Abstract
The Water Poverty Index (WPI), a tool designed for integrated analysis of water issues, was set-up in a community in Madhya Pradesh, India through a transparent and participatory process. Though the aim of the WPI is to primarily use existing statistical data, quantitative information from census and local records was combined with qualitative data from community interviews and participatory exercises. The inclusion of community chosen indicators and the adjustment of values so that higher numbers represent water prosperity rather than water poverty, led to the Water Prosperity Index (WPI+). The WPI + score was contrasted with the WPI at community level. It was also calculated for two community areas with different caste and socio-economic characteristics and weighted separately according to water issues prioritized by men and women. The WPI + revealed a great difference in water access between the two areas and in prioritized issues between men and women illustrating the importance of appropriate spatial representation and gender sensitive assessments for revealing important disparities. Results also showed that highly aggregated data hide these differences making it more difficult to target the most vulnerable groups when planning measures to increase equitable water allocation. While quantitative data reveal an important perspective of the water situation, qualitative data about adequacy of resources, services or institutions, improve understanding of which issues to prioritize. A valid and useful community water index must be based on representative participation, transparency and local influence on the methodology and subsequent results.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alkan Olsson J, Jonsson AC, Andersson L, Arheimer B (2011) A model-supported participatory process for nutrient management: a socio-legal analysis of a bottom-up implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive. Int J Agr Sust 9(2):379–389
Andersson L, Alkan Olsson J, Arheimer B, Jonsson AC (2008) Use of participatory scenario modelling as platforms in stakeholder dialogues. Water SA 34:439–447
Barraqué B, Le Bourhis JP, Maurel P, Raymond R (2004) Public participation in the Dordogne River Basin, Case study report produced under Work Package 5 of the HarmoniCOP project. LATTS-CNRS, Paris, Sorbonne University, SEMAGREF
Blomqvist A (2004) How can stakeholder participation improve European watershed management? The Water Framework Directive, watercourse groups and Swedish contributions to Baltic Sea eutrophication. Water Policy 6:39–52
Chambers R (1997) Whose reality counts? Putting the first last. Intermediate Technology Publications, London
Charmes J, Wieringa S (2003) Measuring women’s empowerment: an assessment of the Gender-Related Developed Index and the Gender Empowermenet Measure. J Hum Dev 4(3):419–435
Cho DL, Ogwang T, Opio C (2010) Simplifying the water poverty index. Soc Indic Res 95:257–267. doi:10.1007/s11205-009-9501-2
Cleaver F (1999) Paradoxes of participation: questioning participatory approaches to development. J Int Dev 11(4):597–612
Cohen A, Sullivan CA (2010) Water and poverty in rural China: developing an instrument to assess the multiple dimensions of water and poverty. Ecol Econ 69:999–1009
Cook SE, Fisher M, Andersson MS, Rubiano J, Giordano M (2009) Water, food and livelihoods in river basins. Water Int 34(1):13–29
Cullis J, O’Regan D (2004) Targeting the water-poor through water poverty mapping. Water Policy 6:397–411
Eisenhauer BW, Nicholson B (2005) Using stakeholders’ views: a social science methodology for the inclusive design of environmental communications. Appl Environ Educ Commun 4:19–30
Feitelson E, Chenoweth J (2002) Water poverty: towards a meaningful indicator. Water Policy 4:263–281
Garnett ST, Crowley GM, Hunter-Xenie H, Kozanayl W, Sithole B, Palmer C, Southgate R, Zander KK (2009) Transforming knowledge transfer through empowering and paying community researchers. Biotropica 41(5):571–577
Giné R, Pérez‐Foguet A (2005) The Water Poverty Index: Assessing water scarcity at different scales, II Congrés UPC Sostenible 2015. http://upcommons.upc.edu/revistes/bitstream/2099/8123/1/11_Ricard_Gine.pdf. Accessed 22 July 2010
Giné R, Pérez-Foguet A (2010) Improved method to calculate a Water Poverty Index at local scale. J Environ Eng 136(11):1287–1298
Giné R, Pérez-Foguet A (2011) Application of a revised Water Poverty Index to target the water poor. Water Sci Tech 63(6):1099–1110
Goodchild MF (2000) Communicating geographic information in a digital age. Ann Am Geogr 90(2):344–355
Hahn MB, Riederer AM, Foster SO (2009) The Livelihood Vulnerability Index: a pragmatic approach to assessing risks from climate variability and change—a case study in Mozambique. Glob Environ Chang 19:74–88
Harrington L, Cook SE, Lemoalle J, Kirby M, Taylor C, Woolley J (2009) Cross-basin comparisons of water use, water scarcity and their impact on livelihoods: present and future. Water Int 34(1):144–154
Heidecke C (2006) Development and Evaluation of a Regional Water Poverty Index for Benin. EPT Discussion Paper, No. 145, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC
Jonsson A (2005) Public participation in water resources management: stakeholder voices on degree, scale, potential, and methods in future water management. Ambio 7:495–500
Jonsson A, Lövbrand E, Andersson L (2009) Participatory research in theory and practice: why, how and when? In: Lövbrand E, Linnér B-O, Ostwald M (eds) Climate science and policy research: conceptual and methodological challenges. Centre for Climate Policy and Research Report 09:03, Linköping
Kainer KA, Digiano M, Duchelle MA, Wadr LHO, Wadt E, Dain JL (2009) Partnering for greater success: local stakeholders and research in tropical biology and conservation. Biotrop 41:555–562
Komnenic V, Ahlers R, van der Zaag P (2009) Assessing the usefulness of the water poverty index by applying it to a special case: can one be water poor with high levels of access? Phys Chem Earth 34:219–224
Lawrence P, Meigh J, Sullivan C (2002) The Water Poverty Index: an international comparison. Keele Economics Research Papers, Keele University, Keele
Manandhar S, Pandey VP, Kazama F (2012) Application of Water Poverty Index (WPI) in Nepalese context: a case study of Kali Gandaki River Basin (KGRB). Water Resour Manag 24:89–107
Mayer AL (2008) Strengths and weaknesses of common sustainability indices for multidimensional systems. Environ Int 34:277–291
Molle F, Mollinga P (2003) Water poverty indicators: conceptual problems and policy issues. Water Policy 5:529–544
Pahl-Wostl C (2002) Participative and stakeholder-based policy design, evaluation and modelling processes. Integr Assess 3(1):3–14
Pandey V, Manandhar S, Kazama F (2012) Water poverty situation of medium-sized river basins in Nepal. Water Resour Manag 26(9):2475–2489
Pérez-Foguet A, Giné GR (2011) Analyzing water poverty in Basins. Water Resourc Manag 25(14):3595–3612
Revenga C (2005) Developing indicators of ecosystem condition using geographic information systems and remote sensing. Reg Environ Chang 5:205–214
Shah T, van Koppen B (2006) Is India ripe for integrated resource management? Fitting water policy to national development policy. Econ and Pol Wkly 41(31):3413–3421
Singelton S (2009) Native people and planning for marine protected areas: how “stakeholder” processes fail to address conflicts in complex, real-world environments. Coast Manag 37:421–440
Sullivan C (2002) Calculating the water poverty index. World Dev 30(7):1195–1210
Sullivan CA, Meigh J (2004) Targeting attention on local vulnerabilities using an integrated index approach: the example of the Climate Vulnerability Index. Paper prepared for the Conference: Climate change: challenge or threat for water management. 27–29 September, 2004, Amsterdam
Sullivan CA, Meigh J (2007) Integration of the biophysical and social sciences using an indicator approach: addressing water problems at different scales. Water Resour Manag 21:111–128
Sullivan CA, Meigh JR, Giacamello AM, Fediw T, Lawrence P, Samad M, Mlote S, Hutton C, Allan JA, Schulze RE, Dlamini D, Cosgrove W, DelliPriscoli J, Gleick P, Smout I, Cobbing J, Calow R, Hunt D, Hussain A, Acreman MC, King J, Malomo S, Tate EL, O’Regan DO, Milner S, Steyl I (2003) The water poverty index: development and application at the community scale. Nat Resour Forum 27:189–199
Tippet J, Searle B, Pahl-Worst C, Rees Y (2005) Social learning in public participation in river basin management—early findings from HarMoniCOP European case studies. Environ Sci Policy 8:287–299
Ty TV, Sunada K, Ichikawa Y, Oishi S (2010) Evaluation of the state of water resources using modified water poverty index: a case study in the Srepok river basin. Vietnam-Cambodia Int J River Basin Manag 8(3–4):305–317
United Nations World Water Development Report (2003) Water for people, water for life. UNESCO and Berghahn Books, Barcelona
Van den Hove S (2006) Between consensus and compromise: acknowledging the negotiation dimension in participatory approaches. Land Use Policy 23:10–17
Wilk J (2009) How do researchers view the role of local knowledge in natural resource management? J Environ Cultur Econ Soc Sustain 5(39):25–36
Wilk J, Jonsson A (2008) Using an integrated tool to promote sustainable rural development - participatory modification of the Water Prosperity Index at village level in India, Proceedings of 2nd VHU Conference on Science for Sustainable Development. VHU, Uppsala, pp 95–102
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA). We would like to thank the community members who participated in this project and employees of our collaborative NGO for their valuable time and knowledge. We also thank Mattias Hjerpe and Kalash Jatavfor valuable work in mapping, indicator development and data collection.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wilk, J., Jonsson, A.C. From Water Poverty to Water Prosperity—A More Participatory Approach to Studying Local Water Resources Management. Water Resour Manage 27, 695–713 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-012-0209-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-012-0209-8