Environmental Research 185 (2020) 109400

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Research
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envres

Measuring water security: A vital step for climate change adaptation T

a,∗ a b c
Mukand S. Babel , Victor R. Shinde , Devesh Sharma , Nguyen Mai Dang
a
Water Engineering and Management, Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand
b
Department of Atmospheric Sciences, Central University of Rajasthan, India
c
Center for International Education, Thuyloi University, Viet Nam

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Climate change and water are intricately linked. Water is the primary medium through which the impacts of
Bangkok climate change will be felt. Securing the water sector and enhancing water security is, therefore, imperative for
Climate change any adaptive response to climate change. A precursor in improving water security is to first establish a me-
Frameworks chanism to measure it. Only then can incremental and progressive actions be evaluated. This study has devel-
Indicators
oped such a mechanism in the form of a water security assessment framework using an indictor-based metho-
Water security
dology. The framework is developed for city-scale analysis because analyses at this scale is more useful in
operationalizing water security enhancement. The framework has a three-layered structure comprising five
dimensions (broad elements of water security), twelve indicators (areas of interest within the dimensions), and a
set of potential variables that can be used to quantify the indicators. The framework has been developed to foster
practical interventions for water security enhancement and not as a comparative tool for benchmarking. Hence,
while the dimensions and indicators of the framework are fixed, the choice of variables is up to the city de-
pending upon its context. This aspect of the framework, therefore, is meant to help cities introspect internally
and move up the water security ladder. The framework culminates into a Water Security Index (WSI), measured
on a scale from one to five. The scale is linear and hierarchical in its grade value. The framework was successfully
used to assess the water security situation of Bangkok. The study also makes a case for scaling up this inter-
vention for other major cities in Thailand, which can then help implement some of Thailand's key climate change
adaptation initiatives such as the Nationally Determined Contributions and the National Climate Change Master
Plan.

1. Introduction
Water is the central tenet of climate change adaptation. The impacts
of climate change will be primarily manifested through water, brought
about by changes in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather
events. These impacts fall under three main categories—too little water
(droughts, water shortages), too much water (floods), and too dirty
water (pollution). There is ample of evidence in literature that cities
around the world are already facing these impacts of climate change in
water use sectors such as agriculture (e.g. Lu et al., 2019; Karimi et al.,
2018; Wagena et al., 2018), hydropower (e.g. Qin et al., 2019; Hasan
and Wyseure, 2018; Teotónio et al., 2017), fisheries (e.g. Galappaththi
et al., 2019; Belhabib et al., 2016; Dey et al., 2016), industry (e.g.
Paquin et al., 2016; Mozell and Thach, 2014; Harle et al., 2007), among
others.
It is, therefore, quite evident that securing the water sector is a key
element in the battle against climate change. The 2030 Global Agenda
has dedicated goals for water (SDG 6) as well as climate change (SDG
13), and a close examination of the targets associated with these goals
reveal strong linkages between them, further accentuating the climate
change-water nexus. Addressing the water-related issues because of
climate change will require improving the water security. UN-Water
(2013) defines water security as “The capacity of a population to safe-
guard sustainable access to adequate quantities of acceptable quality water
for sustaining livelihoods, human well-being, and socio-economic develop-
ment, for ensuring protection against water-borne pollution and water-re-
lated disasters, and for preserving ecosystems in a climate of peace and
political stability”. Creating a water-secure society is one of the top
priorities for governments and policy makers across the globe. Water
security is also a crucial element in contemporary science and policy
agenda, and has been receiving increased attention in recent years.
A first step to improving or enhancing water security is to measure
it. As the adage goes, ‘you cannot manage what you cannot measure’. A
number of researchers and organizations have attempted to define,

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: msbabel@ait.ac.th (M.S. Babel).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.109400
Received 15 November 2019; Received in revised form 10 March 2020; Accepted 14 March 2020
Available online 19 March 2020
0013-9351/ © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
M.S. Babel, et al. Environmental Research 185 (2020) 109400

frame, and quantify water security in various ways (e.g. Su et al., 2019;
Krueger et al., 2019; Li et al., 2019; Jensen and Wu, 2018; ADB 2016
and 2013; Cook and Bakker, 2012; Grey and Sadoff, 2007, among
others). Much of the earlier work in water security was conceptual
where the key focus was on establishing the scope of water security. For
example, the Global Water Partnership (2000) framing included seven
variables: meeting basic needs, securing the food supply, protecting
ecosystems, sharing water resources, managing risks, valuing water,
and governing water wisely. One of the most influential papers in this
regard, Grey and Sadoff (2007) framed water security in terms of
human and ecosystem health, with special emphasis on security from
water-related risks. It is only in the last few years that there have been
attempts to measure the water security using selected indicators.
Falkenmark and Molden (2008) quantified water security in terms of
water stress and water shortage. Vorosmarty et al. (2010) analyzed the
global threat to human water security and river biodiversity using four
classes of stressors (indicators): watershed disturbance, pollution, water
resource development, and biotic factors. ADB (2016, 2013) evaluated
the water security of all Asian countries using five dimensions: house-
hold water security, economic water security, urban water security,
environmental water security, and resilience to water-related disasters.
For other countries across the globe, several frameworks to assess water
security now exist, as listed in Table 1.
Most of these aforementioned studies were carried out on a national
level or sub-national level. While this scale of assessment is important
for developing an overview of the water security situation, as pointed
out by Vorosmarty et al. (2010) water security assessments at national
scales can mask significant variations in security at the local scale. This
means a country may be water secure with respect to a particular di-
mension at the national scale but the situation may be very different
when considered at local scale. Cook and Bakker (2012) also warns that
although national scale analysis enables important and useful conclu-
sions to be drawn, it precludes a fine-grained analysis of sub-national
spatial and social variation of water security. Further, some indictors
developed for national scale may not be suitable for local scale, and
operationalizing of water security indices locally based on national
scale assessments is fundamentally flawed. There are very few examples
of local scale assessments of water security. Local assessments are im-
perative to actually operationalize the concept of water security be-
cause implementation of concepts like enhancing water security will
usually require following a ‘bottom up’ approach. This study seeks to
address this knowledge gap by developing a framework for water se-
curity assessment at city scale so that actual operationalization of the
framework can be brought into effect. The link between city and the
basin within which it lies is undoubtedly there, given that water does
not follow administrative boundaries. Ideally, it would be best if water
were managed at the basin scale, respecting the hydrological bound-
aries. This is also in line with Integrated Water Resources Management.
However, this is still non-evident in most countries. Water is still
managed within administrative boundaries. This study recognizes this,
and therefore the boundaries of the assessment only include the areas
that the civic/city administration can control.
2. Methodology
The first activity of the project was to conduct a thorough literature
review on water security assessments to develop an academic context of
the subject matter. The project used the DPSIR (Driving forces–
Pressure – State – Impact – Response) approach to develop the frame-
work for water security assessment (Fig. 1). The DPSIR framework has
been developed by the European Environmental Agency, and describes
the interactions between society and the environment. Maxim et al.
(2009) can be referred for details of the framework. It must be clarified
that the DPSIR approach was used to design the entire structure of the
framework, and not the individual indicators and variables. Hence,
while some studies have used the DPSIR to exclusively fix indicators,
this study uses it for the entire framework.
The framework results in an overall water security index (WSI) that
comprises various water security dimensions that take into account the
driving forces that have an impact on water security. Each dimension
captures a unique aspect of water security, and there is minimal overlap
among the dimensions. The dimensions are represented by one or more
indicators. The indicators conform to the SMART (specific, measurable,
attainable, relevant and time-bound) criteria of assessment. The SMART
criteria is a popular way to establish robust indicators, examples of
which are abound in literature (e.g. Segnestam, 2002). Each indicator is
then measured with the help of specific variables.
A unique feature of this framework is its ability to be generic, yet
capture site-specific elements. This aspect is explained in Fig. 1 through
two shaded portions. The portion shaded in grey (dimensions and in-
dicators) is the generic part of the framework, which will be applicable
to any study area. This essentially suggests that the same dimensions
and indicators shall be used for any city. The portion shaded in blue
(variables) is the variable part of the framework that will depend on
site-specific situations and data. Hence, cities have the option of
choosing the most appropriate variable to measure a particular

Table 1
Some existing frameworks for water security assessment.
Authors Elements of water security Scale of Application in
assessment

Zeitoun (2011) Human/Community security; National security; Water resources security; Food security; Energy National NA
security; Climate security
Lautze and Manthrithilake (2012) Basic needs; Food production; Environmental requirements; Risk management and independence. National Asia Pacific
Mason and Calow (2012) Resource stress; Variability and risk; Basic human needs and productivity; Environmental needs; Generic NA
Governance
ADB (2013, 2016) Household water security; Economic water security; Urban water security; Environmental water National Asia Pacific
security; Resilience to water-related disasters
Lankford et al. (2013) Volumetric sufficiency; Water quality; Flood protection; Water allocation/equity; Dynamic National NA
apportionment; Productivity/efficiency.
UN-Water (2013) Drinking water, sanitation and hygiene; Water resources; Water governance; Water-related disasters; National NA
Wastewater pollution and water quality
Fischer et al. (2015) Total renewable water resources per capita; Ratio of annual water withdrawal to total renewable water National Global
resources; Runoff variability; Ratio of external to total renewable water resources
Sadoff et al. (2015) Droughts and water scarcity; Floods; Water supply and sanitation; Ecosystem degradation and National NA
pollution.
Jensen and Wu (2018) Resources, Access, Risks, and Governance National Singapore
Su et al. (2019) Population subsystem; Water resource subsystem; Economic subsystem; Water disaster subsystem; National Japan
Water environment subsystem
Li et al. (2019) Relative carrying capacity and integrated vulnerability in terms of water quantity and water quality Sub-national China

2
M.S. Babel, et al.
Fig. 1. Water security assessment framework for city-scale analysis.
indicator. For example, if one of the indicators is ‘flood damage’, there
are several ways to measure this (i.e. through variables). One variable
could be ‘monetary loss due to floods’. Another could be ‘loss of prop-
erty in USD’. Yet another could be ‘loss of working hours’. The city has
the flexibility to choose the most relevant variable to their contexts.
Hence, an inherent principle of the framework is that all the potential
variables are equally capable of measuring the indicator. Often, the
availability of data will also have to be taken into account to arrive at
the choice of the variable. This feature of the framework is very im-
portant because it defines the purpose of the framework, which is es-
sentially to foster operationalizing water security enhancement. Hence,
the objective of the framework is not to facilitate comparison among
cities but for cities to use this framework to introspect and improve
upon their current situation, if required.
In order to calculate the WSI, first each of the variables are nor-
malized in the range 1–5 using certain reference values. Reference
values can help classify the magnitudes of the variables into different
categories, which can then be assigned scores between 1 and 5. For
example, India's Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (formerly
Ministry of Urban Development India, 2008) recommends a per capita
water supply norm of 135 lpcd for cities. If one of the indicators is
‘water availability’, then this per capita water supply norm could be a
useful variable to measure to the indicator, and 135 lpcd can serve as a
reference value. With this reference value, five different categories can
be fixed. The first category would be for per capita water supply of 135
lpcd and above. Given that this is the ideal case, this category would be
assigned a score of 5. In contrast, as per the aforementioned Ministry, a
per capita supply of below 50 lpcd is considered unsatisfactory. This
reference value can help form another category, where the per capita
water supply is less than 50 lpcd, with a corresponding score of 1. The
intermediate categories can then be fixed using expert judgement (e.g.
100–135 lpcd category with Score 4; 80–100 lpcd category with Score
3; and 50–80 category with Score 2). It is important that reference
values are site-specific. In the example above, for Indian cities, the re-
commended water supply norm is 135 lpcd but this norm could be
different in other countries. While there are several reference values for
different variables reported in literature, it will also be important to
seek in-country expert opinion to validate or customize these values for
the local context.
Once all the variables are normalized, all the variables contributing
to an indicator are aggregated and averaged to get the indicator score.
Similarly, all the indicators contributing to a dimension are aggregated
and averaged to get the dimension score. An average of all the di-
mension scores will result in the WSI. Given that the variables are
normalized in the range 1-5, it is quite evident that the WSI will also fall
in the range 1–5. The WSI can be interpreted using Table 2.
In order to get a sense of the “operational” context of water security,
stakeholder consultations and workshops with various government and
non-governmental agencies were conducted. The recommendations
from these consultations were used to develop a first draft of the water
3
Environmental Research 185 (2020) 109400
security framework. This draft framework was again presented to the
stakeholders to solicit additional critical feedback, following which the
framework was fine-tuned. The framework was then applied in
Bangkok (Thailand) to examine its efficacy and robustness.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Framework for water security assessment
Table 3 presents the framework developed for city-scale assessment.
The framework comprises of five dimensions and twelve indicators.
Provided hereafter is a description of the framework.
3.1.1. Dimension 1-water supply and sanitation
From a city government's point of view, this dimension is perhaps
the most fundamental responsibility of the entity. The dimension cap-
tures the ability of the city to provide good quality water to its citizens
for consumptive and non-consumptive activities. Hence, this dimension
looks at both quantity and quality aspects of water supplied. Four in-
dicators have been identified to represent this dimension. The first of
these is Water Availability, which takes stock of all forms of water
available to citizens to carry out their day-to-day activities. In many
cities, groundwater is an important source. Hence, a proper water
balance study accounting for both surface water and groundwater
availability must be conducted in order to arrive at an accurate value of
the indicator. As gleaned from Table 3, there are a number of variables
that can be used to measure this indicator. The per capita water supply is
perhaps the most direct and accurate way of measuring this indicator
given that this captures not just the total water availability but how
much of it is available to the residents. Information related to the
number of people using improved water resources is usually readily avail-
able since this is also required for reporting against the SDG indicators.
While this gives an idea of water availability purely in terms of popu-
lation coverage, it does not indicate how much water is available to
them. In the absence of direct data, investment in water supply facilities
could be used as a variable. Here the inherent assumption is that the
investments can be translated to on-the-ground benefits. Hence, higher
values of the variable suggest better water availability. There are a
number of cities like Bangkok (Thailand), Delhi (India), Capetown
(South Africa), and Singapore (Singapore), that rely on external sources
of water supply (beyond the city limits). Relying on external source
comes with a risk, especially when these sources are under different
administrative boundaries. The allocation of water then becomes a
political decision and in a crisis may be subject to the whims and fan-
cies of political leaders. Hence, for some cities percentage of imported
water could be a good variable to reflect the ‘reliable’ nature of water
availability.
The second indicator is Accessibility. This indicator has been selected
because in many cities (e.g. Kathmandu, Nepal), there is sufficient
water availability but residents still do not get enough water in their
M.S. Babel, et al. Environmental Research 185 (2020) 109400

Table 2
Interpretation of the water security index.
WSI Condition Description

< 1.5 Poor Water Security The city is highly water insecure. It faces several water-related issues. There is a lack of proper institutional management and
preparation for future water challenges.
1.5 - < 2.5 Fair Water Security The city is water insecure from the perspective of some dimensions. It faces some water-related issues. The basin needs some
improvement in the institutional management and preparation for future water challenges.
2.5 – < 3.5 Good Water Security The city is reasonably water secure in terms of most dimensions. It faces relatively few water-related issues. The basin has some form of
institutional management and has some plans to tackle future water challenges.
3.5 – < 4.5 Very good Water Security The city is quite water secure in terms of most dimensions. It faces very few water-related issues. The basin has proper institutional
management and good plans to tackle anticipated future water challenges.
≥4.5 Excellent Water Security The city is highly secure in terms of all dimensions. It has no water-related issues. The basin has excellent institutional management
and it is fully prepared to tackle the anticipated future water challenges.

taps. In some cities, there are no household connections as well and
people have to depend upon community taps and water sources. It is
envisaged that in a water secure city not only will people have enough
water available; this will also be available within their premises, pre-
ferably through a piped connection. Some direct variables to measure
this indicator are population access to piped water supply, service area
coverage for piped water supply, safe drinking water in/accessibility. This
data is quite common and readily available for most cities. In case data
availability is a challenge, an indirect way to measure this indicator is
conduct a quick survey in selected locations to estimate the average
distance travelled to fetch water from improved water sources.
The third indicator is Quality of Water Supplied. The purpose of this
indicator is to ascertain if the water supplied by the city government
meets the national/international standards. Water utilities usually carry
out tests on the water samples emerging from treatment plants. The
results of these tests, e.g. coliform count of water supplied, turbidity of
water, pH of supplied water can be used to measure this indicator. A
better choice of variable could be residual chlorine in water because in
many utilities residual chlorine is tested in the distribution system as
opposed to the aforementioned parameters that are tested prior to the
water entering into the distribution system. Given that there is always a
risk of contamination entering the distribution network through broken
pipes and faulty joints, measurement of residual chlorine at selected
locations within the distribution network will always be a better mea-
sure of this indicator. Needless to say, if there are means of testing the
drinking water quality within the premises of customers, that would be
even more preferable. However, in most cities this is not possible.
Hence, a potential variable to measure this aspect could be customer
satisfaction with water quality, which relies on the subjective judgement
of people in regards to the quality of water coming through their taps.
Nowadays, water utilities have several avenues for customers to register
their complaints―telephone, internet, apps, social media, etc. This data
can be collated to make a measurement of this indicator. In the absence
of any regular data, an indirect means of measuring this indicator could
be the type of water treatment employed. Here the premise is that ad-
vanced forms of water treatment (e.g. reverse osmosis, Advanced
Ozonation Process, membrane filtration) are likely to produce better
quality water as compared to traditional techniques such as sedi-
mentation, filtration, etc.
The fourth indicator for this dimension is Hygiene and Sanitation.
This indicator has been selected because there is an inherent relation-
ship between water supply, hygiene and sanitation. The intention of
this indicator is to capture the effects of hygiene and sanitation facilities
in the city that are not necessarily covered by the quality of water
supply. For example, a city may have very good tap water quality but
still have an outbreak of water-borne diseases because of inadequate
sanitation facilities. In many cities (especially in developing countries),
open defecation is still observed. This lead to contamination of water
sources and inevitably has a bearing on human health. Cities across the
world are investing heavily in implementing safe sanitation solutions so
there is no dearth of data for measuring this indicator. A couple of di-
rect variables that can be used to do so are number of people using
improved sanitation facilities, and waterborne disease factor. In view of
data constraints, investment in sanitation facilities may also be used as an
indirect variable.
3.1.2. Dimension 2-water productivity
This dimension considers the economic aspect of water security and
captures the ability of the city to value water as an economic good. The
premise for this dimension is that water in the city cannot be taken for
granted and must be treated as an economic asset. Traditionally water
productivity has been associated with the agriculture sector, given that
this sector is the largest consumer of freshwater. The emphasis on
agricultural water productivity is still evident in contemporary litera-
ture (e.g. Carracelas et al., 2019; Cetin and Kara, 2019, Liu et al., 2019,
among others). However, mainstream agriculture in cities has been
diminishing over the years, and in most cases is confined to peri-urban
areas. Concepts like urban forestry and urban agriculture are gaining
prominence in the present times, but the scale at which these are
practiced is not very significant in the larger scheme of things. Cities are
the engines of economic growth. Hence, it is imperative to capture the
commercial and industrial water productivity to get an accurate picture
of the overall water productivity. A single indicator, Economic Value of
Water, has been identified to represent this dimension. This indicator
throws light on how judiciously water is used in terms of economic
benefits. As already pointed out, given that most of the economic uses
for water in the city is in the industrial or commercial sector, the most
direct variable for measuring this indicator is commercial/industrial
revenue per drop. However, if there are cities where agriculture con-
tributes significantly to the economy, agricultural revenue per drop could
be used as a variable. In the absence of direct productivity data, cities
could consider using water wealth as a variable. This variable works on
the premise that if the citizens are wealthy the economy of the city is
high. Hence, higher values of water wealth would indicate more pro-
ductive use of the water. Another indirect variable could be water price.
This data is mostly readily available. Understandably, higher magni-
tudes of water price suggests that water is being valued better.
3.1.3. Dimension 3-water-related disasters
Cities are very vulnerable to disasters because of their high popu-
lation density, and trends of urban development. UNISDR (2015) re-
ports that “About 90% of all natural disasters are water-related. Over the
period 1995–2015, floods accounted for 43% of all documented natural
disasters, affecting 2.3 billion people, killing 157,000 and causing US$662
billion in damage”. Furthermore, most cities are the major contributors
to a country's GDP. Hence, water related disasters in cities have the
potential to affect the nation as a whole. Two indicators have been used
to represent this dimension. The first is Disaster Mitigation, which cap-
tures how well the city is performing in reducing the impacts of dis-
asters, especially floods. As per the UN-Water (2013), floods cause half
of disasters worldwide and 84% of all disaster deaths, and many of the
world's cities are vulnerable to floods areas. Given that quantification of
disaster mitigation may not be straightforward, an easier and direct
variable to measure this indicator is the disaster budget factor. This is

4
 Table 3
Water security assessment framework for city-scale analysis.
Dimension Indicator
WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION Water availability
Accessibility
Quality of water supplied
Hygiene and sanitation
5
WATER PRODUCTIVITY Economic value of water
WATER-RELATED DISASTERS Disaster mitigation
Disaster preparedness
WATER ENVIRONMENT State of natural water bodies
Effect of polluting factors
WATER GOVERNANCE Overall management of the water
sector
Potential to adapt to future
changes
Citizen support for water security
M.S. Babel, et al.
Potential Variables Suggested Ways to Measure Reference
1. Per capita water use (lpcd) Total domestic water consumption/City population
2. Number of people using improved water sources Self-explanatory UN-Water (2006)
(number)
3. Investment in water supply facilities (USD) Self-explanatory UN-Water (2006)
4. Percentage of Imported water (%) Imported water/Total raw water
1. Population access to piped water supply (%) (Population of the city with access to piped water supply/City UN-Water (2006)
population) x100
2. Service area coverage for piped water supply (%) (Area covered by water supply/City area) X 100
3. Average distance travelled to fetch water from Self-explanatory
improved water sources (km)
4. Safe drinking water inaccessibility (%) (The ratio of population without access to improved drinking water Babel and Wahid (2008)
resources to the total population)X100
1. Customer satisfaction with water quality (1:n) Number of employees/Number of customers in water utility
2. Type of water treatment employed (no unit) Self-explanatory
3. Coliform count of supplied water (MPN/1000) E-Coli count
4. Residual chlorine (%) Percentage of residual chlorine monitoring points satisfying the
remnant requirement
5. Turbidity of water (NTU) Self-explanatory
6. pH of supplied water (no unit) Self-explanatory
1. Number of people using improved sanitation facilities Self-explanatory UN-Water (2006)
(number)
2. Water borne disease factor (%) (Hospitalized cases of water borne diseases/Total hospitalized cases) UN-Water (2006)
x100
3. Investment in sanitation facilities (USD) Self-explanatory UN-Water (2006)
1. Commercial water productivity (USD/m3) Non-agricultural GPP/Non-agricultural water use in the city
2. Agricultural water productivity (USD/m3) Agricultural GPP/Agricultural water use in the city
3. Water wealth (USD/m3) Total Income of people/Water used
4. Water price (USD/m3) Self-explanatory
1. Disaster budget factor (%) (Investment in disaster response mechanisms/Total city budget) x100
2. Per capita GDP (USD) Total Gross Provincial Product/Total population
2. Flood damage (USD) Economic damage caused by floods KoontanakuIvong et al. (2013)
3. Proportional area of flooding (%) (Flooded area/Total city area)x100 Xiao et al. (2007)
1. Drainage factor (%) (Total open space (green)/Total city area) x 100
2. Disaster preparedness workshops with vulnerable Number of workshops conducted with vulnerable communities
communities (number)
3. Flood risk mapping (no unit) Flood zoning
1. Natural water quality factor (%) (Dissolved Oxygen (DO) concentration/Minimum required standard for
DO)x 100
2. Water Quality Index (no unit) Country-specific
3. Biochemical oxygen demand in water bodies (mg/L) BOD5 concentration Mehr (2011)
1. Wastewater treatment factor (%) (Amount of treated wastewater/Total wastewater generated) x100
2. Water pollution factor (%) (Ratio of the untreated wastewater to the total water resources) x100 Babel and Wahid (2008)
3. Industrial influent treatment factor (%) (Amount of treated industrial effluent/Total industrial effluent
generated) x 100
1. Institution factor (no unit) Questionnaire
2. Adaptability factor (no unit) Questionnaire
3. Public support factor (no unit) Questionnaire
Environmental Research 185 (2020) 109400
M.S. Babel, et al.
indicative of the investments made by the city to reduce the impacts of
flooding. It can be argued that investments in disaster response are
likely to be staggered across a time span with peaks and troughs. Hence,
if the analysis is carried out in a year corresponding to a trough, it does
not necessarily mean that the city is not making the efforts to reduce the
disaster risk. This points out to the importance of choosing the right
variables, at the right time. A variable may very well be able to measure
the indicator in one particular period but can be completely inadequate
in another. Hence, the choice of variable is crucial, and should also
change with respect to changing situations. Another argument could be
that the investments are likely to reduce over the years, as and when the
benefits of the investment start becoming evident. This paper ac-
knowledges this very valid argument but encourages cities to not just
look at the current situation but be prepared for future scenarios as well
that bring drivers like climate change into the picture. There is enough
evidence in literature that climate change is expected to only increase
the flooding risk in cities across the globe (e.g. Sassi et al., 2019; Ahmed
at al. 2018; Miller and Hutchins, 2017). Hence, cities will need to make
consistent and continued investments in flood mitigation to respond to
the changing climate. A proxy variable to measure this very trait could
be the per capita GDP. This is based on the assumption that cities with
higher per capita GDP are more likely to invest in disaster preparedness
in order to protect the economic assets. From a disaster mitigation point
of view, sometimes it is also useful to measure the exact antithesis.
Variables such as flood damage, and proportional area of flooding can
actually portray a very good picture of whether or not the disaster
mitigation interventions are working. The data for these variables are
usually easily available, and it also helps convince decision makers
about the magnitude of the problem with such data. This could help
facilitate the flow of investments. As already pointed out, while these
variables can be used to measure the indicator, they measure the exact
opposite of what the indicator intends to capture. Hence, the reference
values must be adjusted accordingly to accommodate this feature.
The second indicator is Disaster Preparedness. By including this in-
dicator in the framework, the inherent notion considered is that it is
impossible to have a disaster-free city. The magnitude and frequency of
disasters are unpredictable, and climate change will only compound the
situation. While cities must invest in disaster mitigation, they must also
be prepared to handle disasters whenever these strike. Given that
flooding disasters are most likely, a direct variable to measure this in-
dicator is the drainage factor that is indicative of the kind of ground
cover available to facilitate natural drainage of floodwater and mini-
mize runoff. Another potential variable is flood risk mapping that clearly
delineates zones within the city as per severity of the flood risk. It must
be noted that flood risk mapping is not a one off exercise but should be
carried out at regular intervals to account for emerging threats. The
number of disaster preparedness workshops organized with communities
that help them to better adapt to disasters could serve as another
variable for this indicator.
3.1.4. Dimension 4- water environment
This dimension captures the ability of a city to protect and maintain
its water bodies and resources. This aspect of water security is often the
most ignored. Far too frequently, economic development in cities comes
at the cost of the environment. Delhi, the capital of India, is a classic
example of this phenomenon. It is responsible for 80% of the pollution
in the Yamuna River that flows through it (Suruchi et al., 2015). Water
pollution concerns have, similarly been reported in both developing
countries, e.g. China (e.g. Yan et. Al 2019), Bangladesh (Hasan et al.,
2019); and developed countries, e.g. Spain (e.g. Luque-Espinar et al.,
2015), Greece (e.g. Grigoriadou et al., 2008). Two indicators have been
used to represent this dimension. The first is State of Natural Water
Bodies that depicts the current condition of natural water bodies in the
city. A city could have a number of water bodies in the form of lakes,
ponds, rivers, natural tanks, among others. Ideally, the state of all these
water bodies should be accounted for using appropriate weights
6
Environmental Research 185 (2020) 109400
corresponding to surface areas or significance/importance in measuring
this indicator. There are a number of direct well-known variables that
could be used to measure this indicator. These include natural water
quality factor (which looks at the Dissolved Oxygen concentrations),
water quality index (advocated by the Pollution Control Agencies of most
countries/cities), and Biochemical Oxygen Demand (which measures the
organic loading in the water bodies).
The second indicator is State of Polluting Sources. While the first
indicator looks at the impact of pollution, this indicator takes a close
look at the sources of pollution. It may be argued that the two are in-
terconnected. While this is true, the objective of introducing this in-
dicator is more from an operational point of view. It provides the city
authorities with information on where to focus its efforts in addressing
the pollution concerns. While the first indicator provides a general
overview of the pollution landscape, this indicator attempt to zoom into
the main factors causing it. One of the biggest source of water pollution
in cities is the discharge of untreated wastewater into water bodies.
Today, around 80% of all wastewater is discharged into the world's
waterways where it creates health, environmental and climate-related
hazards (International Water Association, 2018). Hence, a very perti-
nent variable for this indicator is wastewater treatment factor that is
indicative of how much of the wastewater generated is treated safely.
Another variant of this variable used in literature is water pollution
(Babel and Wahid, 2008), which accounts for untreated wastewater as a
proportion of the total water resources available in the city. There are
cities where industrial wastewater is a concern. Industrial wastewater
requires a very different treatment process, and cannot be treated along
with domestic wastewater. Hence, industrial towns may consider in-
dustrial effluent treatment factor as a potential variable.
3.1.5. Dimension 5- water governance
This dimension captures the ability of the city government to
manage the water sector and plan for anticipated changes. This di-
mension of water security has hardly been captured in previous at-
tempts of water security assessments. Water governance for enhancing
water security is complicated, requiring inter-disciplinary and multi-
sectoral interplay. This paper acknowledges this complexity, and does
not attempt to address the entire spectrum of the issues, which may be
beyond the scope of any water security assessment framework in any
case. Instead, it focuses on the measurable traits of water governance
that can be quantified and standardized. From an operational view-
point, some form of water governance is also required to score well on
the other dimensions of this framework. Nonetheless, water governance
has been kept as a separate distinct dimension to underscore its im-
portance in achieving overall water security. Three indicators have
been used to represent this dimension. The first of these is Overall
Management of the Water Sector that focusses on the institutional ar-
rangements in the city to manage the water sector, and the interplay
among them. The suggested way to measure this indicator is through a
questionnaire to evaluate the management practices of the major water
related institutions in the city (institution factor). These management
practices could include aspects related to citizen engagement, financial
instruments, inter-agency coordination and cooperation, among others.
The second indicator is Potential to Adapt to Future Changes that
evaluates how well equipped the water-related agencies in the city are
to cope up with emerging pressures on water security. The challenges
that cities face are numerous ranging from increasing urbanization, to
densification, to growth of informal settlements, to migration, to cli-
mate change. It is expected that cities are cognizant of these drivers,
and the implications they will have for water security, which will be
reflected in their management plans. The suggested way to measure this
variable is also through a questionnaire to examine if the interventions
(plans, polices, initiatives, and projects) for water sector development
address the emerging drivers of water security (adaptability factor). The
questionnaires should be able to evaluate contemporary best practices,
technological elements, and internal capacity building, among others.
M.S. Babel, et al. Environmental Research 185 (2020) 109400

The third indicator is Citizen Support for Water Security. This in-
dicator is based on the premise that any policy or plan related for water
security enhancement cannot be achieved without citizen support. It
underlines the notion that achieving water security cannot only be the
government's responsibility. Citizens will have to step up to take on
some of the onus of action. A questionnaire survey would be a good way
to measure this indicator (public support factor). The questionnaire
should be able to extract information on how supportive the citizens are
in terms following regulations, willing to pay, voluntary services,
among others.

3.2. Application of the framework for water security assessment to bangkok

city

3.2.1. Profile of the city
Bangkok is the capital of Thailand. It is situated in the low flat plain
of the Chao Phraya River which extends to the Gulf of Thailand. The
total city area is 1569 km2. The city is divided into 50 districts and 154
sub-districts as seen in Fig. 2. The total registered population as per the
latest census (2010) was about 5.68 million, but hosted a daytime po-
pulation of 8.30 million. This indicates the extent of floating population
in the city. The average population density of registered record was
about 3625 persons/km2 in 2010. The total Gross Provincial Product
(GPP) of all final goods and services produced within the province in
2013 was 129,353.37 Million USD, which accounted for approximately
30% of the country's GDP. Bangkok is highly commercialized and the
non-agriculture GPP of Bangkok is 99.94% of the total GPP. The GPP
per capita is 15,190.86 US$. Bangkok has a monsoon type of climate,
which has three main seasons: monsoon (May–October), mild summers
(November–January) and hot summer (February–April). The average
annual rainfall during the period of 1982–2011 was 1672 mm. The
Fig. 3. Water security of Bangkok in terms of the dimensions.
average annual temperature during the period of 1982–2011 was
28.6 °C.
The water used in Bangkok is mostly from surface water sources
(99%), with the Chao Phraya River being the main source. The water
supply coverage in Bangkok is almost 100%. Groundwater extraction in
Bangkok is prohibited because over-extraction of groundwater in the
1970s and 1980s led to a severe decline in groundwater levels, de-
gradation of water quality and land subsidence. In the past, domestic
wastewater was directly discharged into public drains and canals
without treatment because of which these bodies became highly pol-
luted. Since 1990, Bangkok has initiated a major programme of central
wastewater treatment schemes to improve water quality in the canals
and in the Chao Phraya River. Currently, Bangkok has combined was-
tewater treatment systems. In 2014, there were eight wastewater

Fig. 2. Map of Bangkok city.

7
M.S. Babel, et al. Environmental Research 185 (2020) 109400

treatment plants (WWTP). Bangkok is the city with many canals (1161

Mostly implemented
canals) (WQMO, 2013). The total length of canals in Bangkok is
2604 km (WQMO, 2013. Most of treated and non-treated wastewater
drains into these canals making those increasingly deteriorated.
Bangkok is located in the flood plains of the Chao Phraya River,
which suffers flooding during the monsoon season. The main reason for

5
this is that the ground levels in the city are only 0.5–1.7 m above mean
sea level. Bangkok is effected by both inundated flood and storm flood.

Partially implemented
Recently, there have been actions taken to mitigate flooding problems
by constructing barriers enclosing the area to prevent water flowing in
from surrounding areas. The enclosed area has been provided with
drainage system to drain off floodwater into the Chao Phraya River. The
capacity of the flood barriers is enough to prevent the water in the river
as high as +2.50 m above mean sea level from flowing into the area.

4
The capacity of the drainage system in the enclosed area can also
handle rainfall intensity of up to 60 mm per hour. The pump has a
capacity of 850 m3/s. The land use in Bangkok comprises of urban and

In place but not yet

built-up area (63.4%), agricultural land (26.9%), forestland (0.2%),
miscellaneous land (6.9%) and water bodies (2.6%).

implemented
3.2.2. Water security assessment for bangkok
The framework mentioned in the previous section was applied in

3
Bangkok. As already mentioned the dimensions and indicators are the
fixed part of the framework. Hence, the assessment for Bangkok was

Under Consideration/
also carried out for five dimensions and twelve indicators. Based on
context specific requirement, thirteen variables were selected to mea-

development
sure the indicators. For the first four dimensions (water supply and
sanitation, water productivity, water-related disasters, and water en-
vironment), secondary data from various government agencies and
organizations was collected in order to quantify the corresponding 2
variables. However, for the fifth dimension, i.e. water governance di-
mension, two questionnaire surveys were used to quantify it. The first
was conducted with the main water-related organizations in Bangkok
Not yet considered

for the institution factor and adaptability factor variables. The ques-
tionnaire has been reproduced in Table 4. The organizations included
the Metropolitan Waterworks Authority; Bangkok Metropolitan Au-
thority; and Department of Water Resources. Organizations were asked
to perform a self-evaluation on a scale of 1–5 (in increasing order of
1

accomplishment) for the questions in the questionnaire. The scores

from the questionnaires received were aggregated and averaged to get
4. Are future drivers of change (e.g. climate change) taken in consideration when developing long-
5. Does the organization consult other water organizations during the development of annual or

an overall score for the institutional factor and adaptability factors (in
Questionnaire format for estimating the institutional factor and adaptability factors.

the range 1–5). 5. Is there a mechanism for the organizational staff to upgrade water-related knowledge?
For the public support factor, a questionnaire survey, the second
questionnaire, to evaluate the public support factor, was carried out
with 600 citizens across Bangkok. The sample size was decided using a
1. Is public opinion sought when developing water-related plans for the city?

confidence level of 95% and confidence interval of 5. The respondents

3. Is there an official mechanism to monitor Non-Revenue Water (NRW)?

were asked six questions as presented below, and a 5-point Likert scale
(Strongly Agree, Agree, No Opinion, Disagree, and Strongly Disagree)
2. Is there a provision for the public to register their grievances?

2. Is there a centralized database for water related information?

was used to evaluate the responses. The exact language of the Likert
1. Does recycling and/or reuse of water take place in the city?

3. Is there a system to forecast water availability and quality?

Scale was modified to correspond to the question asked. The responses

4. Is there a provision to incentivize water conservation?

from the questionnaires were aggregated and averaged to get an overall

score for the public support factor (also in the range 1–5).

(i) If the government imposes a water conservation fee (20% of your

water bill/month) to safeguard water resources, how likely are you
to comply?
(ii) How willing would you be to using recycled water in your house?
(iii) How willing would you be to pay an additional tax (20% of your
term city master plans?

water bill/month) to reduce the impacts of disasters like floods?

(iv) How well do you agree to ‘income-based’ payment of water fees?
long-term plans?

i.e. people with less income pay less fee and people with more
Adaptability factor
Institutional factor

income pay more fee.

(v) How well do you agree to the notion that water should be sub-
Questions

sidized because it is a basic human need? Subsidized means that

Table 4

the government charges the consumers only a fraction of what it

takes to actually supply good quality water.

8
M.S. Babel, et al. Environmental Research 185 (2020) 109400

(vi) How interested would you be to volunteer regularly (say, four

144.24

330.05
27.82
2015
times a year) in a water-watch programme, to observe and report

95.7

24.2

58.2
4.70

4.30
3.12
1.0

3.0
91

87
problems that deteriorate the quality of water in rivers and local
water sources?

No data

No data
No data
138.22

341.91
23.33
2011

66.7

24.0

66.9
1.4

0.5
82

87
The raw results (without normalization) of the water security as-
sessment for Bangkok are presented in Table 5. The analysis was done

No Data

No data

No data
No data
152.19

240.03
22.53
2007

for the years 2007, 2011 and 2015.

79.2

62.9
1.7

0.4
84

72
The variables were normalized in the range 1–5 using reference
values from literature and expert opinion as presented in Table 6, while
(Residual chlorine monitoring points satisfying the remnant requirement/Total monitoring

Table 7 presents the normalized values of the variables. Fig. 3 en-

capsulates the water security situation of Bangkok for the three years
(Population of the city with access to piped water supply/City population) *100

with respect to each dimension of water security. It is clear that

Bangkok has very high water productivity, making it very secure on
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) concentration/Minimum required standard for DO
(Hospitalized cases of water borne diseases/Total hospitalized cases)* 100

that front. This is also because of the fact that Bangkok contributes to
(Investment in disaster response mechanisms/Total city budget) *100

31% of Thailand economy. Hence, a significant portion of the country's

high revenue activities (commercial and industrial) is based in the city.
Questionnaire survey for public support for WS enhancement
(Amount of treated wastewater/Total wastewater generated)

On the other end of the spectrum, Bangkok fares poorly on the water
Non-agricultural GPP/Non-agricultural water use in the city
(Imported water production/total water production) * 100

environment dimension. A closer look at the variables under this di-

mension reveal that the main cause of the problem is the abysmal rate
Total domestic water consumption/City population

of wastewater treatment. As seen in Table 5, only 58.2% of the was-

(Total open space (green)/Total city area)*100

tewater generated is actually treated. This means almost 42% of was-

tewater that is generated is directly discharged into canals and water
bodies without any form of treatment. In pure numbers, this is
equivalent to 631,000 m3/day. The other cause of concern for Bangkok
is for the water-related disasters dimension. One of the reasons is low
levels of investment in disaster preparedness. However, things have
improved on this front from 2011 to 2015, possibly in response to the
Questionnaire survey

Questionnaire survey

Great Thailand Floods of 2011. Even after 2015, the investment in

disaster preparedness have been on the rise. This is because Bangkok
drives the nation's economy, and the government is keen to avoid a
points)X 100
Estimation

repeat of the 2011 situation which caused economic losses to the tune
of 45 Billion USD. The other reason is that Bangkok is highly con-
cretized and has less green/open space. This has been more or less
constant at 24% of the city's area from 2011 to 2015. While the situa-
Commercial water productivity (US$/m3)
Population access to piped water supply

tion is not dire, cites like Oslo (54% green cover), Singapore (47% green
cover), and Hong Kong (40% green cover) have made rapid strides in
Percentage of Imported water (%)

Wastewater treatment factor (%)

Natural water quality factor (%)

improving the green cover. In terms of water supply and sanitation di-
Water borne disease factor (%)

mension, Bangkok fares quite good. However, one point of concern

Per capita water use (l/c/d)

Natural drainage factor (%)

Disaster budget factor (%)

could be the increasing reliance on imported water through inter-basin

Residual chlorine (%)

Public support factor

transfer. Traditionally the Chao Phraya River has been the sole source
Adaptability factor

of water supply. However, over the last few years, the city has been
Institution factor

taking additional water from the adjoining Mae Klong basin to meet its
demand. A continuation of this trend will only increase external de-
Variables

pendency, and mitigate water security in the city. There is a need for
(%)

Bangkok to step up efforts for widespread adoption of demand man-

agement instruments such as water conservation and reuse of treated
wastewater. Bangkok also fares reasonably well on the water governance
Potential to adapt to future changes
Overall management of the water

Citizen support for water security

dimension. The relevant plans, policies, and institutions exist (institu-

Results of the water security assessment for Bangkok city.

tional factor), and are functioning quite well. The city also takes into
State of natural water bodies
Quality of water supplied

Effect of polluting factors

account future drivers of change (adaptability factor) into its planning

Economic value of water
Hygiene and sanitation

process that gives it the ability to adjust and respond accordingly. There
Disaster preparedness
Disaster mitigation

is, however, room for improvement on the public support front. The
Water availability

relatively low score for this variable is understandable in a way.

Accessibility

Bangkok is a metropolitan city with a large floating population. The

Indicators

sense of belonging is usually stronger in smaller cities with more in-

sector

digenous population. It is this sense of belonging that generally trans-

lates into public support. Bangkok will need engage with its citizens
Water supply and sanitation

more proactively, using innovative IEC media in order to solicit

stronger public support for water security enhancement measures.
Water-related disasters

The overall WSI for Bangkok, as gleaned from Table 8, is 3.64 in

Water environment
Water productivity

Water governance

2015. This translates to ‘very good’ water security as per the inter-
pretation system indicated in Table 2.
Dimension
Table 5

9
M.S. Babel, et al. Environmental Research 185 (2020) 109400

Table 6
Reference values used to normalize the variables.
Dimension Indicators Variables Reference values Reference

1 2 3 4 5

Water supply and Water availability Per capita water use (lpcd) < 20 21–50 51–90 91–100 > 100 Bartram & Howard (2003)
sanitation Percentage of Imported water (%) > 50 30–50 10–30 0–10 0 Expert opinion
Accessibility Population access to piped water < 60 60–70 70–80 80–90 > 90 ADB (2016)
supply (%)
Quality of water supplied Residual chlorine (%) < 50 50–60 60–75 75–100 100 Expert opinion
Hygiene and sanitation Water borne disease factor (%) > 25 10–25 5–10 0–5 0 Expert opinion
Water productivity Economic value of water Commercial water productivity 0–2.1 2.1–5.5 5.5–20 20–50 > 50 ADB (2016)
3
(US$/m )
Water-related disasters Disaster mitigation Disaster budget factor (%) 0 0–1 1–5 5–10 > 10 Expert opinion
Disaster preparedness Natural drainage factor (%) < 10 10–20 20–35 35–50 > 50 Expert opinion
Water environment State of natural water bodies Natural water quality factor < 60 60–70 70–90 90–100 100 Expert opinion
Effect of polluting factors Wastewater treatment factor (%) < 60 61–70 71–80 81–90 91–100 ADB (2013)
Water governance Overall management of the Institution factor Corresponding to Likert scale interpretation Expert opinion
water sector
Potential to adapt to future Adaptability factor Corresponding to Likert scale interpretation Expert opinion
changes
Citizen support for water Public support factor Corresponding to Likert scale interpretation Expert opinion
security

4. Implications of the study for climate change adaptation in
Thailand
While this study focused on Bangkok, it should be up scaled to all
other major cities in Thailand, which will help provide a disaggregated
status of water security across the country. This can form the basis for
city-specific water security enhancements interventions, which collec-
tively have useful implications in terms of implementing national cli-
mate change adaptation-related strategies and action plans. The first of
these is Thailand's Nationally Determined Contributions (ONEP, 2015)
to the United Nations Framework for Climate Change Convention
(UNFCCC). Among, the twelve adaptation-related commitment, two are
related to water. These include:
• Promote and strengthen Integrated Water Resources Management
(IWRM) practices to achieve water security, effective water resource
management to mitigate flood and drought
• Strengthen disaster risk reduction and reduce population's vulnerability
to climate risk and extreme weather events through enhanced awareness,
coordination and adaptive capacity of local communities, especially in
the disaster risk-prone areas.
The water governance dimension (and related indicators) of the
framework directly address the first point, and can be used as a
Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) tool to evaluate the efficacy of the
interventions taken. Similarly, the water-related disasters dimension
(especially the disaster mitigation intervention indicator) is capable of
addressing the second point. One of the potential variables to measure
the indicator is ‘disaster preparedness’ workshops with vulnerable
communities that can help reduce this vulnerability.
Thailand's Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment has re-
cently developed the National Climate Change Master Plan
(2015–2050). Among the various goals of the Plan is to mainstream
climate resilience into development planning at all levels. Water re-
sources management figures prominently in the planning strategy.
Activities under this strategy include ‘developing flood risk maps’, ‘in-
creasing population access to clean water’, and ‘managing surface and
ground water (water governance)’, among others. It is quite evident
that these activities correspond to some of the indicators/variables of
the water security framework developed in this study. The framework,
therefore, can be used as one of the decision support tools to help in the
implementation of the Master Plan.
Thailand's 12th National Economic and Social Development Plan
(2017–2021) acknowledges the linkages between climate change, water
and agriculture. The Plan indicates that ‘climate change has caused water
shortage, floods and severe natural disasters. The consequential losses and
damage in the agricultural sector will result in the decline of global agri-
cultural production, causing food insecurity. For Thailand, climate change
has a direct effect on the export of food and agricultural products, which is
one of the main revenue sources of the country’. Hence, an improvement in
water security has the potential to enhance the food security in the
country as well.
In late 2018, Thailand's National Water Policy Commission gave its
approval to a 20 Year Water Management Master Plan, which will be
managed by the Office of National Water Resources (ONWR). The Plan,
which takes cognizance of the climate change threat, aims to build
security of the nation's water sources (both quantity and quality), and
protect settlements from flooding. The Plan, which will run until 2037
has six strategies-management of water use; security of water produc-
tion; inundation control; water quality conservation; afforestation in
watershed areas; prevention of soil damage; and managerial approach.
The indicators for most of these strategies are present in the framework
developed in this study.
5. Conclusions
The purpose of this study was to develop a water security assess-
ment framework using an indicator-based approach for city-scale ana-
lysis, and apply it to Bangkok city. Several interesting findings and
reflections have emerged out of this study. First, on the framework it-
self. The framework is unique in the sense that it has been developed to
foster operationalization of water security enhancement. Cities are
usually the scale at which most operational work is done. Hence, the
framework was developed at a city scale. This is quite unlike national or
sub-national scale assessments whose purpose is more to evaluate the
overall situation of water security, possibly for allocation of funding or
developing a macro policy. The framework is also unique because it has
three layers of structure—dimensions, indicators, and variables. This
three-layered structure helps to keep the framework generic, while at
the same time enables it to capture site-specific issues and challenges
about water security. It must be pointed that this framework has been
developed to foster practical interventions for water security enhance-
ment and not as a comparative tool for benchmarking (although this
can be a peripheral purpose). Hence, while the dimensions and in-
dicators of the framework are fixed, the choice of variables is up to the
city depending upon its context. This aspect of the framework,

10
M.S. Babel, et al. Environmental Research 185 (2020) 109400

Table 8
2015 Water Security Index for Bangkok city.
5
3
5

4
5
3
3
3
1
5
4
3
Dimension 2007 2011 2015
2011

5
3
4

4
5
2
3
3
2
Water Supply and Sanitation 4 3.8 4.2
2007

Water productivity 5 5 5
Water-related disasters 2.5 3
5
3
4

4
5
2

3
2
–
Water environment 2.5 2.5 2
Water governance 4
(Residual chlorine monitoring points satisfying the remnant requirement/Total monitoring

Water Security Index (WSI) 3.64

(Population of the city with access to piped water supply/City population) *100

therefore, is meant to help cities introspect internally and move up the

Dissolved Oxygen (DO) concentration/Minimum required standard for DO
(Hospitalized cases of water borne diseases/Total hospitalized cases)* 100

water security ladder.

Next, on the application of the framework to Bangkok city. The
(Investment in disaster response mechanisms/Total city budget) *100

framework is able to depict the water security situation of Bangkok

quite accurately. For years, Bangkok has been grappling with flood-
Questionnaire survey for public support for WS enhancement
(Amount of treated wastewater/Total wastewater generated)
Non-agricultural GPP/Non-agricultural water use in the city

related and water pollution-related issues. Both of these have been well
(Imported water production/total water production) * 100

captured in the analysis. On the other end of the spectrum, the analysis
also revealed that Bangkok has high water productivity and is reason-
Total domestic water consumption/City population

ably placed in terms of water supply and sanitation. The successful

(Total open space (green)/Total city area)*100

implementation of the framework in Bangkok makes a case for scaling

up this work to other cities in Thailand. This will not only help in de-
veloping a pan-country understanding of the water security nuances, it
will also serve as the ‘operational arm’ for supporting national level
initiatives for climate change adaptation. Further studies can focus on
applying this framework in diverse climatic and socioecomic condi-
tions. This will help ascertain the generalization potential of the fra-
Questionnaire survey
Questionnaire survey

mework.
points)X 100

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Estimation

Mukand S. Babel: Conceptualization, Methodology. Victor R.

Shinde: Formal analysis, Writing - original draft. Devesh Sharma:
Writing - review & editing. Nguyen Mai Dang: Methodology.
Commercial water productivity (US$/m3)
Population access to piped water supply

Declaration of competing interest

Percentage of Imported water (%)

Wastewater treatment factor (%)

Water borne disease factor (%)

Natural water quality factor

Per capita water use (l/c/d)

Natural drainage factor (%)

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial

Disaster budget factor (%)

interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-

Residual chlorine (%)

Public support factor

ence the work reported in this paper.

Adaptability factor
Institution factor

Acknowledgment
Variables

The authors are grateful to the support provided by the Asia Pacific
(%)

Network for Global Change Research (APN) under grant no. ARCP2015-
07CMY-BABEL, for the conduct of this research study.
Overall management of the water sector
Potential to adapt to future changes
Citizen support for water security

References
State of natural water bodies
Quality of water supplied

Lu, S., Bai, X., Li, W., Wang, N., 2019. Impacts of climate change on water resources and
Effect of polluting factors
Economic value of water
Hygiene and sanitation

grain production. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 143, 76–84.

Variables normalized as per the reference values.

Disaster preparedness

Ahmed, F., Moors, E., Khan, M.S.A., Warner, J., van Scheltinga, 2018. Tipping points in
Disaster mitigation
Water availability

adaptation to urban flooding under climate change and urban growth: the case of the
Dhaka megacity. Land Use Pol. 79, 496–506.
Accessibility

Asian Development Bank, 2013. Asian water development outlook 2013: measuring water
Indicators

security in asia and the pacific, manila, Philippines. Downloaded October 2019 from.
https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/30190/asian-water-
development-outlook-2013.pdf.
Asian Development Bank, 2016. Asian water development outlook 2016: strengthening
water security in asia and the pacific, manila, Philippines. Downloaded October 2019
Water supply and sanitation

from. https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/189411/awdo-2016.pdf.
Babel, M.S., Wahid, M.S., 2008. Freshwater under Threat: South Asia Vulnerability
Water-related disasters

Assessment of Freshwater Resources to Environmental Change. United Nations

Water environment
Water productivity

Water governance

Environment Programme, Kenya.

Bartram, H.G., Howard, G., 2003. Domestic Water Quantity: Service Level and Health.
World Health Organization, Geneva.
Dimension

Belhabib, D., Lam, V.W.Y., Cheung, W.W.L., 2016. Overview of West African fisheries
Table 7

under climate change: impacts, vulnerabilities and adaptive responses of the artisanal
and industrial sectors. Mar. Pol. 71, 15–28.

11
M.S. Babel, et al.
Carracelas, G., Hornbuckle, J., Rosas, J., Roel, A., 2019. Irrigation management strategies
to increase water productivity in Oryza sativa (rice) in Uruguay. Agric. Water Manag.
222, 161–172.
Cetin, O., Kara, A., 2019. Assesment of water productivity using different drip irrigation
systems for cotton. Agric. Water Manag. 223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2019.
105693.
Cook, C., Bakker, K., 2012. Water security: debating an emerging paradigm. Global
Environ. Change 22 (1), 94–102.
Dey, M., Gosh, K., Valmonte-Santos, R., Rosegrant, M.W., Chen, O.L., 2016. Economic
impact of climate change and climate change adaptation strategies for fisheries sector
in Fiji. Mar. Pol. 67, 164–170.
Falkenmark, M., Molden, D., 2008. Wake up to realities of river basin closure. Int. J.
Water Resour. Dev. 24, 201–215.
Fischer, G., Hizsnyik, E., Tramberend, S., Wiberg, D., 2015. Towards Indicators for Water
Security – A Global Hydro-Economic Classification of Water Challenges, IIASA
Interim Report IR-15-013. IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria.
Galappaththi, E.K., Ford, J.D., Bennett, E.M., Berkes, F., 2019. Climate change and
community fisheries in the arctic: a case study from Pangnirtung, Canada. J. Environ.
Manag. 250 Article 109534.
Global Water Partnership, 2000. Towards Water Security: A Framework for Action.
(Stockholm, Sweden).
Grey, D., Sadoff, C.W., 2007. Sink or Swim? Water security for growth and development.
Water Pol. 9 (6), 545–571.
Grigoriadou, A., Schwarzbauer, J., Georgakopoulos, A., 2008. Molecular indicators for
pollution source identification in marine and terrestrial water of the industrial area of
Kavala city, North Greece. Environ. Pollut. 151 (1), 231–242.
Harle, K.J., Howden, S.M., Hunt, L.P., Dunlop, M., 2007. The potential impact of climate
change on the Australian wool industry by 2030. Agric. Syst. 93 (1–3), 61–89.
Hasan, M.M., Wyseure, G., 2018. Impact of climate change on hydropower generation in
Rio Jubones Basin, Ecuador. Water Sci. Eng. 11 (2), 157–166.
Hasan, M.K., Shahriar, A., Jim, K.U., 2019. Water pollution in Bangladesh and its impact
on public health. Heliyon 5 (8), e02145.
International Water Association, 2018. Wastewater Report 2018: the Reuse Opportunity. .
http://www.iwa-network.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/OFID-Wastewater-
report-2018.pdf, Accessed date: November 2019.
Jensen, O., Wu, H., 2018. Urban water security indicators: development and pilot.
Environ. Sci. Pol. 83, 33–45.
Karimi, V., Karami, E., Keshavarz, M., 2018. Climate change and agriculture: impacts and
adaptive responses in Iran. J. Integ. Agric. 17 (1), 1–15.
KoontanakuIvong, S., Doungmanee, P., Hoisungwan, P., 2013. Water Security Index
Concept Thailand's Water Security Situation in the Context of World and ASEAN.
Chulalongkorn University and Research Center, National Institute of Development
Administration, Thailand (In Thai).
Krueger, E., Rao, P.S.C., Borchardt, D., 2019. Quantifying urban water supply security
under global change. Global Environ. Change 56, 66–74.
Lankford, B., Bakker, K., Zeitoun, M., Conway, D. (Eds.), 2013. Water Security, Principles,
Perspectives and Practices. Routledge, Oxon and New York.
Lautze, J., Manthrithilake, H., 2012. Water security: old concepts, new package, what
value? GWF Discussion Paper 1250, Global Water Forum, Canberra, Australia.
Available online at: http://www.globalwaterforum.org/2012/11/20/water-security-
oldconcepts-new-package-what-value/.
Li, X., Su, X., Wei, Y., 2019. Multistage integrated water security assessment in a typical
region of Northwestern China. J. Clean. Prod. 220, 732–744.
Liu, M., Xu, X., Jiang, Y., Huang, Q., Huang, G., 2019. Responses of crop growth and
water productivity to climate change and agricultural water-saving in arid region.
Sci. Total Environ (in press).
Luque-Espinar, J.A., Navas, N., Chica-Olmo, M., Cantarero-Malagón, S., Chica-Rivas, L.,
2015. Seasonal occurrence and distribution of a group of ECs in the water resources
of Granada city metropolitan areas (South of Spain): pollution of raw drinking water.
J. Hydrol. 531 (3), 612–625.
Mason, N., Calow, R., 2012. Water Security: From Abstract Concept to Meaningful Metrics
– An Initial Overview of Options. Working Paper 357. (ODI, London, UK).
Maxim, L., Spangenberg, J., O'Connor, M., 2009. The DPSIR framework for biodiversity
12
Environmental Research 185 (2020) 109400
assessment. Ecol. Econ. 69 (1), 12–23.
Mehr, S., 2011. Integrated Framework for Assessment of Water Security. (Master
Research Study No. WM-10-1, Asian Institute of Technology. Asian Institute of
Technology, Thailand 2011.
Miller, J.D., Hutchins, M., 2017. The impacts of urbanisation and climate change on
urban flooding and urban water quality: a review of the evidence concerning the
United Kingdom. J. Hydrol.: Reg. Stud. 12, 345–362.
Ministry of Urban Development India, 2008. Guidance Note for Continuous Water Supply:
A Guide to Project Preparation, Implementation and Appraisal. http://cpheeo.gov.
in/upload/uploadfiles/files/Guidance%20Note%20for%20Continuous%20Water
%20Supply.pdf, Accessed date: November 2019.
Mozell, M.R., Thach, L., 2014. The impact of climate change on the global wine industry:
challenges & solutions. Wine Econ. Pol. 3 (2), 81–89.
Onep, 2015. Thailand. Thailand's intended nationally determined contribution (INDC).
Office of National Environmental Planning, Thailand. . https://www.ctc-n.org/sites/
www.ctc-n.org/files/UNFCCC_docs/thailand_indc.pdf, Accessed date: November
2019.
Paquin, D., de Elía, R., Bleau, S., Charron, I., Bine, S., 2016. A multiple timescales ap-
proach to assess urgency in adaptation to climate change with an application to the
tourism industry. Environ. Sci. Pol. 63, 143–150.
Qin, P., Xu, H., Liu, M., Du, L., Tarroja, B., 2019. Climate change impacts on Three Gorges
Reservoir impoundment and hydropower generation. J. Hydrol (in press), journal
pre-proof, Available online 6 July 2019, Article 123922.
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., McCornick, P., Ringler, C., Rosegrant, M.,
Whittington, D., Wiberg, D., 2015. Securing Water, Sustaining Growth. Report of the
GWP/OECD Task Force on Water Security and Sustainable Growth. University of
Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Sassi, S., Nicotina, L., Pall, P., Stone, D., Jewson, S., 2019. Impact of climate change on
European winter and summer flood losses. Adv. Water Resour. 129, 165–177.
Segnestam, L., 2002. Indicators of Environment and Sustainable Development: Theories
and Practical Experience. Environmental Economics Series Paper No 89.
Su, Y., Gao, W., Guan, D., 2019. Integrated assessment and scenarios simulation of water
security system in Japan. Sci. Total Environ. 671, 1269–1281.
Suruchi, Ratani, S., Gurjar, S., Manish, 2015. Study of pollution level in Yamuna River
due to untreated Delhi drains. Int. J. Sci. Res. 4, 5.
Teotónio, C., Fortes, P., Roebeling, P., Rodriguez, M., Robaina-Alves, M., 2017. Assessing
the impacts of climate change on hydropower generation and the power sector in
Portugal: a partial equilibrium approach. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 74, 788–799.
UN-Water, 2006. Water: a Shared Responsibility; the United Nations World Water
Development Report 2. . https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000145405.
page=562, Accessed date: November 2019.
UN-Water, 2013. Analytical Brief on Water Security and the Global Agenda. http://i.unu.
edu/media/unu.edu/publication/34287/UNWater_watersecurity_analyticalbrief.pdf.
UNISDR, 2015. The Human Cost of Weather Related Disasters 1995-2015. https://www.
unisdr.org/2015/docs/climatechange/COP21_WeatherDisastersReport_2015_FINAL.
pdf, Accessed date: November 2019.
Vorosmarty, C.J., McIntyre, P.B., Gessner, M.O., Dudgeon, D., Prusevich, A., Green, P.,
et al., 2010. Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity. Nature
467 (7315), 555–561.
Wagena, M.B., Collick, A.S., Ross, A.C., Najjar, R.G., Easton, Z.M., 2018. Impact of climate
change and climate anomalies on hydrologic and biogeochemical processes in an
agricultural catchment of the Chesapeake Bay watershed, USA. Sci. Total Environ.
637–638, 1443–1454.
Xiao, S., Li, J., Xiao, H., Liu, F., 2007. Comprehensive assessment of water security for
inland watersheds in the Hexi Corridor, Northwest China. Environ. Geol. 55 (2),
369–376.
Yan, R., Gao, Y., Li, L., Gao, J., 2019. Estimation of water environmental capacity and
pollution load reduction for urban lakeside of Lake Taihu, eastern China. Ecol. Eng.
139 Article 105587.
Zeitoun, M., 2011. The global web of national water security. Global Policy 2 (3),
286–296.