• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Building a robust indicator for monitoring progress and prioritising investment
 

Building a robust indicator for monitoring progress and prioritising investment

on

  • 925 views

Presented at the Basin Focal Project Poverty Mapping Workshop, November 2007, Chiang Mai, Thailand

Presented at the Basin Focal Project Poverty Mapping Workshop, November 2007, Chiang Mai, Thailand

Statistics

Views

Total Views
925
Views on SlideShare
924
Embed Views
1

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
8
Comments
0

1 Embed 1

http://www.slideshare.net 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Building a robust indicator for monitoring progress and prioritising investment Building a robust indicator for monitoring progress and prioritising investment Presentation Transcript

    • Building a robust indicator for monitoring progress and prioritising investment Less stress No change More stress Dr Caroline.Sullivan, Oxford University Centre for Water Research
    • The starting point for the WPI The GWAVA model of water resources in E and S Africa -2.00 to -1.90 -1.75 to -1.50 -1.00 to -0.50 -0.50 to 0.20 0.20to1.0 Source: Meigh et al, 98 1.50 to 1.75 0 1.90 to 2.00 Dr Caroline.Sullivan, Oxford University Centre for Water Research
    • Assessing links between water & poverty using the Water Poverty Index (WPI) Indices: A means of measuring something otherwise immeasurable, and a method of conveying information . To be useful, the WPI must be: Calculating the WPI • Easy to calculate ∑ wiXi • Cost effective to implement WPI = i =1 or, it can be • Based as far as possible on existing data expressed ∑ wi like this: • Transparently calculated i =1 • Easy to understand wrR + waA + wcC + wuU + weE WPI = S u b -c o m p o n e n ts R e so u rc e wr + w a + wc + wu + we S u b -c o m p o n e n ts A ccess O v e ra ll S u b -c o m p o n e n ts C a p a c ity W PI The WPI v a lu e has a low S u b -c o m p o n e n ts U se score if S u b -c o m p o n e n ts E n v iro n m e n t people are Each component is made up of subcomponents water poor and combined using the same composite structure Dr Caroline.Sullivan, Oxford University Centre for Water Research
    • Illustrating the value of the Water Poverty Index: Examples from The Dominican Republic & Haiti These two countries located on the same island, provide an excellent example to demonstrate the value of the Water Poverty Index. Although the physical conditions are very similar, the scores on the national level WPI are very different. Water managers in each country can see where their weaknesses lie, and so actions can be prioritised Country Resources Access Capacity Use Environment WPI Dominican Republic 7.33 14.30 15.38 11.45 10.93 59.40 Haiti 6.15 6.20 10.47 6.46 5.84 35.12 WPI component values Dominican Republic and Haiti (WPImax =100) The situation in Haiti 20 Resources is much worse than in 15 Dominican the Dominican 10 Rep. Environment 5 Access (WPI=59.3) Republic – this is 0 Haiti mostly thought to be (WPI = 35.1) due to Use Capacity poor governance Dr Caroline.Sullivan, Oxford University Centre for Water Research
    • Application of the WPI at the national scale to 148 countries Dr Caroline.Sullivan, Oxford University Centre for Water Research
    • Applying the WPI to provincial level data An example from the Mun River basin, An example from Thailand S u b - b a s i n o f M u n B a s in Benin, West L a m D o m N o i (0 5 3 2 ) 4 4 .5 L a m T a k h o n g (0 5 0 5 ) 3 7 .6 Africa L a m S a e (0 5 0 3 ) 3 7 .1 L a m N a n g R o n g (0 5 0 8 ) 3 5 .6 T h ir d P a r t o f L a m N a m M u n ( 0 5 2 2 ) 3 5 .5 H u a i T h u n g L u n g (0 5 3 1 ) 3 5 .4 L a m P h r a p h lo e n g ( 0 5 0 4 ) 3 2 .5 L o w e r P a rt o f L a m N a m M u n (0 5 3 0 ) 3 1 .5 L a m S a B a i (0 5 2 7 ) 2 8 .6 U p p e r P a rt o f L a m N a m M u n (0 5 0 2 ) 2 7 .7 L a m S a B o k (0 5 2 8 ) 2 4 .2 L a m S a T h a e t (0 5 1 3 ) 2 3 .8 L a m P h a n g S u (0 5 1 4 ) 2 3 .6 L a m P h l a p p h la ( 0 5 1 7 ) 2 3 .1 Regional WPI L a m P la i M a t (0 5 1 0 ) 2 2 .2 Benin H u a i T a k h o n g (0 5 1 5 ) 2 1 .6 22 H u a i A e k (0 5 1 2 ) 2 0 .8 23 - 33 34 - 39 L a m C h o e n g k ra i (0 5 0 6 ) 2 0 .7 40 - 43 L a m C h a k k a ra t (0 5 0 7 ) 2 0 .0 44 - 46 1 9 .7 L a m T a o (0 5 1 8 ) 47 - 50 L a m D o m Y a i (0 5 2 9 ) 1 9 .1 51 - 55 L a m P a th a i (0 5 0 9 ) 1 9 .0 56 - 63 1 8 .9 H u a i P h o n g (0 5 2 6 ) L a m C h i (0 5 1 6 ) 1 8 .1 L a m S ie o N o i (0 5 2 0 ) 1 7 .6 H u a i K h a y u n g (0 5 2 5 ) 1 7 .3 H u a i S a m ra n (0 5 2 3 ) 1 7 .2 Resource, WPI_R 1 7 .1 Access, WPI_A H u a i T h a (0 5 2 4 ) Capacity, WPI_C S e c o n d P a rt o f L a m N a m M u n (0 5 1 1 ) 1 5 .2 Use,WPI_U L a m S ie o Y a i (0 5 1 9 ) 1 5 .1 Environment, WPI_E H u a i S a m ra n (0 5 2 1 ) 1 1 .8 - 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.0 WPI of 31 Sub-basins in Mun River 0 Dr Caroline.Sullivan, Oxford University Centre for Water Research
    • Application of the WPI approach to date • The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation: The WPI being used as the basis for the development of a Rural Water Poverty Index which is being carried out by the FAO Land and Water Division • CANADA – The government of Canada has decided to develop a CanadianWater Sustainability Index which has been designed on the basis of the Water Poverty Index. The main objective of this is to evaluate water access and resources in the communities of indigenous people. In the workshop we adapted the WPI methodology and added in an additional component representing culture. • Taiwan – Application of the WPI at regional levels by Ministry of Water Resources, key issues identified through a Delphi process by government officials • Australia: The WPI has been used as the basis for the development of an index to be used by the Australian Aid Organization (AUSAID). This index will be used to evaluate performance in the water sector in Pacific Island states in which Australia has a strategic interest. (working with the University of Western Australia and Griffith University, Brisbane • Southern Africa: The WPI has been the basis of the development of a climate change related tool referred to as the Climate Vulnerability Index. This has generated a lot of interest, and is currently being further developed and applied in the Orange River Basin, a large transboundary basin which includes South Africa, Botswana, Namibia and Lesotho. • The CGIAR (Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research) For the Challenge Programme on Water and Food , the WPI has been identified as a model which can be used to evaluate progress in their research programme. • The Global Water Systems Project (GWSP) Part of the International Science Union – Dr Sullivan organised a workshop in Wallingford, for the Global Water Systems Project, to develop a methodology of developing integrated indices from large scale global datasets. This resulted in the development of a report which has been published as the GWSP working paper no 1, entitled ‘Mapping the Links Between Water Poverty and Food Security’ (www.gwsp.org) • USA - Contribution to the development of an integrated ‘security index’ for SANDIA, and the Centre for Strategic and International Studies. The WPI was used as an example of how an integrated index could be developed and Dr. Sullivan participated in the conceptualisation meeting as the ‘water expert’. • Other – numerous students from Thailand, Indonesia, Nigeria, Kenya, Argentina, Chile, Zimbabwe, Nepal, Ethiopia, S. Africa, UK and the United States have been conducting research on the application of the WPI in various countries. Dr Caroline.Sullivan, Oxford University Centre for Water Research
    • Potential use of other sources of data Save River Flooding of 27 February 2000 Limpopo River Chokwe Incomati River Xai-xai Maputo Dr Caroline.Sullivan, Oxford University Centre for Water Research
    • Usefulness of the integrated index approach WPI Resource Access Human Efficiency Environmental supply Capacity, of use integrity infrastructure Benefits of WPI Problems with WPI – All-embracing – All-embracing – Flexible – Inconsistent – Able to combine – Mixes information information types Dr Caroline.Sullivan, Oxford University Centre for Water Research
    • Examining how WPI components may be related Investigating Conditional Independence in the WPI Resources 100 CI Conditional Independency can be investigated using 80 Bayesian techniques 60 40 Access Environment 20 0 CI Conditional Independency Use Capacity Dr Caroline.Sullivan, Oxford University Centre for Water Research
    • Building Bayesian Networks Identify problem, Construct preliminary consult stakeholders BN Use information to suggest possible outcomes Provide feedback to Collect data, stakeholders, modify BN expert opinion Dr Caroline.Sullivan, Oxford University Centre for Water Research
    • Potential structure Developing an Component Variables index for the CP Health Access to sanitation Access to safe domestic water The structure of such an index Child mortality under 5 could include a measure of Environment Flow Change water resources which act as a Fragmentation of Habitats constraint on the following Water Quality components: Biodiversity • Health Food Malnourished Children • Food security Food self sufficiency • Environment Climate vulnerability • Productivity Political vulnerability • Institutional/human capacity Capacity Participation Expenditure in Water sector Education Infrastructure Institutional capacity Water Productivity industrial agriculture Dr Caroline.Sullivan, Oxford University Centre for Water Research
    • Extending the WPI through a Bayesian approach WPI Resource Access Human Efficiency Environmental supply Capacity, of use integrity infrastructure Rainfall Access Land Capacity Env. Likelihood of sufficiency LS 11.67 7.00 2.33 3.50 1.00 Likelihood of necessity LN 0.18 0.82 0.26 0.44 1.00 p(Non-Poor) Site Rainfall Access Land Capacity Env. p(Poor) 0.31 Semi-arid -3 -3 4 1 2 0.69 0.55 Riverside -3 4 -1 2 3 0.45 NOTES: 1. Large number means it's all you need Probabilities make 2. Small number means you need it 3. Certainty that conditions are OK: best (+5) to worst (-5) uncertainties explicit Dr Caroline.Sullivan, Oxford University Centre for Water Research
    • Publications on the Water Poverty Index • Publications Journal Papers • Sullivan C.A. and Meigh, J.R. (2007) Integration of the biophysical and social sciences using an indicator approach: Addressing water problems at different scales Journal of Water Resources Management • Sullivan C.A. and Meigh J.R (2003) The Water Poverty Index: its role in the context of poverty alleviation. Water Policy, 5:5. Oct 2003 • Wallace, J S., M.C. Acreman and C. A. Sullivan (2003) The sharing of water between society and ecosystems: from advocacy to catchment based co-management. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal society of London, B Biology Dec 2003, 513-528 • Sullivan C.A., Meigh J.R., Giacomello A.M., Fediw T., Lawrence P., Samad M., Mlote S., Hutton C., Allan J.A., Schulze R.E., Dlamini, D.J.M., Cosgrove W., Delli Priscoli J., Gleick P., Smout I., CobbingJ., Calow R., Hunt C., Hussain A., Acreman M.C., King J., Malomo S., Tate E.L., O'Regan D., Milner S. and Steyl I. (2003) The Water Poverty Index: Development and application at the community scale. Natural Resources 27:189-199 • Sullivan, C.A. (2003) The Water Poverty Index: A new tool for prioritisation in water management. In: World Finance. 32- 34 • Sullivan C.A. (2002). Calculating a Water Poverty Index. World Development, 30, 1195-1210. • Sullivan C.A., (2001). The potential for calculating a meaningful Water Poverty Index. Water International, 26, 471-480. • Sullivan, C. A. (2000) Redefining the Water Poverty Index – A commentary. Water International, 25.4. • Research Reports • Sullivan, CA., Vörösmarty, C., Bunn, S.,Cline, S., Heidecke, C., Storygard, A.,Proussevitch,A., Douglas, E., Bossio, D., Günther, D., Giacomello, AM., O’Regan, D and J.R. Meigh (2006) Mapping the Links between Water, Poverty and Food Security GWSP Working Paper/ CEH Report 2006 (in press) • Sullivan, C.A., Meigh JR and Fediw T (2002) Developing and testing the Water Poverty Index: Phase 1 Final Report. Report to Department for International Development, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Wallingford, UK. • Sullivan, C.A. (ed.) 2000. Constructing a Water Poverty Index: a feasibility study. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology/DFID. • Lawrence, P. Meigh, J.R. and Sullivan, C.A. (2002) The Water Poverty Index, and International Comparison. Keele Economics Research Papers, 2002/19 • Book Chapter • Sullivan C.A. and Meigh J.R. (2003) Access to water as a dimension of poverty: the need to develop a Water Poverty Index as a tool for poverty reduction. In: Olcay Ünver I.H., Gupta R.K. and Kibaroğlu A. (eds.), Water Development and Poverty Reduction, Kluwer, Boston, 31-52. • Training handbook • Sullivan, C.A., Meigh, J.R. and D. P. O’Regan (2002) Evaluating your water: A Management Primer for the Water Poverty Index. CEH Wallingford. Dr Caroline.Sullivan, Oxford University Centre for Water Research