Student Name

: Nurul Farahen Binti Ibrahim

Supervisor Name : Dr. Noorul Hassan Zardari

Water Research Alliance
Institute Of Environment and Water Resource Management (IPASA)
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
81310 UTM Johor Bahru, Johor, Malaysia.
Programme

: Master of Philosophy

Faculty

: Faculty of Civil Engineering

Title of Thesis

: The Importance of Sustainability Indicators in Developing Watershed

Sustainability Index for the Selected Malaysian River Basins

THE IMPORTANCE OF SUSTAINABILITY INDICATORS IN DEVELOPING

WATERSHED SUSTAINABILITY INDEX FOR THE SELECTED MALAYSIAN RIVER
BASINS

Nurul Farahen Binti Ibrahim

Department of Hydraulic and Hydrology, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi
Malaysia, Skudai 81310

INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND

Watersheds are vital for both the inhabitants and the wildlife, though this important fact tends to
be misunderstood or overlooked (Catano et al., 2009). Several issues which impact water
sustainability in a watershed need to be taken into account while developing sustainability index.
These issues include: hydrologic, social, economic, environmental, life, and policy. However,
these issues are often treated separately, and not as an integrated, dynamic process (Chavez and
Alipaz, 2007; Brown and Matlock, 2011). In order to integrate the hydrologic, environmental, life,
and policy issues, along with the existing pressures and policy responses in one quantitative,
dynamic, and aggregated indicator, a watershed sustainability index (WSI), which uses a pressurestate-response function, has to be developed for watersheds (Runge and Gonzalez-Valero, 2011).

The HELP index, developed by UNESCO and further consolidated into one single variable called
the Watershed Sustainability Index (WSI), is a watershed specific index that takes into account
cause-effect relationships and considers policy responses implemented in a given period as part of
the watersheds sustainability. The WSI integrates the Hydrology (H), Environment (E), Life (L)

and Policy (P) aspects of a watershed under three parameters: Pressure, State and Response
(Catano et al., 2009). Pressure addresses the human activities exerted on the watershed, State
assesses the quality of the watershed in the base year of study, as well as the quality and quantity
of natural resources and Response examines the societys level of desire to address ecological
problems in the watershed (Catano et al., 2009). The Pressure-State-Response structure
incorporates cause-effect relationships and thus provides a more comprehensive understanding of
the watershed than an index that only examines the State, for example. Granting equal weight to
each indicator, the simplest linear form of the WSI is:

WSI

H EL P
4

(1)

Eq. [1] indicates that all watershed indicators have the same weight (equal importance), which is
unusual as the watershed indicators may not have equal importance to the society, stakeholders or
even to the state. Thus, weights to the watershed sustainability indicators should be assigned before
using them into an aggregation model. In this study, we propose to elicit weights of indicators in
a survey conducted from watershed managers and/or stakeholders. This practice of weights
elicitation and their usage in an aggregation will bring the existing format of watershed
sustainability index (WSI) model close to the reality and make it more practicable for managing
watersheds. It means we will make modifications to the current equation (i.e. Eq. 1) for computing
WSI by multiplying weights to the indicators and will determine the weighted average watershed
sustainability index (WAWSI). These weights will be obtained from watershed managers,
stakeholders, water suppliers, etc. The proposed equation for the WAWSI model is shown as
below:

WAWSI

WHYD * H WENV * E WLIFE * L WPOLICY * P

WHYD WENV WLIFE WPOLICY

(2)

where WAWSI is the weighted average watershed sustainability index, and W is the weight
assigned to each watershed indicator. Each of the four main watershed indicators has a number of
sub-indicators, and a weighting will be applied to indicate the importance of each indicator.
Watershed indicators will be standardized to the range of 0-100, which will result in overall
WAWSI between 0-100. The highest WAWSI value, say 100, will be for the best alternative (i.e.
watershed), and 0 being the worst watershed that should be given priority in rehabilitation plan.

Furthermore, the selection of proper watershed sustainability indicators is an extremely important

factor for developing watershed sustainability index (WSI) for a particular watershed. The
watershed sustainability indicators are commonly selected through a literature review on previous
sustainability frameworks and existing sets of components and indicators (Chaves and Alipaz,
2007; Juwana, 2012). Based on those reviews, an initial set of indicators is identified. This initial
set is then refined through discussion with key stakeholders (Sullivan and Meigh, 2007). However,
the literature review tells us that the watershed sustainability indicators were being selected
without following a proper procedure which may resulting in the selection of some unstable and
irrelevant sets of watershed sustainability indicators. In this study, however, we will select the
watershed sustainability indicators based on the criteria developed by Liverman et al. (1988) and
HCTF (2003). Liverman et al. (1988) selection criteria are:

1. The indicator should be sensitive to change in time

2. The indicator should be sensitive to change across space

3. The indicator should be predictive

4. Reference or threshold values should be available
5. The indicator should be unbiased
6. Data transformation

HCTF (2003) criteria for choosing sustainability indicators are:

1. Available: The indicator data should be available and easily accessible. It shall be collected
throughout the watershed, published in a routine basis, and made available to the public;
2. Understandable: Indicators shall be easily understood by a diverse range of non-technical
audiences;
3. Credible: Indicators shall be supported by valid, reliable information, and interpreted in a
scientifically defensible manner;
4. Relevant: Indicators shall reflect changes in management and in activities in the watershed.
They shall be able to measure changes over time;
5. Integrative: Indicators shall demonstrate connections among the environmental, social and
economical aspects of watershed sustainability.

In this study, we will also analyze different measurement scales that many researchers have
previously used for measuring watershed sustainability indicators. We notice that assigning
numerical values (say 0, 0.50, 1.00) to poor, average and good respectively do not truly
represent what the stakeholders feel about a particular watershed sustainability indicator.
Therefore, these imaginary scales for different levels of indicators may be replaced with true values

which may be obtained from watershed experts and watershed stakeholders. For that we have
hypothesized that the actual values for each level of the watershed sustainability indicators are
unrealistic and not representing the true values of watershed indicators. This hypothesis along with
other hypotheses will be tested from a survey to be conducted from a group of water experts and
stakeholders.

PROBLEM STATEMENT

There are several issues which impact water sustainability in a watershed. Among them are the
hydrologic, social, economic, environmental, life, and policy issues. However, these issues are
often treated separately, and not as an integrated, dynamic process. In order to integrate the
hydrologic, environmental, life, and policy issues, along with the existing pressures and policy
responses in one quantitative, dynamic, and aggregated indicator, a watershed sustainability index
(WSI) has to be developed for watersheds. Recently, UNESCO (2005) has developed a framework
that integrates hydrology (H), environment (E), life (L), and policy (P) issues (HELP index). The
HELP index is also called the Watershed Sustainability Index (WSI), which takes into account
cause-effect relationships and considers policy responses implemented in a given period as part of
the watersheds sustainability. However, the HELP index has at least one weakness, i.e. it does not
take stakeholders preferences into consideration. All sustainability indicators are assumed to be
equal importance which makes this index unrealistic. Thus, weights to the watershed sustainability
indicators should be assigned before using them into an aggregation model. We propose to elicit
weights of indicators in a survey conducted from watershed managers and stakeholders and will

modify the HELP index with the new model called weighted average watershed sustainability
index (WAWSI). The equation for WAWSI is:

WAWSI

WHYD * H WENV * E WLIFE * L WPOLICY * P

WHYD WENV WLIFE WPOLICY

It is not less than surprising that the previous researchers used sustainability indicators in their
studies without considering proper selection criteria. However, we will strictly follow criteria
listed in Liverman et al. (1988) and HCTF (2003) to choose watershed sustainability indicators to
be used in the WAWSI model. The WAWSI model would be a pioneering advancement in
Malaysian watershed management strategies as such type of strategy for managing watersheds in
a sustainable way has never been developed before and potential for its usage in Malaysia remains
high.

STUDY OBJECTIVES

The main objective of the study is to develop a model for measuring watershed sustainability level
that can take quantitative and qualitative values of hydrological, environmental and policy factors
together as the current sustainability measurement models take only one issue at a time and do not
produce a reliable and accurate sustainability level of watersheds. The main objective of the study
is further disintegrated into three specific objectives as given as below.

1) To develop weighted average watershed sustainability index covering hydrological,

environmental, life, and policy issues of a watershed.

2) To determine the impact of transformation of qualitative indicators into a uniform

numerical scales of the watershed sustainability indicators.

3) To develop a set of guidelines for eliciting watershed stakeholders preferences on

watershed indicators that may guide policy-makers to manage watersheds in an integral
way.

SCOPE AND IMPORTANCE OF STUDY

There is a high potential of application of the findings of the study in Malaysia. Currently, there is
no systematic procedure or model that could be applied to assess sustainability levels of the
Malaysian watersheds. The proposed model will help policy-makers to assess the sustainability
levels of watersheds and prepare watershed management plans that can integrate all watershed
aspects and produce reliable outcomes once the model is used in solving a real world problem of
the watersheds. Rehabilitation plans for Malaysian watersheds could also be prepared with
application of the proposed WAWSI model.

There are high chances that the successful development of the model may open a new research
field in Malaysia and may bring a dramatic change in thinking of the policy-makers and/or
decision-makers while making decisions to managing our watersheds or devising policies for
rehabilitation of the Malaysian watersheds in future.

METHODOLOGY

We have divided research methodology into three main parts: 1) integration of hydrological,
environmental, life, and policy indicators into a main watershed sustainability index; 2) scale
issues while changing qualitative values of the sustainability indicators into quantitative values;
and 3) development of a new model named as Weighted Average Watershed Sustainability Index
(WAWSI) with validation in a case study will real data.

In the first part of the methodology, we will review current indices developed for measuring
sustainability level of watersheds all around the world. The literature shows that not much work
has been done on putting all previous work into a single and accessible document. Our study will
result in summarizing the benefits and pitfalls of all the available models and methodologies that
have been developed by previous researchers and have been applied for solving various real world
problems especially problems to watersheds. Here we present a brief review of the watershed
sustainability index (WSI) developed by (Chaves and Alipaz, 2007) and integrated with PressureState-Response model.

The WSI, which attempted to integrate hydrologic, environmental, life and policy issues, has
shown advantages, both in the process of its development as well as in the implementation
(Juwana, 2012). In the process of its development, the WSI has provided decision makers with a
clear and concise framework of water sustainability. During implementation, it has helped policymakers to improve water resources policies and minimize sewage pollution (Chaves and Alipaz,
2007).

In the second part of the methodology we will discuss scale issues that previous studies have used
to solve watershed and water resources problems. Chaves and Alipaz (2007) used imaginary values
to watershed sustainability indicators for their different levels of impacts. However, the usage of
such imaginary values is questionable especially when a real world problem is being solved. We
assume that watershed sustainability index developed from the usage of those imaginary values of
the indicators may produce unrealistic and vague value of WSI for a particular watershed. Table 1
shows the imaginary scores for different levels of indicators of the pressure parameter used by
Chaves and Alipaz (2007).

We propose to assign different levels of sustainability indicators with real values (or numbers)
rather than distributing each level of the indicator with equal marginal, which we believe is not a
representative of the indicator level. Table 2 shows a rough sketch how we will investigate
different scales of the indicators levels.

Table 1. Description of WSI Pressure parameters, levels, and scores (Chaves and Alipaz, 2007)
Indicator

Pressure Parameters

1Variation in the
basin per capita water
availability in the
period studied, relative
to the long-term
average (m3/person/yr)
Hydrology
2- 2-Variation in the
basin BOD5 in the
period studied, relative
to the long-term
average

Level
1<-20%
-20%<1<-10%
-10%<1<0%
0<1<+10%
1>+10%

Imaginary
score
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00

2> 20%
20%>2>10%
0<2<10%
-10%<2<0%
2>-10%

0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00

Actual Score
We will determine
actual values by
consulting water
experts and
watershed
stakeholders
We will determine
actual values by
consulting water
experts and

watershed
stakeholders

Environment

Life

Policy

- Basin E.P.I. (Rural &

urban) in the period
studied

EPI>20%
20%< EPI>10%
10%< EPI<5%
5%< EPI<0%
EPI<0%

0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00

-Variation in the basin

per capita HDIIncome in the period
studied, relative to the
previous period

<-20%
-20%<<-10%
-10%<<0%
0<+10%
>+10%

0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00

-Variation in the basin

HDI-Ed in the period
studied, relative to the
previous period

<-20%
-20%<<-10%
-10%<<0%
0<+10%
>+10%

0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00

We will determine
actual values by
consulting water
experts and
watershed
stakeholders
We will determine
actual values by
consulting water
experts and
watershed
stakeholders
We will determine
actual values by
consulting water
experts and
watershed
stakeholders

Table 2. Measurement scales generally used to develop WSI (importance of parameters)

Qualitative
Scale
(1)
Very
Important
Important
Moderately
Important

Quantitative
Scale
(2)
1.00

Actual
Values?
(3)
???

0.75
0.50

???
???

Of Little
Importance
Unimportant

0.25

???

0.00

???

Qualitative
Scale
(4)
Very
Important
Important
Neither
Important or
Unimportant
Unimportant

Quantitative
Scale
(5)
1.00

Very
Unimportant

Actual
Values?
(6)
???

0.75
0.50

???
???

0.25

???

0.00

???

In the last part of the methodology we show how the WAWSI model will be developed. As
mentioned previously that the watershed sustainability index (WSI) takes into account cause-effect
relationships and considers policy responses implemented in a given period as part of the
watersheds sustainability. The WSI integrates the Hydrology (H), Environment (E), Life (L) and
Policy (P) aspects of a watershed under three parameters: Pressure, State and Response (Catano et
al., 2009). Pressure addresses the human activities exerted on the watershed, State assesses the
quality of the watershed in the base year of study, as well as the quality and quantity of natural
resources and Response examines the societys level of desire to address ecological problems in
the watershed (Catano et al., 2009). The Pressure-State-Response structure incorporates causeeffect relationships and thus provides a more comprehensive understanding of the watershed than
an index that only examines the State, for example. However, there is a major drawback of the
HELP or WSI index as it does not take different weights to different components of the model,
which may result in misguiding the policy makers and decision makers while determining
sustainability index for a watershed. Here we propose that indicators should be weighted before
putting them into WSI model for calculating index. In this study, we propose to elicit weights of
indicators in a survey conducted from water experts and watershed stakeholders. This practice of
weights elicitation and their usage in an aggregation will bring the existing format of watershed
sustainability index (WSI) model close to the reality and make it more practicable for managing
watersheds. It means we will make modifications to the current equation (i.e. Eq. 2) for computing
WSI by multiplying weights to the indicators and will determine the weighted average watershed
sustainability index (WAWSI). These weights will be obtained from watershed managers,
stakeholders, water suppliers, etc. The proposed equation for the WAWSI model is shown as
below:

WAWSI

WHYD * H WENV * E WLIFE * L WPOLICY * P

WHYD WENV WLIFE WPOLICY

(4)

Finally, we will validate the WAWSI model with a real case study to be conducted in the Skudai
River basin of Johor State of Malaysia. Following data will be collected for the Skudai River basin
to validate the model.

I. Determination watershed area

(a) Area, slope at various points
(b) Contour maps at suitable interval
(c) Rate of precipitation
(d) Total area of the watershed
(e) Existing Land use Pattern
(f) Soil Texture

II. Water quality data

(a) Existing water sources and their quality

III. Weather data (monthly)

(a) Humidity and wind conditions
(b) Latitude (degree)
(c) Actual sunshine hours
(d) Mean temperature (0 C)
(e) Mean relative humidity (%)
(f) Average wind speed (m/s)

(g) Average rainfall (mm)

Figure 1 Gantt chart of research activities

Figure 1 shows the Gantt chart of research activities

Figure 2 shows the flow chart of research activities to be completed under this project.

Figure 2. Flow chart of research activities

EXPECTED RESULTS/BENEFIT

It is important to mention that the proposed weighted average watershed sustainability index
(WAWSI) would be a pioneering advancement in Malaysian watershed management strategies as
such type of strategy for managing watersheds in a sustainable way has never been developed
before. The potential for the application of the proposed strategy (i.e. weighted average watershed
sustainability index) is high. The proposed weighted average watershed sustainability index
(WAWSI) would be applicable to all watersheds in Malaysia.

Research Publications

It is expected that at least 3 papers will be produced from this research and will be published in
hydrology and water resources journals. The contents of the likely publications along with title of
the papers are given as below:
Paper 1: Real values of sustainability indicators and the development of watershed sustainability
index (WSI)

In this paper, the procedure for computing watershed sustainability index will be presented. The
paper will also discuss some important watershed indicators which are thought to be crucial for
managing a watershed. Parameters on which the sustainability indicators are dependent will also
be presented in this paper.

Paper 2: Scale issues in transforming qualitative watershed sustainability indicators into

quantitative indicators

In this paper, we will present the importance of decision-making in watershed management. A

decision-making process for effective management of watersheds will be presented. The
developed decision procedure will take stakeholders views and concerns into account to reach a
final decision for managing a watershed in a sustainable way. A priority list of indicators that are
important for watershed management will also be given in this paper. As many watershed criteria
will be used to develop a decision-making procedure, a multi-criteria decision analysis will be
applied in this paper.
Paper 3: Watershed sustainability index-Case Study of the Skudai River Basin

In this paper, we will apply the watershed sustainability index to the Skudai River basin data.
Actually this paper is the application of the model that will be developed through this study. We
will present the validity and the effectiveness of the developed watershed sustainability index
(WSI) by applying it to data collected for the Skudai River basin.

REFERENCES

Brown, A. and Matlock, M.D. (2011), A Review of Water Scarcity Indices and Methodologies,
White Paper #106, The Sustainability Consortium, University of Arkansas.
Catano, N., Marchand, M., Staley, S. and Wang, Y. (2009), Development and validation of the
watershed sustainability index (WSI) for the watershed of the Reventazon River, Report

of the Commission for the Preservation and Management of the Watershed of the
Reventazn River.
Chaves, H.L. and Alipaz, S. (2007), An Integrated Indicator Based on Basin Hydrology,
Environment, Life, and Policy: The Watershed Sustainability Index, Water Resources
Management vol. 21, 883-895.
Habitat Conservation Trust Fund-HTFC (2003), Mission Creek Sustainable Watershed Indicators
Workbook, British Columbia, 22 p.
Juwana, I. (2012), Development of a Water Sustainability Index for West Java, Indonesia, PhD
Thesis,School of Engineering and Science, Faculty of Health, Engineering and Science,
Victoria University, Australia.
Liverman, D., Hanson, M., Brown, B., and Merideth, R. (1988), Global sustainability: toward
measurement, Environmental Management, 12(2): 133143.
Runge, C.F. and Gonzalez-Valero, J. (2011), The theory and practice of performance indicators
for sustainable food security: A checklist approach, Working Paper WP11-2, Center for
International Food and Agricultural Policy, University of Minnesota, U.S.A.
Sullivan, C. and Meigh, J. (2007), Integration of the biophysical and social sciences using an
indicator approach: addressing water problems at different scales, Water Resources
Management, 21(1): 111128.
UNESCO (2005), Hydrology for the environment, life and policy-HELP (Brochure), Paris, 20 p.