Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Risk management in water supply networks: Aveiro case study

  • Local, Regional and Global Best Practice for Water
  • Published:
Environmental Science and Pollution Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Water supply networks are critical infrastructures essentials to health, safety, economic and social well-being which have to be maintained and preserved to ensure their proper functioning. Considering the importance of these critical infrastructures, the risks to which they are exposed and the consequences of such risks must be analysed. Thus, it is important that companies responsible for the management of these assets incorporate risk management in their activities. In the scope of risk management, this paper intends to identify the vulnerabilities of water supply infrastructures, by analysing the risks they are exposed and identifying the measures that need to be implemented or reinforced. Risk assessment methodologies were analysed to identify the advantages and disadvantages of each one. As a case study, the water supply network of the Aveiro municipality in mainland Portugal was used. This network was analysed resourcing ArcMap, ArcGIS desktop software, which allows a better understanding of the water supply network. Risk management was applied and the probability and possible consequences of six distinct categories of threats were determined in eight scenarios, allowing the development of risk maps concluding that all these scenarios are in a low or medium level of risk. To decrease the vulnerability of the water network, a set of plans and specific measures have to be developed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • AdRA (2017) Company–Who we are. Aveiro: AdRA. http://www.AdRA.pt/content/index.php?action=detailfo&rec=1800&t=Quem-somos. Accessed 12 June 2017 (in Portuguese)

  • ASME (2009) All-hazards risk and resilience, prioritizing critical infrastructures using the RAMCAP Plus approach. ASME Innovative Technologies Institute, LLC http://files.asme.org/ASMEITI/RAMCAP/17978.pdf. Accessed 15 January 2017

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker GH, Redwine S, Blandino J (2003) Network security risk assessment modelling tools for critical infrastructure assessment. College of Integrated Science and Technology. James Madison University

  • Bartkiewicz E, Zimoch (2018) Analysis of the risk of pipe breaks based on hydraulic model. Paper presented at the Safety and Reliability - Safe Societies in a Changing World - Proceedings of the 28th International European Safety and Reliability Conference, ESREL 2018, 1511–1516.

  • Barton DC, Edison ED, Schoenwald DA, Cox RG, Reiner RK (2004) Simulating economic effects of disruptions in the telecommunications infrastructure. Sandia National Laboratories, New Mexico

    Google Scholar 

  • Bush BB, Dauelsberg LR, LeClaire RJ Powell DR, DeLand SM, Samsa ME (2005) Critical Infrastructure Protection Decision Support System (CIP/DSS) – project overview. International Systems Dynamics Conference

  • Carvalho A, Albarello D (2016) Application of SASHA to seismic hazard assessment for Portugal mainland. Bull Earthq Eng 14(7):1827–1847. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-015-9839-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Census (2011). Population density. National Institute of Statistics. Lisbon. http://mapas.ine.pt/map.phtml Accessed 5 November 2017 (in Portuguese)

  • Chang K (2007) Geographic Information System. The International Encyclopedia of Geography.http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118786352.wbieg0152/abstract;jsessionid=AF6C1BE20AFB7E1D304C290D656A8B74.f01t02?userIsAuthenticated=false&deniedAccessCustomisedMessage. Accessed 24 June 2017

  • Choi GB, Kim JW, Suh JC, Jang KH, Lee JM (2017) A prioritization method for replacement of water mains using rank aggregation. Korean J Chem Eng 34(10):2584–2590. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11814-017-0191-1

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • DEMA (2006) RVA model: introduction and user guide – DEMA’s model for Risk and Vulnerability Analysis. Danish Emergency Management Agency. http://brs.dk/eng/inspection/contingency_planning/rva/Pages/vulnerability_analysis_model.aspx. Accessed 12 January 2017

  • DHS (2009) Department of Homeland Security’s Critical Infrastructure Protection Cost-Benefit Report. United States Government Accountability Office, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • DHS (2017) National Infrastructure Protection Plan – Risk Management Framework. Department of Homeland Security. Washington. https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/NIPP_RiskMgmt.pdf. Accessed 6 December 2017

  • Eidson ED, Ehlen MA (2005) NISAC Agent-Based Laboratory for Economics (N-ABLE): overview of agent and simulation architectures, Sandia National Laboratory. New Mexico

  • ESRI (2017) About ArcGIS. Redlands: ESRI. http://www.esri.com/arcgis/about-arcgis Accessed 24 June 2017

  • García-Mora B, Debón A, Santamaría C, Carrión A (2015) Modelling the failure risk for water supply networks with interval-censored data. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 144:311–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2015.08.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giannopoulos G, Filippini R, Schimmer M (2012) Risk assessment methodologies for critical infrastructure protection: Part I: a state of the art. European Commission – Joint Researched Centre, Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen

  • Goodwin BL, Lee L (2005) Planning and assessing effects based operations. International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium the Future of Command and Control. 128.pdf

  • Haimes YY (2006) On the definition of vulnerabilities in measuring risks to infrastructures. Risk Analysis 26(2):293–296. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00755.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halfaya FZ, Bensaibi M, Davenne L (2012) Vulnerability assessment of water supply network. Energy Procedia 18:772–783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2012.05.093

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ISO (2009) ISO 31000:2009. Risk management – principles and guidelines. International Standard Organization. Switzerland

  • Jaeger CD, Roehrig NS, Torres T (2008) Development of an automated security risk assessment methodology tool for critical infrastructures (report). Sandia National Laboratories. New Mexico

  • Johansson J, Hassel H, Zio E (2013) Reliability and vulnerability analyses of critical infrastructures: comparing two approaches in the context of power systems. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 120:27–38, ISSN 0951-8320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2013.02.027

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kabir G, Tesfamariam S, Loeppky J, Sadiq R (2016) Predicting water main failures: a Bayesian model updating approach. Knowl-Based Syst 110:144–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2016.07.024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelic A, Warren DE, Phillips LR (2008) Cyber and physical infrastructure interdependencies (report). Sandia National Laboratories, New Mexico

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroger W (2008) Critical infrastructures at risk: a need for a new conceptual approach and extended analytical tools. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 93(12):1781–1787. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2008.03.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumpulainen S (2006) Vulnerability concepts in hazard and risk assessment. Natural and technological hazards and risks affecting the spatial development of European regions. Geol Surv Finland Spec Pap 42:65–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Ouyang M, Dueñas-Osorio L, Min X (2012) A three-stage resilience analysis framework for urban infrastructure systems. Struct Saf 36–37:23–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2011.12.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petit FD, Basset GW, Buehring WA, Collins MJ, Dickinson DC, Haffenden RA, Huttenga AA, Klett MS, Phillips JA, Veselka SN, Wallace KE, Whitfield RG, Peerenbcom JP (2013) Protective Measures Index and Vulnerability Index: indicators of critical infrastructure protection and vulnerability. Decision and Information Sciences Division, Argonne National Laboratory

  • PSA (2017) Portuguese Safety Association. https://www.apsei.org.pt/areas-de-atuacao/protecao-civil/protecao-e-gestao-de-risco-de-infraestruturas-criticas/. Accessed 8 June 2017 (in Portuguese)

  • PSC (2009) National Strategy for Critical Infrastructure, NSCI Canada: Public Safety Canada. https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/srtg-crtcl-nfrstrctr/index-en.aspx. Accessed 21 January 2017

  • Pye G, Warren M (2006) Critical infrastructure protection, modelling and management: an Australian Commercial Case Study. In: School of Information Systems. Deakin University

  • Rinaldi SM (2004) Modeling and simulating critical infrastructures and their interdependencies, 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Proceedings of the, Big Island, HI 2004:8. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2004.1265180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roozbahani A, Zahraie B, Tabesh M (2013) Integrated risk assessment of urban water supply systems from source to tap. Stoch Env Res Risk A 27(4):923–944. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-012-0614-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadiq R, Kleiner Y, Rajani B (2004) Aggregative risk analysis for water quality failure in distribution networks. J Water Supply Res Technol AQUA 53(4):241–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SFP (2011) European risk assessment and contingency planning methodologies for interconnected energy networks, Hialeah: Seventh Framework Programme. https://pt.scribd.com/document/259385488/Euracom-Risk-Assessment-and-Contingency-Planning-Methodologies. Accessed 20 January 2017

  • Utne IB, Hokstad P, Kjolle G, Vatn J, Tondel IA, Bertelsen D, Fridheim H, Rostum J (2012) Risk and Vulnerability Analysis of critical infrastructure – the DECRIS approach. Risk and Interdependencies in Critical Infrastructures, pp 23–33.

  • Vasyl Z, Mikulas L, Republik S (2013) Danger - a subjective evaluation of objective reality. Science & Military Journal 8(1):53–62. http://sm.aos.sk/images/dokumenty/archiv_cisel/1_2013/8.pdf

  • Wilson D, Filion Y, Moore I (2017) State-of-the-art review of water pipe failure prediction models and applicability to large-diameter mains. Urban Water J 14(2):173–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/1573062X.2015.1080848

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winkler D, Haltmeier M, Kleidorfer M, Rauch W, Tscheikner-Gratl F (2018) Pipe failure modelling for water distribution networks using boosted decision trees. Struct Infrastruct Eng 14(10):1402–1411. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2018.1443145

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge all the support given by AdRA – Water of Aveiro Region.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. RISCO, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Aveiro, Campus Universitário de Santiago, 3810-193, Aveiro, Portugal

    Fernanda Rodrigues, Manuela Borges & Hugo Rodrigues

  2. RISCO, School of Technology and Management, Polytechnic Institute of Leiria, Campus 2 - Morro do Lena, Alto do Vieiro, 2411-901, Leiria, Portugal

    Hugo Rodrigues

Authors
  1. Fernanda Rodrigues
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Manuela Borges
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hugo Rodrigues
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fernanda Rodrigues.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Philippe Garrigues

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rodrigues, F., Borges, M. & Rodrigues, H. Risk management in water supply networks: Aveiro case study. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27, 4598–4611 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-05797-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-05797-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation