Chapter 3 Development of West Java Water
3.3 FINAL FRAMEWORK
3.4.3 Weights Given by Different Respondent Groups
As previously mentioned, four categories of respondents participated in the survey to obtain weights for WJWSI indicators and sub‐indicators. The average weights varied. The Community Group and University Lecturer group responses were contradictory on Water Availability, Water Demand, Information Disclosure, Law Enforcement, Poverty and Water Quality, as shown in Figure 3.9. The University Lecturer group assigned relatively high weights on Water Availability, Water Demand and Water Quality, while the Community Group assigned relatively low weights on these indicators and sub‐indicators. In contrast, the Community Group assigned high weights on Information Disclosure, Law Enforcement and Poverty, while the University Group assigned low weights to these indicators.
Table 3.9 Normalised weights for 13 indicators and sub‐indicators from all respondents Indicator/Sub‐ indicator 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 Law Enforcement 0.70 4.65 4.42 5.52 2.74 9.04 2.19 7.06 3.51 11.41 11.98 8.85 8.64 3.70 2.70 4.09 12.99 2 Information Disclosure 1.65 5.97 0.66 2.27 4.53 2.87 0.91 1.18 1.33 1.17 5.27 2.41 1.03 1.71 4.05 4.90 1.30 3 Health Impact 2.60 6.63 6.92 14.20 8.10 5.95 12.41 8.24 10.04 4.01 6.43 9.92 2.93 10.68 8.78 12.97 5.19 4 Education 4.49 7.95 1.91 13.12 1.85 9.04 6.02 3.53 5.68 10.84 11.11 7.77 4.84 4.70 4.73 10.55 1.30 5 Poverty 4.49 3.33 5.67 6.61 0.96 3.90 6.02 2.35 6.77 11.98 10.52 4.56 3.89 7.69 9.46 11.35 5.19 6 Sanitation 6.38 2.67 9.43 8.78 7.21 3.90 9.85 8.24 8.95 6.86 9.06 8.85 5.79 11.68 10.14 10.55 2.60 7 Water Loss 8.27 9.26 9.43 4.44 9.89 6.98 7.30 9.41 7.86 9.71 8.48 3.49 7.69 6.70 7.43 12.97 10.39 8 Coverage 8.27 9.26 10.68 12.03 9.00 10.06 11.13 11.76 11.12 9.14 2.34 6.70 7.69 8.69 5.41 8.13 7.79 9 Water Demand 9.22 10.58 9.43 10.95 10.78 6.98 8.58 10.59 12.21 8.00 6.73 6.70 10.55 12.68 6.76 8.13 7.79 10 Water Availability 11.11 13.88 14.44 3.35 12.57 16.23 13.69 12.94 12.21 7.43 8.19 12.06 13.40 13.68 12.16 3.29 15.58
11 Land Use Changes 13.01 11.90 13.19 7.69 11.68 11.09 4.74 4.71 2.42 10.28 9.94 12.06 11.50 5.70 11.49 0.86 14.29
12 Water Quality 13.95 13.22 8.17 9.86 14.36 13.15 13.69 14.12 13.30 8.57 9.65 10.99 13.40 9.69 13.51 7.32 9.09
13 Governance Structure 15.85 0.69 5.67 1.18 6.32 0.81 3.47 5.88 4.59 0.60 0.30 5.63 8.64 2.71 3.38 4.90 6.49
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Mean Min Max Std.
Deviation Coeff. Variation 7.59 13.47 11.09 14.18 15.79 5.91 13.75 11.03 9.72 4.87 12.84 13.26 3.05 1.38 7.81 0.68 15.79 4.47 0.57 1.27 11.68 4.46 17.73 1.47 3.59 0.91 8.00 6.42 13.16 14.72 6.41 11.17 15.34 5.14 0.66 17.73 4.90 0.95 6.33 0.95 8.15 7.09 7.20 5.91 2.62 0.94 4.77 11.97 10.01 3.48 13.49 12.73 7.47 0.94 14.20 3.74 0.50 3.80 11.68 3.72 13.48 0.75 3.59 12.04 9.01 6.42 10.79 8.13 4.46 8.85 13.60 7.08 0.75 13.60 3.84 0.54 3.80 2.74 2.99 6.38 5.76 12.87 3.48 2.96 14.68 9.61 7.18 4.46 12.33 4.00 6.44 0.96 14.68 3.54 0.55 6.33 2.74 9.62 2.13 7.91 3.59 6.05 1.95 4.77 10.79 9.07 2.50 10.01 7.49 6.96 1.95 11.68 2.98 0.43 1.27 4.53 6.67 2.84 2.18 8.23 8.61 13.05 14.68 7.24 5.30 11.30 7.69 9.24 7.82 1.27 14.68 3.10 0.40 5.06 4.53 5.93 2.84 2.90 12.87 5.19 3.97 11.38 8.42 6.24 12.28 6.53 10.98 8.03 2.34 12.87 3.04 0.38 12.66 6.32 5.20 5.67 4.33 15.19 4.33 5.98 1.47 7.24 6.24 8.37 4.21 11.85 8.24 1.47 15.19 3.05 0.37 15.19 8.10 13.30 4.26 11.49 12.87 11.18 12.04 1.47 1.32 2.47 7.39 1.89 3.13 9.74 1.32 16.23 4.78 0.49 12.66 9.89 12.57 12.77 17.23 1.27 15.46 14.06 11.38 4.87 0.59 9.35 0.73 0.51 9.02 0.51 17.23 4.94 0.55
The preference of the University Lecturer group on Water Availability, Water Demand and Water Quality is likely to be driven by ‘hard’ data and facts related to these indicators. Recent studies in West Java have shown that Water Availability, Water Demand and Water Quality conditions are deteriorating considerably. On the other hand, the Community Group is more interested in community or social‐related issues, such as Information Disclosure, Law Enforcement and Poverty. Even though ‘hard’ data on these socially related issues are not available, these issues have been constantly discussed and criticized through public media widely.
3.5 INDEX INTERPRETATION
Index interpretation is important to understand the sub‐index and aggregated index values. In the existing water sustainability indices (i.e. WPI and CWSI), the interpretation of these values is based on the maximum range of both values. As both WPI and CWSI used the 0‐100 index scale, the value of an indicator is considered preferable if it is closer to 100 and not preferable if the value is closer to 0.
The other existing water sustainability index, the WSI, uses the Human Development Index (HDI) with its thresholds to classify its aggregated index. The HDI, which comprises three main components (Health, Knowledge and Income), classifies the calculated index value into three groups. The value of HDI < 0.5 is considered to have low performance, the HDI between 0.5 and 0.8 having intermediate performance, and the HDI > 0.8 having high performance (Anand & Sen, 1994). Thus, for WSI, once the value for an indicator is computed, it is classified, based on the above HDI classification scheme. For example, the final WSI value for the Verdadeiro basin, Brazil, was 0.65 (Chaves & Alipaz, 2007). According to the HDI classification, this index value was considered to be at the intermediate performance level. Based on this classification, further recommendations were provided to relevant decision makers to improve the sustainability of the basin.
For the WJWSI, the interpretation for sub‐indices and their aggregated index will be based on a quartile scale. Using this scheme, the WJWSI maximum value of 100 and minimum value of 0 are classified, as shown in Table 3.10.
Table 3.10 Interpretations of sub‐indices and aggregated Index Aggregated index and
Sub‐indices
Performance Priority of Action
0 – <25 Poor High
25 – <50 Poor – Medium High – Medium
50 – <75 Medium – Good Medium – Low
75 – 100 Good Low
This scheme provides four levels of index performance, compared to three HDI groups. This performance classification is used as the basis for relevant priority action to improve the water resource management at the catchment scale. In the WJWSI, Performance reflects the condition of issue(s) related to an indicator, a sub‐indicator, or the overall water resource condition at a particular time of assessment. The Priority of Action reflects the priority of action(s) required to address the issue(s).
3.6 SUMMARY
The development of the West Java Water Sustainability Index (WJWSI) involved two main stages. The first stage was the development of the conceptual framework, based on the extensive literature review. Available sustainability criteria, water resource guidelines and existing water sustainability indices are valuable sources of input to identify components, indicators and thresholds as main constituents of the conceptual WJWSI framework. These previous studies, combined with data availability and relevancy to West Java conditions, have eventually shaped the conceptual framework. A well‐developed conceptual framework is critically important to major initial input in the Delphi application. A sound conceptual framework ensures that water‐related stakeholders have a comprehensive understanding of the proposed water sustainability index.
The second stage of development was the Delphi application, which aimed at refining the WJWSI conceptual framework. In the application of the Delphi technique, several steps were involved. They were the identification of respondents, the design of questionnaires, the distribution and collection of completed questionnaires, and analysis of results. In the Delphi application for this study, two rounds of questionnaire distribution were involved.
Round One has provided valuable input and views from stakeholders on how to improve the conceptual framework. This input was carefully analysed and included in the Round Two questionnaire. At the end of Round One, respondents reached consensus for most of the WJWSI components, indicators and thresholds. After Round Two, respondents reached consensus for all components, most indicators and sub‐indicators, and some thresholds. The remaining indicators, sub‐indicators and thresholds (that have not been agreed) were brought into in‐depth interviews with key stakeholders. Here, all indicators and sub‐indicators were finalised, and remaining thresholds were finalised with a further literature review on available policies and guidelines.
In this study, a survey was conducted to obtain the weights for WJWSI indicators and sub‐ indicators. In the survey, respondents who participated in Delphi applications were asked to provide their weight preferences on WJWSI indicator and sub‐indicators. Based on this information, weights of indicators and sub‐indicators were calculated using the Revised Simos’ procedure. Calculation results revealed that the highest weight belonged to the Water Availability and the lowest weight belonged to the Information Disclosure. It was also found that the University Lecturer group and Community group had reverse preference on some indicators. The University Lecturer group had a high preference on the Water Availability, Water Demand and Water Quality indicators, while the Community group had a low preference for these indicators. In contrast, the Community group had a high preference on Information Disclosure, Law Enforcement and Poverty indicators, while the University Lecturer group had a low preference for these indicators.
Performance and Priority of Action for WJWSI were introduced for index interpretation. Performance reflects the condition of issue(s) related to an indicator, a sub‐indicator or the overall water resource condition at a particular time of assessment. The Priority of Action reflects the priority of action(s) required to address the above issue(s). High Performance corresponds to low Priority of Action for the catchment, and vice versa.
Having finalised the development of WJWSI, the next task will be the application of the index in different West Java catchments. In this study, as mentioned, the index will be applied to three catchments: Citarum, Ciliwung and Citanduy. In these case studies, the water
address important issues will be identified. During the case studies, the aggregated index values of the three catchments will be compared to determine which catchments need higher priority. The detailed process of application in these catchments is presented in Chapter 4.