverty: the WASH poverty index.
Water Resour Manage 2013;27(5):1501–15.
[3] Sullivan C, Meigh J, Fediw T. Derivation and testing of the water
poverty index phase 1. Final report, volume 1 – overview, centre
for ecology & hydrology (CEH). International Development and
the Natural Environment Research Council, UK; 2002.
[4] Juwana I, Muttil N, Perera B. Indicator-based Water sustainabil-
ity assessment – a review. Sci Total Environ 2012;438:357–71.
[5] Wagdy A. Progress in water resources management: Egypt,
proceedings of the 1st technical meeting of muslim water
researchers cooperation (MUWAREC) Malaysia; 2008.
[6] Planning Sector (PS). National water resources plan for Egypt-
2017 – water for future. Ministry of water resources and
irrigation. Cairo, Egypt; 2005.
[7] Ministry of Water Resources and Irrigation (MWRI). Strategy of
development and management of water resources in Egypt till
2050. Egypt; 2010.
[8] Ministry of Agricultural and Land Reclamition (MALR). Strat-
egy of agricultural development in Egypt until 2030. Egypt; 2009.
[9] Brown A. Review of water scarcity indices and methodologies.
White paper no. 106. The sustainability consortium. USA:
University of Arkansas; 2011.
[10] Molle F, Peter Mollinga P. Water poverty indicators: conceptual
problems and policy issues. Water Policy 2003(5):529–44.
[11] The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organi-
zation (UNESCO). Monitoring progress in the water sector: a
selected set of indicators. UN-water task force on indicators,
monitoring and reporting, Final report. <www.unwater.
org/downloads/TFIMR_FinalReport.pdf>.
[12] Sullivan C, Meigh J, Lawrence P. Application of the water
poverty index at different scales: a cautionary tale. Int Water
Resour Assoc Water Int 2006;31(3):412–26.
[13] Xin L, Wan Jun W, Jielin J. Application of the water poverty
index at the districts of yellow river basin. Adv Mater Res
2011;250–253:3469–74.
[14] Sullivan C, Meigh R, Giacomello M, Fediw T, Lawrence P,
Samad M, et al. The water poverty index: development and
application at the community scale. Nat Resour Forum
2003;27:1–11.
[15] Manandhar S, Pandey V, Kazama F. Application of water
poverty index (WPI) in Nepalese context: a case study of kali
gandaki river basin (KGRB). Water Resour Manage 2012;26
(1):89–107.
[16] Foguet A, Garriga R. Analyzing water poverty in basins. Water
Resour Manage 2011;25(14):3595–612.
[17] Sullivan C, Meigh J, Lawrence P. Application of the water
poverty index at different scales: a cautionary tale. Water Int
2005;31(3):412–26.
[18] Yahaya O, Akinro A, Kehinde M, Ologunagba B. Evaluation of
water poverty index in Ondo state, Nigeria. ARPN J Eng Appl Sci
2009;4(10), ISSN 189-6608, <http://www.arpnjournals.com/jeas/
research_papers/rp_2009/jeas_1209_270.pdf>.
[19] Fenwick C. Identifying the water poor: an indicator approach to
assessing water poverty in rural Mexico, Ph.D. thesis. The
department of civil, environmental and geomatic engineering,
University College London; 2010.
[20] Jemmali H, Matoussi M. A multidimensional analysis of water
poverty at local scale: application of improved water poverty
index for Tunisia, corruption and economic development, Eco-
nomic Research Fourm (ERF). In: 18th Annual conference
March. Cairo, Egypt; 2012.
Inas Kamal El-Din El-Gafy
[21] Wilk J, Jonsson A. From water poverty to water prosperity—a
more participatory approach to studying local water resources
management. Water Resour Manage 2013;27(3):695–713.
[22] Vyver C. Water poverty index calculation: additive or multiplica-
tive function? J South Afr Business Res 2013. http://dx.doi.org/
10.5171/2013.615770.
[23] Qiang F, Kachanoski G, Dong L, Zilong w. Evaluation of
regional water security using water poverty index. Int J Agric Biol
Eng 2008;1(2):8–14.
[24] Heidecke C. Development and evaluation of a regional water
poverty index for Benin. EPT discussion paper 145, environment
and production technology division. Washington, USA: Interna-
tional Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI); 2006.
[25] Information and decision Support Center (IDSC). Description
governorates of Egypt with information. The Egyptian Cabinet,
<http://www.idsc.gov.eg/>, seen on May 2014.
[26] United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and The
Institute of National Planning Egypt (INPE). Egypt human
development report 2010 – youth in Egypt: Building our Future;
2010.
[27] The Central Intelligence Agency. Egypt economy 2014 – CIA
world fact book. <https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-
world-factbook/geos/eg.html>; 2014.
[28] El-Gafy I, El-Ganzori A, Mohamed A. Decision support system
to maximize economic value of irrigation water at the Egyptian
governorates meanwhile reducing the national food gap. Water
Sci 2013;27:1–18.
[29] Central Agency for Public Mobilization and Statistics (CAPMAS).
Statistical year book, issue of September 2013. Egypt; 2013.
[30] United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and The
Institute of National Planning Egypt (INPE). Egypt human
development report; 2003.
[31] El-Gafy I, El_Ganzori A. Decision support system to maximize
economic value of irrigation water at the Egyptian governorates
meanwhile reducing the national food gap. J Appl Water Sci
2012;2:63–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13201-012-0029-2.
[32] El-Sherbini A, El-Moattassem M. River Nile water quality index
during high and low flow conditions. In: National conference of
the river Nile. Assiut University Center for Environmental Studies
(AUCES); 1994.
[33] Juwana I, Muttil N, Perera C. West java water sustainability index
– a case study on citarum catchment. In: 19th International
congress on modelling and simulation. Perth, Australia, 12–16
December 2011. <http://mssanz.org.au/modsim2011>.
[34] Juwana I, Muttil N, Perera C. Indicator-based water sustainabil-
ity assessment – a review. Sci Total Environ 2010;438:357–71.
Dr. Inas El-Gafy is associate professor at
Strategic Research Unit-National Water
Research Center. She had several years of
experience in the fields of water resources
strategy and policies, decision support system
for integrated water resources and environ-
mental management, integrated environmen-
tal management, water footprint, evaluating
economic water productivity, desalination,
developing evaluating indicators for environ-
mental and water resources management, climatic change, develop-
ment of database and GIS, mainstreaming gender dimensions into
water resources management, green economy, assessment of water user
associations role, water quality assessment, and water-food-energy-
climate nexus. Dr. El-Gafy has more 28 scientific papers that publish in
national and international journal and conferences.