University of Hargeisa

College Of Engineering
Civil Engineering

The Role of Harvesting Running Water on Water Scarcity, in the case of

Hargeisa, Somaliland

Prepared by:
Eng. Sakarie Abdihakim Mohamed
Eng. Abdirahman Mohamed Yousuf
Eng. Abdiwahab Saleban Elmi

July, 2019

i
 Project Title
The Role of Harvesting Running Water on
Water Scarcity, in the case of Hargeisa,
Somaliland

Prepared by:
Eng. Sakarie Abdihakim Mohamed
Eng. Abdirahman Mohamed Yousuf
Eng. Abdiwahab Saleban Elmi

Supervisor: Maxamuud Maxamed Cabdilaahi

A REPORT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE BACHELOR OF SCIENCE
IN CIVIL ENGINEERING

ii
 CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY

I hereby declare that this report, submitted to the College of Computing and
Information Technology of the University of Hargeisa as a partial fulfillment Commented [A1]: ??????????

of the requirements for the Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering has not
been submitted as an exercise for a degree at any other university. I also certify
that the work described here is entirely my own except for excerpts and Commented [A2]: So far it is entirely from other
decoment
summaries whose sources are appropriately cited in the references.

This report may be made available within the university library for the purposes
of consultation.

DATE 25/6/2019

1. Eng. Sakarie Abdihakim Mohamed ID:1410134

2. Eng. Abdirahman Mohamed Yousuf ID:1410184
3. Eng. Abdiwahab Saleban Elmi ID:1411279

iii
 Approval Sheet

This is to certify that this project report entitled “The Role of Harvestig
Running Water on Water Scarcity, in the case of Hargeisa, Somaliland”
submitted by:

4. Eng. Sakarie Abdihakim Mohamed ID:1410134

5. Eng. Abdirahman Mohamed Yousuf ID:1410184
6. Eng. Abdiwahab Saleban Elmi ID:1411279

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Science

in Department of Civil/Electric and Electronics/Electronics and
Communication Engineering/Architecture and Urban Planning of the College
of Engineering, University of Hargeisa during the academic year 2018-19 has Commented [A3]: ????????????????

been accepted. Commented [A4]: Not yet accepted

Supervisor: Mohamoud Mohamed Abdilahi

Signature: …………………….

Date: …………………………

iv
 ABSTRACT

Currently, there are many ongoing researches that are targeted for
running water management.. In this research, can briefly explain and Commented [A5]: study

contribute the running water catchment.

v
Table of Contents
1. Project Title ...................................................................................................... ii
2. CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY ................................................................ iii
3. Approval Sheet..................................................................................................iv
4. ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................v
5. Chapter one ........................................................................................................1
5.1. Introduction ................................................................................................1
5.2. Background ................................................................................................1
5.3. Problem statement ......................................................................................6
5.4. General objective .......................................................................................8
5.4.1. Specific objectives ..............................................................................8
5.4.2. Research questions ..............................................................................9
5.5. Scope of the project ....................................................................................9
5.5.1. Geographical scope .............................................................................9
5.5.2. Content scope ......................................................................................9
5.6. Significance of the study .............................................................................9
5.6.1. Government ........................................................................................9
5.6.2. Future researchers ............................................................................. 10
6. Chapter two...................................................................................................... 11
6.1. Literature review ......................................................................................11
6.1.1. Introduction.......................................................................................11
6.2. Water resource: sustainability and un-sustainability .................................. 16
6.2.1. Water and sustainability .................................................................... 16
6.2.2. Unsustainability of water resources ...................................................18
6.2.3. Water scarcity and its limits to economic growth ...............................31
6.2.4. Threats to the running water ecosystems of the world ........................34
6.3. Rain water harvesting ...............................................................................38
6.4. Factors Influencing Residential Water Consumption: A Brief Review ....... 40
7. Chapter three .................................................................................................... 44
7.1. Methodology ............................................................................................44
7.1.1. Study area description ....................................................................... 44
7.1.2. Climate .............................................................................................45
7.1.3. Main source of water in Hargeisa ......................................................46

vi
 7.2. Other sources of water ..............................................................................48
7.2.1. Trucks and tanks ...............................................................................48
7.2.2. Gaadhi Dameer- the donkey owners ..................................................49
7.3. Methodology of the Study ......................................................................... 50
8. Chapter four ..................................................................................................... 51
8.1. Discussion and Results ............................................................................. 51
8.1.1. Introduction.......................................................................................51
8.1.2. Discussion .........................................................................................51
8.1.3. Results ..............................................................................................52
9. Chapter five ..................................................................................................... 54
9.1. Conclusion and Recommendation .............................................................54
9.1.1. Introduction.......................................................................................54
9.1.2. Recommendation ..............................................................................54
9.1.3. Conclusion ........................................................................................55
10. Refrences ......................................................................................................... 57
Commented [A6]: no proper numbering

vii
 Chapter one
Introduction
This chapter presents the background of the study, problem
statement, general objective, specific objectives, research
questions, scope, and significance of the study about the role of
running water on water scarcity in Hargeisa Somaliland.

Background
Water is a common denominator of the ecosystem and the human
system (Falkenmark, 2002).
“Freshwater occurs as a complex system possessing a number of
dimensions. Surface water, groundwater, water quantity and
quality are all linked in a continuous cycle - the hydrological
cycle - of rainfall, runoff from the land, infiltration into the
ground, and evaporation from the surface back into the
atmosphere each component may influence the other components
and each must therefore be managed with regard to its inter-
relationships with the others.” (DWAF, 2004).

By 2025, one-third of the population of the developing world will

face severe water shortages (Seckler et al. 1998). Yet, even in
many water scarce regions, large amounts of water annually
flood out to the sea. Some of this floodwater is committed flow
to flush salt and other harmful products out of the system and to
maintain the ecological aspects of estuaries and coastal areas

1
(Molden 1997). However, in many cases, the floodwater is not
fully utilized; and, of course, the floods themselves can do a great
deal of harm.

In many places water scarcity increases as water systems are

subject to rises in pollution and exploitation (Postel, 2000; Postel
et al., 1996). Water use in the agricultural sector has increased
sharply since the 1960s due to investments that have led to a
doubling of irrigation area worldwide (Oki and Kanae, 2006). At
the beginning of the 21st century irrigation accounted for more
than 90 per cent of global consumptive water use (Shiklomanov
and Rodda, 2003).

The future of African people and the restoration of its

environment evidently depends on the achievement of a deep
understanding of the terrestrial hydrology of the arid and
semiarid regions to improve land management. Such an
understanding is crucial as a basis for long-term land use
planning and the selection of most adequate crops. In areas where
water provides a limit to long-term agricultural production, best
possible use of the local rain water would be a sound strategy.
Five major problems deserve special attention in future research
(Falkenmark, 1987).

In future socio-economic development in Africa, it will be

fundamental to recognize local water constraints (Falkenmark,
1986b). The traditional African way of drought risk management
used to be the nomadic way of life. In the Sahel region, people

2
were forced to move southwards during the dry season in order
to find pasture for their cattle. Benefitting from foreign aid and
international loans, governments implemented numerous well
drilling projects in the belief that social development would
benefit from just getting access to water. Easily accessible water
during the dry season however stopped the traditional southwards
migration. Today, drought-prone areas are often occupied by
sedentary farmers, so that during dry years overgrazing is
intensified, and land productivity reduced below the needs of the
population. As expressed by the Sahelians themselves: "Where
there is plenty of water there is no grass. Where there is plenty of
grass there is no water" (Reichelt, 1974).

Disaster relief does not help these areas, its general philosophy
being to help victims back to the status quo, assuming that there
is a norm to return to. More than disaster relief, directed towards
the social effects of the hazards, there is now urgent need for
disaster prevention, directed towards the causes of those effects
(Swedish Red Cross, 1984).

There is a need to create general awareness of basic water

constraints, and to find a social technique to bring help to self-
help (Mageed, 1986). Economic development in a region with a
tropical climate is very different from conditions in the temperate
region. In this perspective, any applicability limits of temperate
zone experiences and western theories have to be clarified to
limit mistakes, due to climatic bias, in future assistance to the

3
development of droughtprone countries (Biswas, 1984a;
Kamarck, 1976).

The increasing stress in Africa on limited water resources,

generated by population increase, and by increasing societal
demands to further socio-economic development, will generate
more and more conflicts over water on local, regional and
international levels. Water resources in relation to conflicts in
development have been discussed in an earlier study (Widstrand,
1980). Conflicts over water may develop on every level: the
international level, where countries share the same river basin
dispute over the water in the river, the ministerial level between
ministries managing water from different aspects (health,
agriculture, environment etc.), the local level between farmers
(e.g. on irrigation systems), but also vertical conflicts between
government and farmers, and conflicts between donors and
governments and/or local groups. In these conflicts, different
parties may have different perceptions of water, due to water's
multiple roles and uses in society.

In any conflict, whether over scarce resources or visions of the

future, there is always a trend to find a solution (Widstrand,
1980). Such resolution mechanisms may, of course, differ in
appearance from conflict resolution through violence to less
intense mechanisms for accommodation demands. Very little is
indeed known about water conflicts in spite of the fact that they

4
may be very intense in character due to the parties' high
dependence on the water.

In a time perspective of one or two decades, it is evident that

conflicts will develop on international rivers such as those
passing through the dry regions of Africa (Falkenmark, 1986c).
It follows from what has earlier been referred to as the
complementarity of the short and the long branches of the water
cycle that increased agricultural production in upstream countries
will imply that less water will arrive at the border of downstream
countries. Also countries with dry-season problems, but without
good opportunities to build reservoirs, may depend on upstream
countries for water storage. In line with industrial development,
disputes will develop over pollution in such rivers.

Today the most influential issue that Africa faces is water

scarcity. Water scarcity affects all who inhabit the region. Africa
is the second-largest and most-populous region, as well as the
second driest continent in the world, after Australia. Millions of
Africans still suffer from water shortages throughout the year
because of water scarcity. Water scarcity in Africa is bigger that
we imagine it to be. Of the estimated 800 million people who live
on the African continent, more than 300 million live in water-
scarce environments. In fact, more than 60% (34 out of the 55)
of the countries (globally), in which the basic human water
requirements are not met, are located in Africa. (Gleick, 1996;
2002).

5
Some additional reasons for why water scarcity exists in Africa
include: the lack of investment in water infrastructure, climatic
change and variability, poor water quality, a large and rapidly-
growing population, and uneven density levels. Additionally,
more than 80 percent of Africa's river and lake basins are shared
by two or more countries. Many countries depend on water
flowing from outside their national boundaries. (WWF)

In Hargeisa, Poor water supply and water scarcity affects people

in Hargeisa city. Hargeisa hosts the largest population in the
country. The estimated number of people living in Hargeisa is
approximately 1.5million, which means that the city has doubled
its inhabitants in the past 20 years. As a consequence, the city
has expanded tremendously towards all directions, and there are
many new areas joining the city. As a result of increasing
population and with the combination of inefficiency of the water
management in the city, the availability of sufficient water
resources has become critical (Abdisalaan, 2018).

Problem statement
The World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF) reports that over 1
billion people lack access to safe and clean water. Over 2.7
billion people suffer from at least 1 month of water scarcity in a
year. These facts can be hard to grasp, especially since only 3%
of the water in the world (which accounts for over 70% of the

6
earth’s surface) is freshwater deemed fit for human
consumption (Rinkesh, 2016).

However, when we factor in the fact that 2/3 of the freshwater in

the world is locked up in frozen glaciers, we can understand how
much of a problem water scarcity really is. Prospectively, while
over a billion people spend days searching for clean and safe
drinking water, some of us with access to plenty of water often
take it for granted.

What is water scarcity? When an individual does not have access

to safe and affordable water to satisfy her or his needs for
drinking, washing or their livelihoods we call that person water
insecure. When a large number of people in an area are water
insecure for a significant period of time, then we can call that
area water scarce. It is important to note, however, that there is
no commonly accepted definition of water scarcity. Whether an
area qualifies as ‘‘water scarce’’ depends on, for instance: (a)
how people’s needs are defined— and whether the needs of the
environment, the water for nature, are taken into account in that
definition; (b) what fraction of the resource is made available, or
could be made available, to satisfy these needs; (c) the temporal
and spatial scales used to define scarcity

Water is a very complex resource. Contrary to a static resource

such as land, water occurs in a very dynamic cycle of rain, runoff
and evaporation, with enormous temporal and spatial variations
as well as variations in quality that completely govern its value

7
 to people and ecosystems. That water can be a nuisance (in
floods) as well as a lifesaving resource (in droughts) is obvious,
but that both conditions can occur in one location within a single
year is more surprising. Annual average water availability in such
a situation has little meaning to measure water scarcity.

There is a knowledge gap with respect to the role of running

water on water scarcity in different temporal and spatial scales in
Somaliland, especially in Hargeisa valley. The relation between
running water and water scarcity: human interference in
hydrological processes changes water resources availability and
changes and variations in the distribution of water resources over
space and time induce responses by water users. Although water
user responses to variations and changes in water availability are
generally not taken into account. Reducing this knowledge gap is
relevant to Role of running water on water scarcity allocation in
Hargeisa valley.

General objective
 The main objective of this study was to determine the positive
role of harvesting running water on water scarcity in Hargeisa

Specific objectives
 To explore the positive role of running water in Hargeisa

 To identify the causes of water scarcity in Hargeisa

8
 Research questions
The research attempted to answer the above research questions
as follows

1. Is there a positive relation between running water and water

scarcity in Hargeisa?
2. What is the causes of water scarcity in Hargeisa?

Scope of the project

This study will be focused on Hargeisa Somaliland. The study
will show the role of running water as an IV and water scarcity
as a DV. The study will generally be conducted on march2019 Commented [A7]: ???????????/

through June 2019.

Geographical scope
This study will focused on the role of running water on water
scarcity in the case of Hargeisa, especially in Hargeisa valley.
Hargeisa Valley is situated in the Galgodon (Ogo) highlands, and
sits at an elevation of 1,334 m (4,377 ft).

Significance of the study

This study will be very significant to the following parties. Commented [A8]: Not enough

Government
The study will help government to train Hargeisa water agency
to stop running water in Hargeisa valley by minimize the water

9
scarcity in the city. Also this study will be part of the government
future policy in minimizing water scarcity in the city.

Future researchers
The study finding will be very curial to the future researchers
especially in the same significance of the study.

10
 Chapter two
Literature review
Introduction
This chapter reviewed the literatures from different studies in
order to capture ideas and arguments which guided the
development of the study. It is based on theoretical literature
review, literature review from earlier studies and conceptual
framework.

1.1. Sources of Water and their Accessibility

Drinking water is a basic requirement for life and a determinant
of standard of living. Up to 70% of the Earth's surface is covered
by water which is either surface or ground water (UNESCO,
2008). Surface water is water in rivers, lakes or fresh water
wetland. Surface water is naturally replenished by precipitation
and lost through discharge to the oceans, evaporation, evapo-
transpiration and sub-surface seepage. Sub-surface water or
groundwater, is fresh water located in the pore space of soil and
rocks. It is also water that is flowing within aquifers below the
water table (World Bank, 2011).

Water resources are very useful in various sectors such as;

agricultural, industrial, household and recreational activities.
Virtually all of these human uses require fresh water. 97.5% of
all water on Earth is salty leaving only 2.5% as fresh water
(UNDP, 2003). Slightly, over two thirds of this is frozen in

11
glaciers and polar ice caps. The remaining unfrozen fresh water
is found mainly as groundwater, with only a small fraction
present above ground or in the air (Gray & Alde, 2007). Fresh
water is a renewable resource, yet the world's supply of clean,
fresh water is steadily decreasing. Water demand already exceeds
supply in many parts of the world (Chartres & Varma, 2010) and
as the world population continues to rise, demand of water also
rises.

Less than 1% of the world's fresh water (0.007% of all water on

earth) is accessible for direct human use (Gleick, 2000). This is
the water found in lakes, rivers, reservoirs and those underground
sources that are shallow enough to be tapped at an affordable
cost. Only this amount is regularly renewed by rain and snowfall,
and is therefore available on a sustainable basis (Gleick, 2000).

Availability of water in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) is highly

variable. 75% of water supply in Africa is from groundwater
(UNESCO, 2008). Despite this, groundwater resources are
threatened by human activity and climatic change.

Only the humid tropical zones in central and West Africa have
abundant water. According to Sharma et al., (1996), eight
countries were suffering from water stress or 8 scarcity in 1990;
this situation has become worse as a consequence of rapid
population growth, expanding urbanization, and increased
economic development. By 2000, about 300 million Africans

12
were living in a water-scarce environment and by 2025; the
number of countries experiencing water stress will rise to 18
affecting 600 million people (World Bank, 2011).

The rapid urban population growth is characterized by poor

sanitation, environmentally related infections, as well as
psychological and social illnesses (Molden, 2008). The
development rate is also slower since some activities are based
on water for high output, but due to the shortage of water supply,
the output is low. Sanitation improvement usually results in
reduced cases of water related diseases and this is only possible
if the water supply rate is checked (Kaluli et al., 2009).

Most international organization use access to safe drinking water

and hygienic sanitation facilities as a measure for progress in the
fight against poverty, disease, and death (Smakthtin et al., 2004).
Even though progress has been made in the last decade to provide
safe drinking water and sanitation to people throughout the
world, there are still billions of people that lack access to these
services every day (Ofwat, 2006). The drinking water sources
mostly available may be either improved or unimproved
depending on the nature of construction or the kind of
intervention applied (Hoekstra & Chapagain, 2007).

Improved drinking water sources should, but do not always,

provide safe drinking water, and include: Piped household water
connection; Public standpipe; Borehole; Protected dug wells;

13
Protected spring and Rainwater collection(European
Commission, 2007c). Unimproved drinking water sources
include: Unprotected dug well; unprotected spring; Surface water
(river, dam, lake, pond, stream, canal, irrigation channel)
Vendor-provided water (cart with small tank/drum, tanker truck)
and Tanker truck water (European Commission, 2007c).

According to the World Health Organization and UNICEF, in

2010, 89% of the world’s population used drinking water from
piped connection (54% from a piped connection in their dwelling
areas and 35% from other improved drinking water sources such
as protected boreholes, shallow wells, springs and rain water
collection), leaving 780 million people lacking access to an
improved source of water. Access to safe drinking water is
measured by the percentage of the population having access to
and using improved water sources (UNICEF, 2010).

Africa's water resources are scattered throughout the continent.

While some areas receive more than enough water, others
experience constant drought (European Commission, 2007b).
Average areas in Africa receive rainfall anywhere from 200 to
800 millimeters of annual rainfall (Molden, 2008). Droughts that
may last up to five years are a common problem on the continent.
Three of four Africans use the ground water as their main water
supply (UNESCO, 2008). The ground-water is not always
available though as it accounts for only 15% of the continent's
water supply (UNESCO, 2008).

14
Basic infrastructural development in most rural and many urban
environments in Africa dictates that gaining access to drinking
water is often time consuming and difficult. All possible sources
are likely to be utilized; wells, streams, lakes and even canals.
The poor are frequently excluded from basic services, such as
piped water, sewerage and electricity and live under threat of, for
example, flooding, fire and contagious disease (Naumann, 2003).
Commonly in squatter settlements, residents buy water from
peddlers or fetch it from a public standpipe or well. The greatest
cause of Africa's problem of a lack of water is that the continent
cannot effectively utilize its resources (Ofwat, 2006).
Approximately 4 trillion cubic meters of water are available
every year, only about 4% of that is used (Hoekstra, 2007). The
continent and its people lack the technical knowledge and
financial resources needed to access their water supplies. Of the
25 nations in the world with the greatest percentage of people
lacking access to safe drinking water, 19 are in Africa
(Winpenny, 2001).

The United Nations estimates that Sub-Saharan Africa alone

loses 40 billion hours per year collecting water (Kimani, et al.,
2007). This is due to water being scarce and many sources are
unreliable especially for drinking water. The hours lost to
gathering water are often the difference between time to do a
trade and earn a living and not. When a water solution is put into
place, sustainable agriculture is possible. Children get back to

15
school instead of collecting water of which at times it is dirty
water all day, or being sick from waterborne illnesses. Parents
find more time to care for their families, expand minimal farming
to sustainable levels, and even run small businesses (Naumann,
2003).

Water resource: sustainability and un-

sustainability

Water and sustainability

With respect to water resources, as with many other resources,
sustainability has not been clearly defined, though several recent
efforts have made progress in defining the issues (Golubev et al.
1988, Koudstaal et al. 1992, Plate 1993, Raskin et al. 1995).
Water is not only essential to sustain life, but it also plays an
integral role in ecosystem support, economic development,
community well-being, and cultural values. Several basic
questions must be addressed in any discussion over the
sustainability of water use. How are all these values, which
sometimes conflict, to be prioritized? What is to be sustained?
For how long? What are the benefits? Who are the beneficiaries?
In the context of freshwater resources, any discussion of
sustainable development requires that we understand the stocks
and flows of global, regional, and local freshwater resources, and

16
the benefits or services that those resources must provide (Gleick
et al. 1995).

The simplest definition of the sustainable use of water would

require the maintenance of a desired flow of benefits to a
particular group or place, undiminished over time. Benefits
involve cultural values and issues, and are a function of the stock
of, and the demand for, water, both of which vary with
technology and population. Demands for water include not just
what people need, but what they want. This latter demand is
potentially much larger than minimum basic needs (Gleick
1996). This simple definition of sustainability, however, would
permit maintaining benefits to one user group at the expense of
another user group. A better definition would incorporate the
requirement that benefits to all current users be maintained,
without reducing benefits to other users, including natural
ecosystems. This definition is flawed too, by excluding explicit
rights for future generations or growing populations.

Further refinement requires that the sustainability of current

benefits be maintained without affecting the ability to provide
comparable benefits into the future— similar to the definition
developed during the work of the World Commission on
Environment and Development (WCED 1987) and widely
quoted: “Humanity has the ability to make development
sustainable—to ensure that it meets the needs of the present

17
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet
their own needs.”

The desired set of benefits provided by a resource does not have

to be, and is unlikely to be, the same across different users or
periods of time. Indeed, desired benefits of water use vary widely
given political, religious, cultural, and technological differences.
But in any realistic discussion of sustainability, the benefits to be
provided must be explicitly evaluated. Benefits of water use can
be subdivided in several ways: by form or sector of use, such as
domestic, agricultural, industrial, and ecosystem use; or by the
well-being provided by use, such as economic wealth, human and
ecological health, level of satisfaction, and so on. Sophisticated
measures of well-being are often difficult to quantify but provide
a more complete view of the consequences of resource use than
the traditional measures of simple quantities of per capita use.

Unsustainability of water resources

Gaining an understanding of the sustainable use of water can also
be approached by understanding what constitutes the
‘‘unsustainable’’ use of water. Using the definitions above, water
use is unsustainable if the services provided by water resources
and ecosystems, and desired by society, diminish over time.
Equity also requires that a reduction of services over time to one
user group be declared unsustainable even if other users are able
to maintain their desired services. It should be noted, however,
that inequities by themselves are not unsustainable; indeed, many

18
inequities in resource allocation and use can be maintained for
indefinite periods of time.

Unsustainable water use can develop in two ways: (1) through

alterations in the stocks and flows of waterthat change its
availability in space or time and (2) through alterations in the
demand for the benefits provided by a resource, because of
changing standards of living, technology, population levels, or
societal mores.

Water availability is affected by both natural and anthropogenic

factors, including climatic variability and change, population
growth that reduces per capita water availability, contamination
that reduces usable water supplies, physical overuse of a stock,
such as groundwater overdraft, and technological factors.
Similarly, demands for water are not constant; they increase with
growing populations, change as social values and preferences
change, and increase or decrease with technological innovation
and change.

Two problems deserve special attention: increasing populations

and changing technology; the first leads to both decreasing per
capita water availability and increasing overall demand; the
second affects both water supply and demand. Assuming
constant levels of total water availability, increasing populations

19
lead directly to decreasing per capita water availability and to
pressures on the levels of benefits or the mix of benefits that
water provides. Ultimately, unlimited population growth must
lead to decreasing water availability, the reallocations of water
from one user or sector to another, the unsustainable ‘‘mining’’
of nonrenewable stocks of water, and, in the end, decreasing
overall benefits and well-being.

Technological developments can alter water availability, and can

affect the amount of water required to satisfy demands. In theory,
practically unlimited quantities of fresh water are available by
mining water currently trapped in glaciers and ice caps, or on an
even larger scale, through the mass desalination of seawater. In
practice, however, increases in overall water supply should occur
only where the value of water exceeds the economic and
environmental costs of supplying that water through new
technology. Commented [A9]: Source, refferance

Similarly, changes in technology can increase or decrease the

amount of water required to supply a particular societal benefit.
If technological development proceeds independently of water
constraints, a new technology to supply energy, for example, may
require more water than previous alternatives. If water resources
are constrained, technology can be manipulated to reduce overall
water requirements in the same way that energy efficiency Commented [A10]: Refferance?

20
 technologies reduce energy needs without sacrificing the desired
benefit.

Finally, truly sustainable water use must involve the management

of the distribution of water in space and time. Social systems, i.e.,
institutions, to control water resources must be capable of coping
with changes in supply and demand and in responding to varying
priorities of water use under different conditions.

1.2. Water scarcity

Although water is seemingly abundant, the issue of water scarcity

that arises from a combination of factors on the supply side,
meaning a physical deficiency of water on a global scale, and on
the demand side, meaning there is water but it is not being used
optimally. There is an approximate volume of 1.4 billion km3 of
water on Earth; only 2.5% is fresh water (Shiklomanov 1993, p.
4). And, the majority of this freshwater is locked into polar Commented [A11]: Make it automatic

icecaps or too far underground that it is inaccessible. An analogy

to further illustrate this minute percentage of fresh water is that,
“if all the earth’s water were stored in a 5-liter container,
available fresh water would not quite fill a teaspoon” (Marq de
Villiers 2001, p. 36). This is not a new problem we are facing
because the volume of water on the Earth has not changed over
time; however, rapid population growth and wasteful
consumption drive the amount of water per capita down. Water
is a complicated resource to measure because there is a dynamic
cycle of rain, runoff and evaporation, but freshwater resources

21
are indeed limited. Desalination, or converting seawater to
drinkable water, is a costly process that is not a viable solution to
the lack of freshwater, nor is it foreseen to solve the crisis within
any short-term timeframe.

There is much talk of a water crisis, of which the most obvious

manifestation is that 1.2 billion people lack access to safe and
affordable water for their domestic use (WHO, 2003). Less well Commented [A12]: Automatically insert citation

documented is that a large part of the 900 million people in rural

areas that have an income below the one-dollar-per-day poverty
line lack access to water for their livelihoods. The lack of access
to water has major impacts on people’s well-being. Lack of
access to safe drinking water and sanitation, combined with poor
personal hygiene, causes massive health impacts, particularly
through diarrhoeal diseases, estimated to cost the lives of 2.18
million people, three-quarters of whom are children younger than
5 years old, annually, and an annual global burden of disease
measured as 82 million disability adjusted life years (Pru¨ss et
al., 2002).

The major advantages that make this simple indicator almost

unbeatable are that: (a) the data are readily available; and (b) its
meaning is intuitive and easy to understand. As a result the
indicator dominates the popular discussion of water scarcity,
even though its disadvantages are clear as well. These limitations
are: (a) the annual, national averages hide important scarcity at
smaller scales; (b) the indicator does not take into account the

22
availability of infrastructure that modifies the availability of
water to users; and (c) the simple thresholds do not reflect
important variations in demand among countries due to, for
instance, lifestyle, climate, etc. Ohlsson (1998, 1999) modified
the Falkenmark indicator by accounting for a society’s ‘‘adaptive
capacity’’—meaning the capacity to adapt to stress through
economic, technological or other means. Ohlsson used UNDP’s
Human Development Index to weight the Falkenmark’s
indicator, and called it a ‘‘Social Water Stress Index’’.

Others have focussed on a more accurate assessment of the

demand for water than taking fixed requirements per person as a
proxy, on a national scale, and related that to the national, annual
renewable water supply and national, annual demand for water.
A major effort over several decades by a large team of
researchers in the State Hydrological Institute in St. Petersburg,
Russia, led by Professor Igor Shiklomanov, is behind most
published global analyses of water demand and availability in the
last 15 years. An early publication on this group’s supply–
demand analysis (Shiklomanov, 1991) compared national annual
water availability with assessments of national water demand in
the agricultural, industrial and domestic sectors. In a global water
assessment for the United Nations Commission on Sustainable
Development, Raskin et al. (1997) use Shiklomanov’s basic data
on water resource availability, but replace water demand with

23
water withdrawals (intended as a more objective assessment of
‘‘use’’ than the more subjective ‘‘demand’’), and present scarcity
as the total annual withdrawals as a percent of available water
resources, in what is referred to as a Water Resources
Vulnerability Index. Water withdrawals are defined as the
amount of water taken out of rivers, streams or groundwater
aquifers to satisfy human needs for water. They suggest that a
country is water scarce if annual withdrawals are between 20 and
40% of annual supply, and severely water scarce if this figure
exceeds 40%. Alcamo et al. (1997, 2000) also use this definition
for their ‘‘criticality ratio’’—the ratio of water withdrawals for
human use to total renewable water resources. The ratio is
calculated by applying their global model Water Gap model and
is used for various global analyses of water scarcity (e.g.
Cosgrove and Rijsberman, 2000a, 2000b and UNWWDR, 2003).
A similar definition is used by Vorosmarty and colleagues, who
use climate models to assess water scarcity (Vorosmarty et al.,
2000), and Montaigne (2002), who uses Vorosmarty’s analysis.
The limitations of the criticality ratio and similar indicators are
that: (a) the data on water resources availability do not take into
account how much of it could be made available for human use;
(b) the water withdrawal data do not take into account how much
of it is consumptively used (or evapotranspired) and how much
could be available for recycling, through return flows; and (c) the
indicators do not take into account a society’s adaptive capacity
to cope with stress.

24
The International Water Management Institute (IWMI)
attempted to overcome all three above problems (Seckler et al.,
1998). The IWMI analysis takes into account the share of the
renewable water resources available for human needs
(accounting for existing water infrastructure), the primary water
supply. Its analysis of demands is based on consumptive use
(evapotranspiration) and the remainder of water withdrawn is
accounted for as return flows. Seckler et al. then analysed, on a
national scale for all but the biggest countries, i.e. China and
India were split into two sections, the future adaptive capacity,
primarily through an assessment of potential development of
infrastructure and an increase of irrigation efficiency through
improved water management policies for the period of 2000–
2025. Countries that will not be able to meet the estimated water
demands in 2025, even after accounting for future adaptive
capacity, are called ‘‘physically water scarce’’. Countries that
have sufficient renewable resources, but would have to make
very significant investment in water infrastructure to make these
resources available to people, are defined as ‘‘economically
water scarce’’.

The disadvantage of the IWMI model, however, is its intricacy

and resulting complexity of assessment. Unlike the per capita
indicators and even the simpler supply–demand models, it is not
intuitive, and hence relatively inaccessible to the wider public. It
also relies on considerable expert judgement because data are not
available to assess all components of the indicators. While the

25
IWMI water scarcity map is an often-quoted reference, the more
complex definitions of scarcity are unfortunately not used by
other authors or in other analyses, other than Cosgrove and
Rijsberman (2000a, 2000b). The IWMI model is also still an
aggregate, national analysis and does not attempt to analyse
whether individuals have safe and affordable access to water to
meet their needs.

Sullivan et al. (2003) developed a disaggregated approach that

tries to assess whether individuals are water secure at the
household and community level. They developed the ‘‘Water
Poverty Index’’ that attempts to reflect both the physical
availability of water, the degree to which humans are served by
that water and the maintenance of ecological integrity. The index
clusters components in five dimensions: access to water; water
quantity, quality and variability; water uses for domestic, food
and productive purposes; capacity for water management; and
environmental aspects. The indicator has the advantage of its
comprehensiveness, but is hampered by its complexity and lack
of intuitive understanding—as with all similar indices. It has
been applied at the community level for pilot sites in Sri Lanka,
Tanzania and South Africa and its developers see great potential
in its use.

Gleick (2002) provides a useful, extended overview of the

history, background and limitations of water indicators and
indices as measures of water well-being. The figures most often

26
heard or read about in the press represent scarcity as a
relationship between water availability and human population,
i.e. water availability per capita per year, usually on a national
scale. The logic underpinning this choice is straightforward: if
we know how much water is needed to satisfy a person’s needs
then the water availability per person can serve as a measure of
scarcity. The most widely used measure is the Falkenmark
indicator or ‘‘water stress index’’ (Falkenmark et al., 1989). They
proposed 1700 m3 of renewable water resources per capita per
year as the threshold, based on estimates of water requirements
in the household, agricultural, industrial and energy sectors, and
the needs of the environment. Countries whose renewable water
supplies cannot sustain this figure are said to experience water
stress. When supply falls below 1000 m3 a country experiences
water scarcity, and below 500 m3 , absolute scarcity.

The overall conclusion of all global water scarcity analyses is that

a large share of the world population – up to two-thirds – will be
affected by water scarcity over the next several decades
(Shiklomanov, 1991; Raskin et al., 1997; Seckler et al., 1998;
Alcamo et al., 1997, 2000; Vorosmarty et al., 2000; Wallace,
2000; Wallace and Gregory, 2002). Certainly, it is clear and
inescapable that, in terms of the Falkenmark index, as the
population grows there will be proportionally less water available
per capita as the resource base is more or less constant.

27
The most obvious conclusion from these analyses is that F.R.
Rijsberman / Agricultural Water Management 80 (2006) 5–22 9
water will be scarce in areas with low rainfall and relatively high
population density. Many countries in the arid areas of the world,
particularly Central and West Asia and North Africa, are already
close to, or below the 1000 m3 /capita/year threshold. This is the
part of the world that is most obviously and definitely water
scarce in the physical sense, without much further debate.
According to Wallace (2000), in 2000, people had less than a
thousand cubic meters per year in the North-Africa belt (from
Morocco to Egypt and including Sudan), and between one and
two thousand in the Middle East and Southern Africa. For the
most populous country of this region, Egypt, the Falkenmark
indicator is likely to drop below 500 m3 /capita/year within the
next 25 years. Wallace (2000) estimates that in essence all of
North, Eastern and Southern Africa, and the Middle East, will
drop below 1000 m3 /capita/year before 2050. West Africa and
large parts of South and Southeast Asia would be in the 1000–
2000 ranges at that time.

It is often assumed that such water scarcity means that therefore

people have insufficient water for their domestic use but that is
not necessarily the case. At a minimum water requirement per
capita of 50 l per person per day, the domestic requirement is less
than 20 m3 /capita/year. As I have argued elsewhere (e.g.
Rijsberman, 2002a, 2002b, 2004), the total amount of water
required for domestic purposes is small, compared to the water

28
required for other basic needs and is essentially unaffected by
water scarcity. The people that lack access to water supply and
sanitation are not affected by water scarcity in the physical sense,
as expressed by the Falkenmark index, but lack access because
the water service delivery is poor, or because they do not have
access to sufficient financial resources to avail themselves of the
services, i.e. they are poor.

People require thousands of litres of water per day to produce

their food, however, depending on their diet and lifestyle. To
produce 1 kg of cereal grains requires about 1 m3 , or a thousand
litres, of crop evapotranspiration. However, 1 kg of meat requires
much more water to produce—depending on how much animal
fodder grown under irrigated conditions is given to the animals
versus animals that graze on rainfed pastures. In California, for
example, about 13.5 m3 of water is used to produce 1 kg of beef.
Renault and Wallender (2000) estimate that a typical diet of a
person from USA requires about 5400 l of water in the form of
evapotranspiration per day. A vegetarian diet with approximately
the same nutritional value is responsible for the consumption of
2600 l of water per day. On average, it takes roughly 70 times
more water to grow food for people than people use directly for
domestic purposes, based on a domestic requirement of 50 l per
person per day and a food requirement of 3500 l per person per
day (see also SIWI and IWMI, 2004). In addition, the large
majority (up to 90%) of the water provided to people for domestic
purposes is returned after use as wastewater and can be recycled,

29
while most of the water (40–90%) provided to agriculture to
grow food is consumed (evapotranspired) and cannot be re-used.

The Falkenmark indicator thresholds do not indicate that water is

becoming scarce for domestic purposes, but that water is
becoming scarce for food production. Yang et al. (2003), from an
analysis of water availability, food imports and food security,
concluded that there is a threshold of about 1500 m3 /capita/year
below which a country’s cereal imports become strongly
inversely correlated with its renewable water resources. The
countries in Africa and Asia that will be below this threshold in
2030 are given in Table 1 (Fig. 1).

Water use is not just governed by population growth, however.

In the 20th century the world population tripled but water use
increased six-fold (Cosgrove and Rijsberman, 2000a). Many
water scarcity projections assume a rapidly increasing water use
per capita, usually related to rising incomes (e.g. Shiklomanov,
1998; Raskin et al., 1997; Alcamo et al., 1997, 2000). Given that
1.2 billion people currently lack access to safe and affordable
water and that the world is rapidly urbanising and industrialising,
it is safe to assume that domestic and industrial demands will rise
rapidly in developing countries, but it is much less evident how
other demands for water will develop. How much water we will
need per person in the coming decades to satisfy our daily needs
is not fixed, as the Falkenmark indicator suggests, but depends

30
on a myriad of policy and personal choices. This is in fact the
heart of the matter for future water scarcity projections.

Alcamo et al. (1997, 1999), using the Water Gap model and
criticality ratio and their assumptions on how water use will grow
with income, have estimated that four billion people, or more
than half of the world’s population, will be living in countries
facing high water stress (criticality ratio greater than 40%) by
2025 (see Fig. 2). Shiklomanov’s analysis, based on his forecasts
of rising demands, suggests that water withdrawals will rise by
25%, between 2000 and 2025 from 4000 to 5000 km3
(Shiklomanov, 1998; Cosgrove and Rijsberman, 2000a). Gleick
(2000), however, in an analysis of water demand projections over
several decades has found that these forecasts were consistently
too high. Forecasts of dramatic rises over the next several
decades would not be realised, he found, but new forecasts would
continue to project sharp increases in demand for the next period.
The future demand for water is strongly correlated with our
assumptions related to the values and lifestyles of future
generations (Gallopin and Rijsberman, 2000).
The entire chapter has no proper citation

Water scarcity and its limits to economic growth

Existing studies have largely used the concepts of virtual water
(VW), introduced by Allan (1993), and “water footprint” (WF)
(Hoekstra et al., 2011) to study the changing global landscape

31
and the embodied trade of scarce water resources. The former
(VW) returns the water embodied in traded goods outside
national borders and excludes domestic consumption. The latter
(WF) includes the water embodied in goods throughout the entire
supply chain on a consumption basis.

One commonly used method to calculate VW trade and WF is

the multi-regional input-output (MRIO) model. IO tables express
the monetary value of economic transactions occurring across
sectors of an economy to account for sectoral interdependencies
in the economic system. MRIO models have been widely used to
calculate the consequences of international trade on regional
water footprints (e.g., Antonelli et al., 2012; Duarte and Yang,
2011; Lenzen et al., 2013). These studies are particularly useful
as they assess the effect of international trade on domestic water
resources, the effect of water availability on international trade,
and the consequences of international trade to improve or worsen
the effects of global water scarcity (Hoekstra et al., 2011). Commented [A13]: No proper citation

Recently, the attention is shifted from an ex-post static

calculation towards an ex-ante scenario analysis for enhancing
the policy relevance of water scarcity under different climate
change scenarios. Alcamo et al. (2007) analysed the change in
blue water (surface and groundwater) withdrawals for two
alternative trajectories for population and economic growth,
based on the A2 and B2 IPCC scenarios, finding that the principal

32
cause of increasing water stress is growing domestic water use
stimulated by income growth. De Fraiture (2007) elaborated four
alternatives scenarios for 115 countries in order to provide
alternative strategies for meeting the increasing demands for
water and food by 2050. Energy production, local action, and
climate change were found to be the most crucial variables for
improved water management. Ercin and Hoekstra (2012)
developed four water footprint scenarios, until 2050, based on
population and economic growth, production/trade patterns,
consumption patterns, and technological development. They
stated that reducing humanity’s water footprint, to sustainable
levels, is still possible even under the assumptions of increasing
population, provided that consumption patterns change. Dalin et
al. (2012) estimated the evolution of the virtual water trade
network, using as control variables GDP, rainfall on agricultural
area and population. They found that few importing countries are
likely to concentrate a significant portion of virtual water trade
through food commodities. Konar et al. (2016) projected
international staple crop trade and the related water footprint
under climate and policy scenarios for the year 2030. They found
that trade liberalization should lead to increasing water
exploitations with higher WF.

In the context of IO modeling, most of the scenario analyses have

been devoted to the estimation of future carbon emissions (e.g.,
Koning et al., 2016; Lutz and Wiebe, 2012; Scott et al., 2013), to

33
the economic effects of climate change (e.g., Dellink, 2013), or
to the impact of the power sector on water resources (e.g., Wan
et al., 2016). The aim of this paper is to apply the MRIO approach
to compare future scenarios (e.g., Duchin and Levine, 2016) on
scarce water resources. To the best of our knowledge, this is the
first time an MRIO model has been used to assess the
sustainability water resources considering the multiple
confounding factors of economic growth, technological progress,
water availability, population dynamic, and climate change based
on the most recent IPCC AR5 projections.

Threats to the running water ecosystems of the

world
Only a minuscule proportion (0.006%) of the world’s fresh water
is present in streams and rivers at any one time (Shiklomanov
1993), but this statistic belies the significance of lotic systems to
humankind and the biosphere. Running waters provide a plethora
of utilities for humankind, including a source of water for
domestic, industrial and agricultural purposes, a means of power
generation and waste disposal, routes for navigation, and
locations for the pursuit of leisure activities. This great utility of
running waters to humankind has also proven their undoing, as
they have acted as magnets for human settlement and there are
now very few river catchments that are unaffected by people in
some way.

34
In terms of their biological value, rivers contain a rich and varied
biota, including a high diversity of fish and other emblematic
vertebrates such as dolphins, platypus, crocodiles, birds and
snakes, and an even greater diversity of invertebrates, plants and
algae, many of which remain undescribed. Because of the lack of
a basic taxonomic knowledge of many taxa in tropical regions,
and only rudimentary data for the functional role of biodiversity
in running waters (Covich 1996; Jonsson et al. 2001), it is
difficult to gauge the relative importance of lotic diversity or its
ecological significance. But, with the global human population
predicted to increase by approximately 2 billion (to 8 billion) in
the next 25 years (United Nations 1998), the pressure on lotic
systems will increase dramatically and the current importance of
riverine biota may become all too apparent.

Running water ecosystems encompass a wide spectrum of

habitats spanning a continuum from small mountain springs to
immense lowland rivers. The relative narrowness of lotic systems
means that they have an intimate contact with their surrounding
catchments and the terrestrial ecosystems they contain (Hynes
1975): the trophic dynamics of many loworder streams, for
example, is driven primarily by inputs of terrestrial leaf litter
(Fisher & Likens 1973); in the middle reaches of rivers, riparian
vegetation has an important role in buffering potential impacts
from the catchment (Osborne & Koviacic 1993); and interactions
between large rivers and their floodplains serve to maintain the

35
biodiversity and ecological importance of these dramatic
ecosystems ( Junk et al. 1989; Ward 1998; Tockner & Stanford
2002).

In addition to their linear form, running waters are unique

amongst aquatic ecosystems in their unidirectional flow. This
characteristic shapes the morphology of river channels, makes
running waters inherently variable in space and time and has led
to a biota that is highly adapted to dynamic conditions (Giller &
Malmqvist 1998).

The susceptibility of lotic systems is exacerbated by their linear

and unidirectional nature; almost any activity within a river
catchment has the potential to cause environmental change and
any pollutant entering a river is likely to exert effects for a large
distance downstream. The nature of threats to running waters
differs from region to region. While pressure on water as a
resource is extremely high in areas such as northern Africa, lotic
systems are abundant at high latitudes or in tropical areas with
high precipitation. It is perhaps not surprising, therefore, that
under such extreme conditions running waters are not
highpriority ecosystems for conservation efforts; in the former
example water is too precious a resource for humankind, in the
latter its abundance serves to dilute its value. The destruction of
running water habitats has been so extensive in some developed
countries that there is now a perceived necessity to protect what

36
is left or restore degraded systems. In other countries where
industrial development has been slower, the destructive
processes are in a rising phase, but may present an immediate
threat (Dudgeon 1999).

Information on anthropogenic impacts on streams and rivers is

patchy. There are vital gaps in knowledge concerning the impacts
of many pollutants and a paucity of data for developing regions,
areas that may be particularly vulnerable in the near future (Table
1). There is also a shortage of studies that attempt to predict
future changes in the status and ecology of running waters. The
ultimate aim of this review is to highlight research areas where
there is a pressing need for data and to attempt to predict the main
threats to running water systems in the near future. We first
review long-term trends in anthropogenic impacts, placing them
into context with natural variability in rivers. We then use some
existing predictive studies and our own extrapolations to
summarize what the main threats to lotic systems will be in the
year 2025. Ominously, rapid trends of river deterioration are
currently being reported in certain regions of the world. By
selecting a relatively short time interval, areas where needs are
most pressing may be identified and remedies sooner be
implemented.

37
 Commented [A14]: No numbering , Automatic
Rain water harvesting numbering

Rainwater harvesting is one of the main sources of water for a lot

of people, especially in our country. This is generally done via
the use of a water catchment and collection basin. Water
collected using a water catchment can be used to water our farms,
livestock, perform daily chores, cook, and even for drinking.
Water collected directly from the atmosphere can be used for
drinking, even without boiling. In many parts of Africa, water
catchment and rainwater harvesting have proven to be a very
important source of water to many. People build different
catchment systems from roofs and gutters. Websites exist which
help people with designs and different means of building great
water catchment systems for harvesting rainwater.

A major advantage of this method is that it allows for the

conservation of safe drinking water while the harvested rainwater
is used to take care of daily chores. This method is also useful in
areas where the natural landscape acts as a natural water
catchment and favors the collection of rainwater. This makes it
possible for rainwater to be harvested in large quantities. This
harvested water can then be treated and supplied to the
population such as in the case of the Greater Sydney area,
Australia (Maxwell-Gaines, 2018).

A number of studies in the past have compared water availability

with predicted water demands. This has created the concept of

38
water resources adequacy. White (1983) stressed that this
concept is basically an illusion: man is indeed forced to adapt to
his environ439 440 Malin Falkenmark ment. In overpopulated
and water short developing countries, however, the situation is
more complex. There, water inadequacy may even be a question
of life and death. Self-reliance is possible only if the effects of
water inadequacy can be compensated in one way or another.
Evidently population increase will add to the present problems
by continuously increasing the actual level of water competition
(Falkenmark, 1986b), thereby further complicating the task of
planners and decision makers. In such countries it is fundamental
for planners to understand the hydrological conditions properly.
One good reason is that the hydrological cycle is what brings
water to the country. On hydrological margins, like the hunger
crescent in Africa, it may also make man's interaction with the
natural environment extremely sensitive, easily translating
human activities into soil degradation. Machinery is the vicious
circle provided by the man-vegetation-water-soil interactions
(Falkenmark, 1984). The present article will focus on some
fundamental future problems to be expected in the management
of water in semiarid developing countries.

39
Factors Influencing Residential Water
Consumption: A Brief Review

Income, metering and, above all, water prices and taxes have
been widely used in various contexts and under different
conditions to study the determinants of residential water
consumption. Most studies in this respect have focused on price
elasticities using regression methods, including both linear and
quadratic (log linear) models. Also, different specifications of the
water price variable and different types of dataset have been used
to understand the key determinants of consumption. However,
few studies have used disaggregated data at the household level
(more appropriate when considering individual behaviour) and,
furthermore, factors other than prices and incomes remain
insufficiently examined.

According to some authors (see, for example, USEPA, 2002;

Arbue´s et al., 2003), water consumption tends to be inelastic in
relation to water prices. Most authors, however, insist on the
effects of prices on consumption (Baumann et al., 1998; Dandy
et al., 1997; Taylor et al., 2004), especially when block-rate
pricing is present (Hewitt and Hanemann, 1995; Dalhuisen et al.,
2003). Another perspective considers a threshold of water that is
insensitive to price and a quantity that can adapt instantaneously
to price changes (Martinez-Espin˜eira and Nauges, 2004). This
threshold would cover water consumed for the satisfaction of

40
basic needs (drinking and food preparation), as well as water
used in conjunction with domestic appliances for personal
hygiene. Also, price responsiveness is found to vary by income-
group, with lower-income households being more price-
responsive (Renwick and Archibald, 1998). Outdoor uses are
found to be more sensitive to prices (Howe and Linaweaver,
1967; Renwick and Green, 2000) and winter demands less
sensitive to price changes (Howe, 1982; Dandy et al., 1997).
Although difficult to separate from other factors such as price,
metering usually produces savings of 10 –25 per cent due to
information, publicity and leakage repairs (EEA, 2001)

Income correlates positively with residential water consumption,

although not in clear ways (Baumann et al., 1998; Kallis, 1999;
Dalhuisen et al., 2003). In households where water bills
constitute a very small proportion of the disposable income, the
latter does not seem to be a determining factor in explaining
water use (MartinezEspin˜eira and Nauges, 2004). Moreover,
while indoor water consumption remains relatively stable for
different income categories (Loh and Coghlan, 2003), larger
variations appear when outdoor uses are present (Syme et al.,
2004).

Besides prices, some prior research within the water conservation

perspective (Dziegielewski et al., 1993; Baumann, 1998; Zhang
and Brown, 2004) considers housing type to be a major
explanatory factor of domestic water consumption. Thus, single

41
houses with substantial outdoor uses are major water consumers
and it has been noted that their consumption has a positive
correlation with garden size (Linaweaver et al., 1967; Renwick
and Green, 2000; Mukhopadhyay et al., 2001; Syme et al., 2004).
The type of landscaping also has a substantial effect—for
example, turf grass versus native species ofshrubs and trees in a
Mediterranean climate (Domene et al., 2005).

Regardless of housing type, indoor water consumption has been

found to be relatively stable across seasonal variations and
different socioeconomic groups. The variations in internal water
consumption often depend on household size and appliance
ownership (Loh and Coghlan, 2003). Hence, household size can
be also an important factor in determining consumption since,
often, some economies of size cannot be accomplished in smaller
households (for instance, full loads in washing machines).
Therefore, for an equal population, more water per capita will be
consumed in smaller than in larger households.

Finally, consumer behaviour including attitudes and habits

towards conservation may also constitute a significant element in
residential water consumption. Studies show that domestic
water-saving devices (for example the adoption of low-flow
toilets, showerheads and faucets) and certain garden irrigation
technologies reduce water consumption significantly (Renwick
and Archibald, 1998; Chesnutt et al., 1992). However, water use
appears to be more related to sociodemographic variables

42
(household size and income) that influence specific behaviours,
than to attitudinal variables (Gatersleben et al., 2002). Although
households may be conserving water for other reasons (high
prices, for instance), a certain level of environmental awareness
is likely to appear in conservation attitudes and practices as well.
In sum, the consideration of these three variables (housing type,
household members and conservation attitudes) has only been
examined partially and, along with more economic instruments,
may offer new insights when studying the underlying causes of
domestic water consumption.

43
 Chapter three
Methodology
Study area description

Hargeysa, also spelled Hargeisa, city, the capital of the Republic of

Somaliland. Hargeysa is located in an enclosed valley of
the Galgodon (Ogo) highlands, at an elevation of 4,377 feet (1,334
metres). During the Somalian civil war that began in the 1980s,
Hargeysa was severely damaged; much of the city was reduced to
rubble, and most of the population fled. A large number have since
returned, and much of Hargeysa has been rebuilt.

In the past, Hargeysa was quite prosperous. The region has a fairly
equable climate, and Hargeysa was originally the summer capital of
former British Somaliland, of which it became the permanent
administrative centre in 1941. No large industries developed, but the
city became an important watering and trading locus for the nomadic
stock herders who formed the majority of the population. Meat,
livestock, skins, and ghee are exported through Berbera, 117 miles
(188 km) northeast, on the Gulf of Aden. The city is served by an
international airport and is home to the University of Hargeisa
(2000). There are no definitive sources of population figures for
Hargeysa. Although the city government estimated the population to
be 1,200,000 in 2000, estimates from other sources are considerably
lower.

44
Even though the city was destroyed during the successive civil wars,
it recovered and people are settling down. Construction is taking
place and lives of people have turned to normal once again. The city
contains five main districts (dagmo): Ahmed dhagax, Ibrahim
Kodbur, Mohamoud Haybe, 26 June and Gacan libaax. The climate
of Hargeisa is hot and dry and it receives rain twice a year.

Climate

Hargeisa has a semi-arid climate (Köppen: BSh). The city generally

features warm winters and hot summers. However, despite its
location in the tropics, due to the high altitude Hargeisa seldom
experiences either very hot or very cold weather. This is a trait rarely
seen in regions with a semi-arid climates. The city receives the bulk
of its precipitation between the months of April and September,
averaging just under 400 millimetres (16 in) of rainfall annually.
Average monthly temperatures in Hargeisa range from 18 °C (64 °F)
in the months of December and January to 24 °C (75 °F) in the month
of June.

45
Main source of water in Hargeisa

The main source from where Hargeisa obtains its scarce water is a
small village (tuulo) called Geed deeble. Geed deeble was built in
1972 and has been repaired several times in 1980s. It is situated some
40 km north of Hargeisa. The whole area with its bore holes and the
managing staff belongs to the government. There are 14 wells
working at the moment. They are the source of water.

46
12”-pipes take water from Geed deeble to Biyo shiinaha reservoir
(the main water storage of Geed deeble). The water is then
transferred to the next reservoirs in the Sheedaha area (a
neighborhood in the North of Hargeisa), which in turn transmit water
through small pipes to provide drinking water to the city.

However, water distribution does not reach many parts of Hargeisa.

Initially, when the water storages were built they were planned to
provide water for approximately 300.000 persons which at the time
was equivalent to the number of people living in the city. Now the
number of people exceeds more than three times the intended. The
demand for water is increasing, and also for the land. People compete
for houses that are closer to the water reaching areas resulting in very
high land prices.

The Hargeisa Water Agency has struggled to provide water for at

least some parts of the city, even though there have been reports of
mismanagement of the agency. Initially it allocated water equally for
each neighborhood in Hargeisa (one night for one and the second
night for another area and so on). The agency managed this status for
a while and conducted it successfully. However, when the number of
people living in the city continued to increase, the strategy could not
work. The agency tried to use some other ways to distribute water to
the city without success.

Today the provision of water is limited to certain areas in the city.

The newly built houses in the outskirts of Hargeisa have never seen

47
a running tap. There exist entire neighborhoods in the city which are
suffering from the lack of water. There are also a considerable
number of big hotels which experience the same scarcity.

Other sources of water

Trucks and tanks
The pertinent question of managing the hazardous circumstances has
been raised by many, and the situation has also created a lucrative
business environment. For example there are quite a large number of
truck owners who have benefited from the poor network of water
distribution in the city. They have divided neighborhoods and made
their own customers accordingly. The water is caught from
neighboring small towns and villages mostly in the East and West of
Hargeisa.

One of the areas where truck owners fetch water is Aw-Barkhadle. It

lies around 30 kilometers east of Hargeisa. Unlike Geed deeble, the
wells there are privately owned. More than 60 trucks (booyad) drive
there every day. According to one of the owners of the wells,
depending on the volume of the trucks, the water price per tank is
around SL SHLNGS 50,000 which is the equivalent of around 5
USD. This means, the truck owners bring cheap water from the area
and provide water with profit to the areas that do not have access to
more affordable water. The price of water per barrel is in average 1
USD depending on the season. Big families with big houses need to
set up water tanks holding five, ten or more barrels of water (taangi)

48
in their houses and consequently they have to spend huge sums of
money at each time of refill.

Many people cannot buy water from truck owners as they don’t have
big tanks. The middle income families, who cannot afford to buy big
tanks to keep water, use smaller water containers or tanks (foosto) to
reserve water. Very poor people can use only small jugs (jirkaan).
They get water either from donkey owners or they can buy it directly
from areas where water is sold. There are also some families in the
neighborhoods with large tanks next to their houses. They use these
tanks to keep water from truck owners in order to sell it to the people.

The problem with water quality is pertinent. Most of these families

use this water for drinking, cooking and washing as well. However,
as truck owners fetch water directly from the wells in the neighboring
small towns, there is a growing concern of the cleanness of this water.
No water purification and treatment of water takes place here. Well
owners wait for the wells to become full and once water comes to the
surface they dip long tubes that take water to the trucks. The truck
owners serve for both far-reaching houses as well as nearby houses.

Gaadhi Dameer- the donkey owners

It is not only trucks that transport water in the city, but also
animals. Gaadhi dameer are men known as donkey-drivers. These
men get water from the sub-water supplying centers which are set up
for business purposes. Donkey-drivers provide water for the nearby
houses as they are not able to travel long distances to provide water.
Unlike truck owners, donkey owners provide less water (one barrel

49
at a time) usually to the houses and small teashops alongside the
streets. These men provide relatively clean tub water for almost the
same price as truck owners. However, the donkey-owners are not
available for all as they supply water for specific customers. Donkey
owners provide water to the houses and small teashops alongside the
streets.

Methodology of the Study

In this research, the researchers use discussion method of research.
So all the research is designed to that methodology.

50
 Chapter four
Discussion and Results

Introduction
This chapter concludes that the researchers get and how water Commented [A15]: Who are researchers?

catchment can participate the water scarcity, also it briefs what the Commented [A16]: ???????

results of water catchment after reducing the water scarcity.

Discussion
In this research, the researchers is discussed deeply analyze the Commented [A17]: This thesis study

positive role of running water catchment on water scarcity in

Hargeisa, especially in Hargeisa Valley. In the research, we Commented [A18]: No existing research

discussed that, if we catch that running water, what will be the

benefits of it. So, some of the positive side of that issue is briefly
showed the below.
The main point that we get if the running water will store is to reduce
the cost of water in this time. Hargeisa is one of the highest bills
cities of water, even though it doesn’t have enough water. Also the
researchers get that the underground water of Hargeisa can supply
all the needs of Hargeisa city but the management didn’t make that. Commented [A19]: Not clear

Water collected in the running water can be put to use for several
non-drinking functions as well. For many families and small
businesses, this leads to a large reduction in their utilities bill. On the
other hand, small industrial scale, the catchment of running water can
provide the needed amounts of water for many operations to take
place smoothly without having to deplete the nearby water sources. Commented [A20]: Move to literature review

51
Also the researchers discuss that the running water catchment can
take a party of irrigation. It can motivate the small farms to produce
more and many products to take place the economy increase of the
country. Commented [A21]: Literature review

Finally, the overall cost of their operation is much lesser than that of
water purifying or pumping systems. Maintenance requires little time
and energy. The result is the collection of water that can be used in
substantial ways even without purification and that is make us great
and free from water scarcity. Commented [A22]: Copy – paste Move to Literature
review

Results
In the study, the researchers get that the catchment of running water
can participate decreasing of water scarcity in different directions.
The main positive result of water catchment is reducing water bills
and also decreasing the car city of water in the city. Commented [A23]: Literature review

At this time in Hargeisa, the biggest problem is the water, so that if Commented [A24]: Problem statement , this must go to
chapter 2
we catch only the water through on Hargeisa Valley, it can reduce
the water scarcity. Really that is simply and needs simple
technology.

The population of Hargeisa increases time after time and the water
and even water supply decreases vice versa and that is risk bigger Commented [A25]: Move to Literature review

that the needs of today. So running water catchment can reduce that
risk and increases the water according family by family.

Also, the researchers introduce that the water catchment can

improve the economy of the country. If water catchment is occur,

52
the small farms will be motivated and produce many and more
products. That increasing farms can directly increase the economy
of the country.

On the other hand, water catchment is directly participate the level

of underground water. If the level of underwater increases, the water
supply of the city can become low cost, because they directly
proportional. If the water level falls down, the cost of water becomes
high and vice versa. Commented [A26]: Literature review

Additionally, the running water collection can be reduce the

droughts of the country. If the surface area o water is high the
evaporation is high and that’s is particularly takes place the rain and
how much it is. If that is occur, the rain also participate in many
directions of development of the country, and that is specially based
on the water catchment.

Also the research proves that, during rainy season, running water is
collected in large storage tanks which also helps in reducing floods
in some low lying areas. Apart from this, it also helps in reducing soil
erosion and contamination of surface water with pesticides and
fertilizers from running water run-off which results in cleaner lakes
and ponds. Commented [A27]: Literature review

Finally the running water catchment keeping the world green and that
is direct impact on the water cycle, ecosystems, and our ability to
maintain balance with our surroundings.
Commented [A28]: Additionally, the running water
collection can be reduce the droughts of the country. If the
surface area o water is high the evaporation is high and that’s
is particularly takes place the rain and how much it is. If that
is occur, the rain also participate in many directions of
development of the country, and that is specially based on
the water catchment

53
Sorry, The entire chapter is missing, please as a last instruction come
up with concrete detailed and thesis tailored chapter. This will be the
last instruction.

Chapter five
Conclusion and Recommendation
Introduction

In this chapter is where the conclusion and recommendation of the

study on the role of running water on water scarcity in Hargeisa
Valley. The conclusion is given from the discussion obtained as well
as giving the way forward in terms of outcome.

Recommendation

There should be more studies on running water. This should cover

Positive Role of running water on water scarcity to ensure no water
stagnation which is a threat to human life, Also use of safe roofing
materials such as corrugated mild steel and tiles since other types of
roofing materials such as asbestos sheeting, metallic paints and other
unsafe roofs can interfere with human health. More studies on the
type of storage material should be done as the storage tanks depend
on the environment in which is going to be used. Environment in

54
which the tank is constructed plays an important role in the degree of
shrinkage and cracking. It is shown that tanks constructed in a hot
and dry environment and tanks that are allowed to set at different
rates are much more susceptible to cracking.

Local and central government should invest more on the techniques

of running water harvesting so as to supplement other sources of
water especially in region where adequate supply of potable water is
a problem.

Finally we recommended that the government should catch running

water in Hargeisa valley, to made Hargeisa green and clean. Also to
reduce the price of water, and to improve farming. Also to reduce
environmental problems such as soil erosion and floods, in the other
hand we recommend that to catch running water in the city to
increase ground water table and make save for future. As well as we
recommend that the government and institutions who interested to
decrease water scarcity in Hargeisa to use our research findings and
results.

Conclusion
Rainwater harvesting especially running water is a viable option to
supplement city water for non-potable human uses, such as irrigation,
car washing, washing and cleaning. The overall efficiency of a
rainwater harvesting system to supplement city water increases as
area increases. The system would be highly effective in high
commercial regions where there are warehouses and large buildings.
These areas also contain less lawn area, so that the water can be used

55
for uses beyond irrigation. In order to display the potential of the
running water harvesting project for a heavy commercial area,
Hargeisa, was chosen as a sample site. Hargeisa is an area with many
commercial facilities, when all of the roof area is considered with the
average annual rainfall at 409 mm a more water per year can be
collected, this can meet the demands of 10,000 people. In fact, the
Hargeisa valley located in Hargeisa has an area of 50 KM and above
and the annual rainfall of Hargeisa is 409 mm, when taking into
consideration the average rainfall, this valley has the ability to collect
3 million gallons of water by estimation. If we use this water can not
only meet the needs of the small patches of lawn surrounding the
Valley, but can supply enough water for more people in the city or
the water can be used to recharge groundwater levels.

The simplicity of the model and the low overall cost to install the
systems to catch running water easily translatable for use in the city.
The running water harvesting project was specifically chosen
because of its potential to be used to help those in developing regions
who do not have easy access to clean and local water sources. The
water quality data shows that the water is clean for non-consumption
purposes; although, a simple filtration system may have the ability to
take the water into the potable range. The water collected from the
harvesting system is actually cleaner than many water sources found
in other areas. In developing regions with a growing industry sector,
water sources are often contaminated by outflow of waste from the
facilities as many countries do not have stringent outflow laws. In
areas with high populations, waterways used for drinking water are

56
overdrawn and are used for purposes such as the cleaning of clothes
and bathing. Running water harvesting can prevent the need to travel
far distances to obtain water and can help the overall health and
growth of communities.

Refrences
1. BAUMANN, D. D., BOLAND, J. J. and HANEMANN, W. M. (1998) Urban Water
Demand Management and Planning. New York: McGraw-Hill. BILLINGS, R. B.
and AGTHE, D. E. (1980) Price elasticities for water: a case of increasing block-
rates, Land Economics, 56(1), pp. 73– 84. BRABEC, E. and SMITH, C. (2002)
2. Agricultural land fragmentation: the spatial effects of three land protection
strategies in the eastern United States, Landscape and Urban Planning, 58(2),
pp. 255–268.
3. CAMERON, I., LYONS, T. J. and KENWORTHY, J. R. (2004) Trends in
vehicle kilometres of travel in world cities,1960 –1990: underlying drivers and
policy responses, Transport Policy, 11(3), pp. 287–298. CASTELLS, M.
(1990).
4. Estrategias de desarrollo metropolitano en las grandes ciudades espan˜olas: la
articulacio´n entre crecimiento econo´mico y calidad de vida [Metropolitan
development strategies in large Spanish cities: the articulation of economic
growth and quality of life], in: J. BORJA (Ed.) Las Grandes Ciudades en la
De´cada de los Noventa [Large Cities in the Nineties], pp. 17 –64. Madrid:
Sistema.

57
5. CHESNUTT, T., MOYNAHAN, M. and BAMEZAI, A. (1992) Ultra-low
flush toilet rebate programs in southern California: lessons for water managers
and planners.
6. Ohlsson, L., 1999. Environment, Scarcity and Conflict: A Study of Malthusian
Concerns. Department of Peace and Development Research, University of
Go¨teborg, Go¨teborg, Sweden
7. Postel, S., 1998. Water for food production: will there be enough in 2025?
BioScience 48, 629–637.
8. Postel, S., 1999. Pillar of Sand: Can the Irrigation Miracle Last? Norton, New
York.
9. Postel, S., February 2001. Safeguarding our water—growing more food with
less water. Scientific American 40–45.
10. Pru¨ss, A., Day, K., Fewtrell, L., Bartram, J., 2002. Estimating the global
burden of disease from water, sanitation and hygiene at a global level.
Environ. Health Perspect. 110, 537–542.
11. Raskin, P., Gleick, P., Kirshen, P., Pontius, G., Strzepek, K., 1997. Water
Futures: Assessment of Long-range Patterns and Prospects. Stockholm
Environment Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
12. Renault, D., Wallender, W.W., 2000. Nutritional water productivity and
diets. Agric. Water Manage. 45, 275–296.
13. Rijsberman, F.R., 2002a. World Water Supplies: Are They Adequate? Paper
Presented at the Third Rosenberg International Forum on Water Policy,
Canberra, 7–11 October 2002.
14. Rijsberman, F.R., 2002b. Troubled waters, water troubles: overcoming an
important constraint to food security. In: IFPRI. Sustainable Food Security
for All by 2020: Proceedings of an International Conference, 4–6 September
2001. Bonn, IFPRI, Washington, DC, pp. 141–144.
15. Rijsberman, F.R., 2004. Sanitation and access to clean water. In: Lomborg, D.
(Ed.), Global Crises, Global Solutions. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK, pp. 498–540.
16. Rijsberman, F.R., Molden, D.J., 2001. Balancing Water Uses: Water for Food
and Water for Nature. Thematic Background Papers. International
Conference on Freshwater, Bonn, 3–7 December 2001, pp. 43–56.
17. Rijsberman, F.R., Mohamed, A., 2003. Water, food and environment:
conflict or dialogue? Water Sci. Technol. 47, 53–62.
18. 1987. "Water-related constraints to African development in the next few
decades," in Water for the Future: Hydrology in Perspective (Proceedings of
the Rome Symposium, April 1987),
19. International Association of Hydrological Sciences Publ. No. 164, pp. 439-
453.
20. Falkenmark, M. (1984) New ecological approach to the water cycle: ticket to
the future. AMBIO 13(3).
21. Falkenmark, M. (1986a) Fresh water - time for a modified approach. AMBIO
15(4).

58
22. Falkenmark, M. (1986b) Macro-scale water supply/demand comparison on
the global scene. Beitrage z. Hydrol. Sonderheft 6.
23. Falkenmark, M. (1986c) Fresh water as a factor in strategic policy and
action. In: Global Resources and International Conflict (ed. by A.H.Westing).
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
24. http://www.ifpri.org/blog/what%E2%80%99s-really-causing-water-scarcity-
africa-south-sahara
25. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[0941:EAEOWS]2.0.CO;2
26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2005.07.001
27. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2808065
28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2010.06.006.
29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2012.01.1172
30. https://www.voanews.com/a/decapua-somalia-drought-25feb11-
116919323/157532.html
31. http://zakatfoundation.net/where_we_work/campaign/somalia/water_scar
city_in_africa/
32. Alpman, C. (1996). Technical Study for the Rehabilitation of the Water
Supply in the Awdal, W.Galbeed, Togdheer and Sanaag Regions in Somalia.
EU Somalia Unit.
33. Integrated Development for Water Supply and Sanitation: Water Sources
Management in Rural Somaliland. 25th WEDC Conference. Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia. Peters, Susanne (2003).
34. Project Concept Paper for Rural Water Supply, Hygiene and Sanitation in
Northwest Somalia. CARITAS Switzerland. Hargeisa, Somaliland.
35. http://www.somalilandsun.com/somalilandpoor-water-supply-and-water-
scarcity-affects-people-in-hargeisa-city/
36. A&N Technical Services, San Diego. COSTELLO, L. R., MAYHENY, D. P.
and CLARK, J. R. (1991) Estimating water requirements of landscape
plantings: the landscape coefficient method.
37. Davis CA, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Cooperative
Extension, University of California. CRANE, R. (1999) The impacts of urban
form on travel: a critical review.
38. Working Paper, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, MA.
DALHUISEN, J. M., FLORAX, R. J. G. M., DE GROOT, H. L. F. and
NIJKAMP, P. (2003) Price and income elasticities of residential water
demand: a meta-analysis, Land Economics, 79(2), pp. 292–308. DANDY, G.,
NGUYEN, T. and DAVIES, C. (1997) Esti

59