Drinking Water Systems management perceptions, priorities, and expectations - using Multicriteria Analysis (AHP) to compare water consumption factors effect and water conservation measures perception to 2 sample groups: A Water Utility and its customers (i.e. decision-makers and stakeholders). Perceptions, priorities, and expectations are compared, while willingness to pay (WTP) is also explored for water services improvements. Education, awareness, and healthy initiatives to increase action are required, so the concept of Water Stewardship is examined (international practices review). Finally, a novel way is suggested to assess Water Stewardship Standards.

1. Drinking Water Systems management perceptions, priorities, and
expectations:
• Water Stewardship for decision-makers and consumers using
Multicriteria Analysis,
• and a novel way to assess Water Stewardship Standards
Alamanos A.
The Water Forum | Centre for Freshwater and Environmental Studies, Dundalk
Institute of Technology, Marshes Upper, Dundalk Co. Louth, A91K584, Ireland.
presented at: 12th Symposium for European Freshwater Sciences Virtual Conference
25-30 July 2021

2. Drinking Water Systems Control and Improvement
• Urban water systems and networks  understanding of system its components, operation and challenges
(or Water Distribution Systems – WDS)
Aim: Delivering adequate, good quality drinking water,
and returning it safely to the environment, while
maximising users’ utility and minimising costs,
System Disturbances:
• Extreme phenomena,
• Changing climate and disasters
• Increased demand (overall, urbanization, seasonally,
spatially alternation),
• Water quality and disposal,
• Infrastructure condition and poor management
• Alterations of the demand and pressures patterns due
to Covid-19

3. Problem Statement & Research Question
Goals:
• The coverage of water needs with the optimum way and quality of services is a major concern of most
Water Utilities today.
• High-quality services, water of good quality, protecting water systems through proper management, and
ensuring public participation and social acceptance are key issues
Challenges:
• Water resources are not infinite and therefore water conservation measures are increasingly examined –
urban water conservation, smart management and
• Water Utility’s response, enhancement of public participation, and the use of new technologies in urban
water management are key factors in improving water services.
Research question:
• How to achieve efficient and sustainable drinking water supply, in a socially acceptable way, involving
water-users in the decision-making process, and satisfying their needs.

4. Synopsis and Aim of the Study
This study assesses and analyses
• the perceptions
• managerial priorities and public expectations for water supply services
of a Greek Water Utility AND its consumers
A questionnaire survey designed to illicit information relating to:
• consumer demographics,
• water consumption and conservation, and services provided by the Water Utility
Sample: Water Utility’s personnel & consumers (random selection of citizens)
Steps:
• statistical analysis was performed,
• MCA – Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP) to set weights to water conservation measures, policy
and desired future objectives  ranking for each sample-group’s perceptions and priorities on the
factors affecting water consumption, and water conservation measures.
• Results comparison, gaps in understanding and cooperation were identified and used for informing both
consumers and Water Utility personnel about each other’s preferences.

5. • Volos City - Central Greece (387.14 km² & population of 144,449 habitants)
• Dry climate, hot summers & cold winters
• Mean annual temperature 16.9°C & Mean annual rainfall between 500-600 mm
• The local Water Supply Company (WU) is responsible for domestic water supply / monitoring / volumetric
charges
• Number of water meters
• Annual water production
• specific consumption = 350 lt/meter/day
Study Area
x3 the last 35 years
For the needs of the questionnaire survey the city was
divided into four sectors: Sectors 1, 2 and 3 = Volos’
Municipality,
Sector 4 includes the Municipalities of Nea Ionia and
Aisonia (Mylopoulos et al.,2017; Alamanos et al.,2019)

6. Methodology - Questionnaire
• Part Α – Social Characteristics: 15 questions regarding age, sex, education, family members, annual income
and recording water consumption devices. This determines the identity of the sample.
• Part B – Evaluation: The respondents evaluate how important they consider factors affecting:
• water consumption (e.g. house size, number of family members, water price, climate parameters,
information from Water Utility etc.),
• with the contribution of various measures (pricing policy, network condition, water quality, losses’
control, information-education for water conservation) to water saving, and finally, with their
willingness to contribute to better service through willingness-to-pay.
• Part C – Quality of Services: 7 questions regarding water quality, water scarcity, what the sample think
about the causes, if they are happy from the way Water Utility confronts these issues, and if they consider
themselves conservative, wasteful or normal.
• Part D – Water Pricing and Willingness to Pay (WTP): 7 questions  willingness to new investments or
water tariffs for improving the provided services and confronting any future problems
11 employees in positions of responsibility – WU + 208 random & representative consumers
sample

7. Results - Questionnaire
• Part Α – Social Characteristics:
• The sample was equally distributed in the four areas sectors,
• in every age,
• floor,
• family members,
• sex and
• income group.
• 75% were graduates of higher education.
11 employees in positions of responsibility – WU + 208 random & representative consumers
sample
• The existing pricing policy’s,
temperature and rainfall’s impacts to
the water consumption were judged
as medium-moderate
• Part B – Evaluation:
• “water quality is not satisfactory”
• WU’s response to network damages and efforts
were judged positively

8. Results - Questionnaire
• Part C – Quality of Services:
• “water quality is the main problem”
• 52% believes that they can maintain the same life quality and covering their needs using less water
• Only the 8% consider themselves as wasteful water-consumers
• 71% states that the solution to any problem related with water is the construction of new hydraulic
and water supply works,
• Only 29% believes that water conservation is more important,
• 95% wants (more) information campaigns  encouraging element
• 44% does not know how much they pay for water, or even the current tariffs
The answers to:
a) Which are the main
problems of the city’s
water resources
b) Which would be the
most appropriate
pricing system

9. Results - Questionnaire
• Part D – Water Pricing and Willingness to Pay (WTP):
• Sensitization  74% would like to participate in a water conservation project for the city
• Only the 41% of them are willing to pay
for the implementation of such a project
The answers to:
a) How do the sample finds the current
tariffs,
b) If they think possible high charges as
an incentive to save water,
c) If they are willing to contribute to an
improvement of water supply services
through an increase in water price,
d) How much are they willing to pay for
it.

10. Methodology – MCA (AHP) using Part C
Variables affecting water consumption
12x12 comparison matrix:
• Water quality
• Pricing policy
• Information on water supply problems
• Water Utility’s efforts to meet water needs
• Number of family members
• House size
• Floor
• Water consumption for outdoor use
• Consumer’s income
• Level of education
• Temperature
• Rainfall
(Saaty et al., 1980; Alamanos et al., 2018; Vagiona et al., 2006)
Variables affecting water conservation / improvement of
services
6x6 comparison matrix:
• Water Utility’s response to damages
• Network updates
• Application of an appropriate pricing policy
• Use of water saving devices
• Checking the network for losses
• Consumers’ information and education
binary comparisons under the criteria set
Answers’ randomness of the is expressed by the Consistency Ratio
(C.R), which has to be smaller than 10%

11. Results – MCA (AHP) Variables affecting water conservation /
improvement of services
Citizens’ results
(final weights)
DMs’ results
(final weights)
Water Utility’s response to damages (E1) 14.89 17.46
Network updates (E2) 17.16 22.63
Application of an appropriate pricing
policy (E3)
16.29
9.97
Use of water saving devices (E4) 16.28 9.90
Checking the network for losses (E5) 16.29 25.82
Consumers’ information and education
(E6)
19.08
13.79
Variables affecting water
consumption
Citizens’ results (final
weights)
Hierarchy Ranking
Level of education (K10) 10.78 1
Temperature (K11) 9.44 2
House size (K6) 9.44 3
Number of family members (K5) 9.1 4
Water Utility’s efforts to meet water
needs (K4)
8.56 5
Pricing policy (K2) 8.56 6
Consumer’s income (K9) 8.56 7
Rainfall (K12) 8.56 8
Water quality (K1) 8.12 9
Water consumption for outdoor use
(K8)
8.12 10
Information on water supply problems
(K3)
6.63 11
Floor (K7) 4.15 12
Both sample’s
CR = 4-10%
Stakeholders seek an improvement in every proposed factor
• slight preference to an informative-educational program (E6).
WU set as their main priority the modernization of the network.
aged network  leakage reduction (E5) and upgrades (E2).

12. • Sector and income differentiated the answers regarding water consumption factors
• Comparing the findings of the similar survey of 2006  The most important factor for water conservation in
2006 was the house size, while education background and temperature were of minor importance,
• Not significant changes re water conservation measures
Results
Water quality (K1)
Pricing policy (K2)
Information on water supply problems (K3)
Water Utility’s efforts to meet water needs (K4)
Number of family members (K5)
House size (K6)
Floor (K7)
Water consumption for outdoor use (K8)
Consumer’s income (K9)
Level of education (K10)
Temperature (K11)
Rainfall (K12) Most important factors affecting water
consumption
Main priorities for water conservation
2006 2019 2006 2019
Family members
Education
background
Checking
network for
losses
Consumers’
information -
education
House size
Temperature and
House size
Consumers’
information -
education
Network
maintenance and
improvement
Water
consumption for
outdoor use
Family members
Use of water
saving devices
Proper water pricing
+ Use of water
saving devices
WTP comparison (2014 vs 2019) using older
data of the WU:
2014  only 23% WTP for improvements
2019  36% WTP for improved services
In both studies  10% prefers paying less
Encouraging signs for financial crisis
recovery
(Vagiona et al., 2006)

13. • Encouraging signs regarding realization of water problems, increased WTP, and willingness for education/
communication
• The participants appreciated the information of each group about the results  building communication &
cooperation  public participation in decision-making
• Consideration and possible discussion for designing a new ‘social’ bill with lower tariffs for household
consumption of large families should be considered (variable Family Size)
• The model used has an operational character and could be applied to any similar case, promoting cooperation
between DMs and stakeholders, towards a sustainable and globally optimum management
• Recommended for cases that need public’s perspective while a proper stakeholder analysis is not feasible
Conclusions from the survey & MCA approach

14. • Complete databases, network mapping and prioritize the monitoring of consumption patterns
• IWA’s water balance table is a useful but preliminary tool – it should be improved by dividing the network in
DMAs and strengthening monitoring
• Estimate NRW ratio, that is the ratio of losses from unbilled authorized consumption and apparent and real
losses to the total water supply
• Partitioning of the WDS - subdividing it into sufficiently small areas, called district metered areas (DMAs) –
Numerous algorithms can be applied to establish optimal DMAs
• Installation of control valves at suitable locations and their real-time control (RTC) of these devices, to meet
the demand variations in time – Explore and use algorithms for their optimal location
• Estimating leakage through night flow can minimize the error, while night consumption is minimum and
easier to determine.
Suggestions from international experience (review) for managerial improvements

15. Long-term cooperative management including stakeholder engagement: Water Stewardship
Theoretical Background:
• Integrated and Sustainable Water Resources Management (ISWRM)  definition and principles (similarly
to EU 2030 Agenda)
• Water Stewardship:
• Definition, Aim, and Principles  ideally converging with the ISWRM
• Standards (AWS and EWS)  Quantity, Quality, Environment, Water Governance, WASH,
• Performance assessment tools
Ways to contribute to each step for each individual/ body/ cooperation  WS
Methods, techniques & practices, beyond the traditional approaches of water monitoring & allocation
Water Stewardship – Business Case Example:
• Strategy to be followed from an industry/ agricultural/ individual (with modifications) according to AWS, EWS,
and international practice:
• Optimal ways for metering, modelling, data reviewing, cost analysis, project tracking, water bill & water
cost analysis.
• Goal-setting and strategies to optimally achieve them,
• Considering the broader system, the catchment – including the stakeholder analysis

16. International Approaches (another review)
14 examples with their goals and ways to achieve them. Highlights:
• the role of the economic value of water,
• need of more studies on WS cases, as currently the focus has been more on business related technologies,
rather than good practices for achieving ‘global optimum solutions’,
• Experience shows that companies have significant political influence for greater scale WSs compared to
NGOs,
• Private sector must implement the WFD, preventing water body degradation and full cost recovery.
• Case Study 1: Lake Winnipeg Action Plan, Canada (the ‘good’ example)
Lake Winnipeg Stewardship Board (2005). Our Collective Responsibility, Reducing nutrient loading to Lake Winnipeg. An Interim
Report to the Minister of Water Stewardship for Manitoba. January 2005, Manitoba, Canada.
A series of measures/actions covering every WS target, individual and community goals,
Based on environmental – ecological – social – economic sustainability
Detailed program of actions and impacts
• Case Study 2: Subjective and virtual indicators (the ‘bad’ example)
• Corporate-driven indicators and WS metrics giving a good impression, often at the
expense of the local and environmental sustainability

17. How to avoid the ‘bad example’ and ensure the successful implementation of WS
according to the ISWRM’s principles?
By developing an objective WS regulation – a way to evaluate WS standards
Except of the economic and business-based indicators and criteria, environmental ones should be considered,
taking into account the condition and the effect of the broader catchment area + continuous scientific support
• WS criteria consist of indicators (AWS, EWS), so the way to assess & evaluate them is a key element to
achieve this goal
• A simple first way to assess the problem is to use a similar approach to benefit score functions , which is well-
justified by the Utility Theory
• Since the AWS or EWS criterion-indicator systems are followed, the hierarchy of standard-criterion-indicators
allows many indicators to become measurable (monitoring or modelling outcomes – which also needs to be
strongly supported).

18. Suggested approach to asses WS criteria-indicators
The scoring process supports
cooperation of stakeholders and
decision-makers
The weighted summation approach can determine
the benefit score of a standard criterion (ui).
𝑢𝑖 = 𝑤𝑗
𝑚
𝑗 =1 ∙ 𝑠𝑖𝑗
wj is the weight assigned to the jth
indicator (from the
standard’s criterion) and si,j is a transformed utility
score for criterion i against indicator j. The weight can
be set by introducing a maximum score for the
indicator
Weights can be specified as percentages (more
common approach), or scoring rules (e.g.
normalization based on min and max standards’
values)
The additive form for each criterion regarding to the
effects on the relevant indicators (despite of a few
assumptions) is more commonly and practically used
because of its similarity with the actual logic of WS
standards (e.g. US Environmental Quality Incentives
Program and Conservation Reserve Program)
Since the indicators and the weights are decided or estimated, then they can be used either to choose among
several investment options in light of a budget constraint, either to allocate a fixed resource (money) among
the competing standards
The optimal solution can be obtained by solving a
binary combinatorial optimization problem:
Max Z = 𝑢𝑖
𝑛
𝑖=1 ∙ 𝑞𝑖 , subject to 𝑐𝑖
𝑛
𝑖=1 ∙ 𝑞𝑖 ≤ 𝑏,
𝑞𝑖 ∈ 0,1 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑖 = 1, … , 𝑛
The cost of each option is denoted by ci and the
budget threshold is denoted by b: A binary decision
variable qi is set to 0 when the option is not purchased
and to 1 when purchased. A branch and bound
algorithm can solve for the optimal, but usually ‘‘rules
of thumb’’ are employed to give a near (often very
near, e.g., 98%) optimal solution. The most common
and simpler approach is to place the investment
options in ascending order of costs and fund until the
budget constraint binds.
More info and technical details on problem
setting and solutions:
USDA (2006). Conservation reserve program general sign-
up 33 environmental benefits index, fact sheet. Natural
Resource Conservation Service, US Department of
Agriculture, Washington, DC
Keeney RL, Raiffa H (1993). Decisions with multiple
objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs, 2nd edn.
Cambridge University Press, London
Ribaudo MO, Hoag DL, Smith ME, Heimlich R (2001).
Environmental indices and the politics of the conservation
reserve program. Ecological Indicators 1:11–20.
Martello S, Pisinger D, Toth P (2000) New trends in exact
algorithms for the 0–1 knapsack problem. European
Journal of Operational Research 123:325–332
Horowicz E, Sahni S (1974). Computing partitions with
applications to the knapsack problem.Journal of the ACM
21:277–292
Hajkowicz SA (2007). Allocating scarce financial resources
across regions for environmental management in
Queensland, Australia. Ecological Economics 61(2–3):208–
216

19. References
• Mylopoulos, N., Fafoutis, C., Sfyris, S., & Alamanos, A. (2017). Impact of water pricing policy and climate change on future water demand in Volos,
Greece. European Water Journal, (58):473-479.
• Bhave, P.R. Node flow analysis of water distribution systems. J. Transp. Eng. 1981, 107, 457–467
• Lambert, A.O.; Brown, T.G.; Takizawa, M.; Weimer, D. A Review of Performance Indicators for Real Losses fromWater Supply Systems. J. Water SRT
Aqua 1999, 48, 227–237.
• Shinde, V.R.; Hirayama, N.; Mugita, A.; Itoh, S. Revising the Existing Performance Indicator System for Small Water Supply Utilities in Japan. Urban
Water J. 2013, 10, 377–393
• Reis, L.; Porto, R.; Chaudhry, F. Optimal location of control valves in pipe networks by genetic algorithm. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. 1997, 123, 317–
326.
• Araujo, L.; Ramos, H.; Coelho, S. Pressure control for leakage minimisation in water distribution systems management. Water Resour. Manag. 2006, 20,
133–149.
• Pezzinga, G.; Gueli, R. Discussion of “Optimal Location of Control Valves in Pipe Networks by Genetic Algorithm”. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. 1999,
125, 65–67.
• Alamanos, A., Mylopoulos, N., Loukas, A., & Gaitanaros, D. (2018). An integrated Multicriteria Analysis tool for evaluating water resources
management strategies. Water 2018, (10), 1795; doi:10.3390/w10121795.
• Covelli, C.; Cozzolino, L.; Cimorrelli, L.; Della Morte, R.; Pianese, D. Optimal Location and Setting of PRVs in WDS for Leakage Minimization. Water
Resour. Manag. 2016, 30, 1803–1817.
• Creaco, E.; Pezzinga, G. Comparison of Algorithms for the Optimal Location of Control Valves for Leakage Reduction in WDNs. Water 2018, 10, 466.
• Clauset, A.; Newman, M.E.J.; Moore, C. Finding community structure in very large networks. Phys. Rev. E2004, 70, 06611.
• Di Nardo, A.; Di Natale, M.; Santonastaso, G.; Tzatchkov, V.; Alcocer-Yamanaka, V. Water network sectorization based on graph theory and energy
performance indices. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. 2013, 140, 620–629.
• Giustolisi, O.; Ridolfi, L. A novel infrastructure modularity index for the segmentation of water distribution networks. Water Resour. Res. 2014, 50,
7648–7661.
• Scarpa, F.; Lobba, A.; Becciu, G. Elementary DMA design of looped water distribution networks with multiple sources. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag.
2016, 142, 04016011.
• Sela Perelman, L.; Allen, M.; Preis, A.; Iqbal, M.; Whittle, A.J. Automated sub-zoning of water distribution systems. Environ. Model. Softw. 2015, 65, 1–
14.
• Alamanos, A., Sfyris, S., Fafoutis, C., & Mylopoulos, N. (2019). Urban water demand assessment under climate change and socioeconomic changes.
Water Supply (2020) 20 (2): 679–687. doi.org/10.2166/ws.2019.199.

20. • Ciaponi, C.; Creaco, E. Comparison of Pressure-Driven Formulations for WDN Simulation. Water 2018, 10, 523
• Jung, J.J. The Primary Factor of Management Evaluation Indicators for Local Public Water Supplies & Suggestion of Alternative Evaluation Indicators. J.
Korean Policy Stud. 2012, 12, 139–159.
• Almandoz, J.; Cabrera, E.; Arregui, F.; Cabrera, E.; Cobacho, R. Leakage Assessment through Water Distribution Network Simulation. J. Water Resour. Plan.
Manag. 2005, 131, 458–466.
• Giustolisi, O.; Savic, D.; Kapelan, Z. Pressure-driven demand and leakage simulation for water distribution networks. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2008, 134, 626–635.
• Makropoulos, C.K.; Natsis, K.; Liu, S.; Mittas, K.; Butler, D. Decision support for sustainable option selection in integrated urban water management.
Environ. Model. Softw. 2008, 23, 1448–1460.
• Rozos, E.; Makropoulos, C. Source to tap urban water cycle modelling. Environ. Model. Softw. 2013, 41, 139–150.
• Tabesh, M.; Asadiyami Yekta, A.H.; Burrows, R. An integrated model to evaluate losses in water distribution systems. Water Resour. Manag. 2009, 23, 477–
492.
• Puust, R.; Kapelan, Z.; Savic, D.A.; Koppel, T. A review of methods for leakage management in pipe networks. Urban Water J. 2010, 7, 25–45.
• Cobacho, R.; Arregui, F.; Soriano, J.; Cabrera, E. Including leakage in network models: An application to calibrate leak valves in EPANET. J. Water Supply
Res. Technol. AQUA 2015, 64, 130–138.
• Sophocleous, S.; Savi´c, D.; Kapelan, Z. Leak Localization in a Real Water Distribution Network Based on Search-Space Reduction. J. Water Resour. Plan.
Manag. 2019, 145.
• Saaty, T.L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, New York. 1980.
• Vagiona D., Mylopoulos Ν., Fafoutis C. (2006). Implementation of Multicriteria Analysis in order to set weights to water conservation measures.
Proceedings of the 10th Conference of the Hellenic Hydrotechnical Association, Xanthi, (2006).
• Sun, C.; Puig, V.; Cembrano, G. Real-Time Control of Urban Water Cycle under Cyber-Physical Systems Framework. Water 2020, 12, 406.
• AWS (2020). Alliance for Water Stewardship - AWS Standard 2.0 Guidance. AWS, January 2020.
• Bennett, N. J., Whitty, T. S., Finkbeiner, E., Pittman, J., Bassett, H., Gelcich, S., & Allison, E. H. (2018). Environmental Stewardship: A Conceptual
Review and Analytical Framework. Environmental Management, 61(4), 597-614. doi:10.1007/s00267-017-0993-2
• Conservation International (2018). Corporate Water Stewardship and the case for Green Infrastructure. Conservation International - Bhp Alliance, August
2018.
• EWS (2017). European Water Stewardship – STANDARD. European Water Partnership, October 2017.
• Hajkowicz, S., Collins, K., & Cattaneo, A. (2008). Review of Agri-Environment Indexes and Stewardship Payments. Environmental Management, 43(2),
221-236. doi:10.1007/s00267-008-9170-y
• Jia, F., Hubbard, M., Zhang, T., & Chen, L. (2019). Water stewardship in agricultural supply chains. Journal of Cleaner Production, 235, 1170-1188.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.07.006
References