سنجش وضعیت امنیت آبی در استان‌های ایران

نوع مقاله : مقالات پژوهشی

نویسندگان

دانشگاه تهران

چکیده

آنچه به عنوان اصل راهبردی در مسیر توسعة پایدار مطرح است، ایجاد توازن میان سیاست‌های توسعه و وضعیت منابع پایه موجود کشور می‌باشد. از این‌رو برای مدیریت بهینة منابع آب و سازگار نمودن سیاست‌های استفاده از زمین‌های زراعی با وضعیت منابع موجود استان‌های کشور، دسترسی به اطلاعات مربوط به وضعیت امنیت آبی استان‌های مختلف بر حسب فاکتورهای فیزیکی، اجتماعی و اقتصادی ضروری می‌باشد. پژوهش حاضر به دنبال سنجش وضعیت امنیت آبی کشور با استفاده از شاخص فقر آبی می‌باشد. برای این منظور با استفاده از اطلاعات و آمار اجتماعی، اقتصادی و زیست‌محیطی در طول دوره 1387-1394 و به کارگیری شاخص فقر آبی به ارزیابی سطح امنیت آبی استان‌های ایران پرداخته شده است. بر اساس شاخص فقر آبی محاسبه شده برای استان‌های مختلف کشور، استان‌های سیستان و بلوچستان، قم، کرمان، هرمزگان و گلستان با ناامنی آبی شدید و استان‌های تهران و گیلان نیز با امنیت آبی ضعیف روبرو می‌باشند. همچنین پنج استان آذربایجان شرقی، زنجان، سمنان، کرمانشاه و لرستان در طبقة امنیت آبی بالا و پنج استان بوشهر، چهارمحال و بختیاری، کهگیلویه و بویراحمد، کردستان و مرکزی در طبقة امنیت آبی کامل می‌باشند. از آنجا که ریشه فقر آبی موجود در استان‌های مختلف متفاوت می‌باشد، پیشنهاد می‌شود برای جلوگیری از بدتر شدن وضعیت امنیت آبی در کشور برنامه‌ریزان بخش آب، برای نجات هر یک از استان‌های کشور بر روی عواملی که در این مطالعه برای هر یک از استان‌ها مشخص شده است، تمرکز نمایند.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Assessing the State of Water Security in Provinces of Iran

چکیده [English]

Introduction: Rapid growth in the world population would substantially exacerbate pressure on all resources particularly water resources and consequently would cause difficulties in global food security. In addition, degradation of water resources is one of the greatest environmental challenges facing almost all countries around the world including Iran. In Iran, the situation is even worse as it is located in a dried and low precipitation region. Thus, before Iran reaches at an irrevocable point, it needs to revisit its development policies. In fact, what is considered as a strategic principle in the path of sustainable development is the balance between the development policies and the state of the existing country's natural resources base, specially the water resources. Thus, in order to manage optimal usage of water resources and to coordinate farm land utilization policies and water resource availability in different provinces, information on water security situation in terms of physical, social and economic factors are necessary. The present study seeks to specify the status of water security in provinces of Iran using water poverty index.
Materials and Methods: Given that water security is a multidimensional concept and it is not possible to use one variable to represent its different dimensions, the indicator method is typically used to evaluate this concept. In the present study, the Poverty Index is utilized to measure water security in different provinces of Iran. This index consists of five main water related components including: Resources Accessibility, Capacity, Consumption, and Environment. These components in turns are determined by various variables such as the volume of groundwater resources and annual surface water per person, the variation of rainfall in a 10-year period, number of household having  access to public water pipeline, percentage of population having access to urban wastewater collection and disposal services, percentage of population covered by the social security services, literacy rates in the population over the age of 6, rate of participation, GDP at constant prices, employment rate in non-agricultural activities, annual water usages, percentage of irrigated land, amount of fertilizer and pesticides distributed annually, and percentage of protected areas under the management of the Environmental Protection Agency. These variables are first standardized using minimum-maximum method Then, an index for each of the five components are computed. Next, an index of water poverty is calculated for each province by aggregating all five components. At the end, based on the index of water poverty all provinces are classified into Water Unsafe, Lower safe, Moderate safe, Upper safe, and Full Safe provinces.
Results and Discussion: Results revealed that, five provinces, including Sistan va Baluchestan, Qom, Kerman, Hormozgan and Golestan were the most insecure provinces based on the calculated water poverty index. These regions are facing a severe water crisis. Two provinces, including Tehran and Gilan, had lower safe water security. Also, five provinces, consisting of East Azerbaijan, Zanjan, Semnan, Kermanshah and Lorestan faced upper safe situation, while five provinces, including Bushehr, Chahar Mahaal va Bakhtiari, Kohgiluyeh va Boyer-Ahmad, Kurdistan and Markazi had full Safe of water security. Other provinces were ranked in moderate safe status in Iran. The correlation between Water Poverty Index (WPI) and its components indicates that all components are positively and significantly correlated with the Water Poverty Index, except for the capacity item. The magnitudes of the calculated correlation coefficients in this study were 0.459, 0.628, 0.776 and 0.518, respectively for resources accessibility, capacity, consumption, and environment components. The consumption item has the strongest relationship with the Water Poverty Index. Consequently, in order to improve water security, it is recommended that policy makers give priority to this item. 
Suggestion: Given that the roots of existing water poverty in different provinces were not the same, it is suggested that water policy makers and planners take into consideration the province-specific factors for setting up the planes aiming to prevent more water insecurity in Iran. From this point of view, the WPI results can be used to prioritize the provinces and understand the roots of water insecurity in each of the provinces. Providing water security or water poverty map for Iran is essential for having a clear understanding of water security situation in different regions in Iran and is recommended. Finally, information provided by WPI can be used in efficient management of water resources in different provinces and at national level.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Iran
  • Water poverty index
  • Water security
1- Adger W.N., Brooks N., Bentham G., Agnew M., and Eriksen S. 2004. New indicators of vulnerability and adaptive capacity (Vol. 122). Norwich: Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research.
2- Alessa L., Kliskey A., Lammers R., Arp C., White D., Hinzman L., and Busey R. 2008. The arctic water resource vulnerability index: an integrated assessment tool for community resilience and vulnerability with respect to freshwater. Environmental Management 42(3): 523-541.
3- Álvarez B.L., De Leon G.S., Leal J.A.R., Ramirez J.M., El Colegio De San Luis A.C., and Del Parque F.C. 2015. Water poverty index in subtropical zones: the case of Huasteca Potosina, Mexico. Revista Internacional De Contaminacion Ambiental 31(2): 173-184.
4- Awojobi O.N. 2014. Water poverty index: an apparatus for integrated water management in Nigeria. International Journal of Innovation and Applied Studies 8(2): 591.
5- Brooks N., Adger W.N., and Kelly P.M. 2005. The determinants of vulnerability and adaptive capacity at the national level and the implications for adaptation. Global Environmental Change 15(2): 151-163.
6- Global Water Partnership (GWP). 2000. towards Water Security: A Framework for Action. GWP, Stockholm. Available at: http://www.gwp.org/globalassets/global/toolbox/references/towards-water-security.-a-framework-for-action.-mobilising-political-will-to-act-gwp-2000.pdf.
7- Global Water Partnership. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). 2000. Integrated Water Resources Management. Available at: http://www.gwp.org/globalassets/global/toolbox/publications/background-papers/04-integrated-water-resources-management-2000-english.pdf.
8- Jemmali H., and Matoussi M.S. 2013. A multidimensional analysis of water poverty at local scale: application of improved water poverty index for Tunisia. Water Policy 15(1): 98-115.
9- Jonsson A.C., and Wilk J. 2014. Opening up the water poverty index—Co-producing knowledge on the capacity for community water management using the water prosperity index. Society & Natural Resources 27(3): 265-280.
10- Korc M.E., and Ford P.B. 2013. Application of the water poverty index in border colonias of west Texas. Water Policy 15(1): 79-97.
11- Lautze J., and Manthrithilake H. 2012. Water security: Old concepts, new package, what value? In Natural Resources Forum, 36(2): 76-87.
12- Lawrence P.R., Meigh J., and Sullivan C. 2002. The water poverty index: an international comparison. Keele, Staffordshire, UK: Department of Economics, Keele University. Available at: http://www-docs.tu-cottbus.de/hydrologie/public/scripte/lawrence_etal2002.pdf.
13- Li X., Li G., and Zhang Y. 2014. Identifying major factors affecting groundwater change in the North China Plain with grey relational analysis.Water 6(6): 1581-1600.
14- Li X., Wan J., and Jia J.L. 2011. Application of the water poverty index at the districts of yellow river basin. In Advanced Materials Research 250: 3469-3474.
15- Lohani B.N., & Ait-Kadi, M. (2013). Asian Water Development Outlook 2013: Measuring Water Security in Asia and the Pacific. Available at: https://www.think-asia.org/bitstream/handle/11540/742/asian-water-development-outlook-2013.pdf?sequence=1
16- Manandhar S., Pandey V.P., and Kazama F. 2012. Application of water poverty index (WPI) in Nepalese context: a case study of Kali Gandaki River Basin (KGRB). Water Resources Management 26(1): 89-107.
17- Norman E.S., Dunn G., Bakker K., Allen D.M., and De Albuquerque R.C. 2013. Water security assessment: integrating governance and freshwater indicators. Water Resources Management 27(2): 535-551.
18- Pan Y.H., Gu C.J., Ma J.Z., Zhang T.S., and Zhang H. 2014. Water Poverty Index in the Inland River Basins of Hexi Corridor, Gansu Province. In Advanced Materials Research 864: 2371-2375.
19- Pandey V.P., Babel M.S., Shrestha S., and Kazama F. 2011a a framework to assess adaptive capacity of the water resources system in Nepalese river basins. Ecol Indic 11(2): 480–488.
20- Qiang F., Kachanoski G., Dong L., and Zilong W. 2008. Evaluation of regional water security using water poverty index. International Journal of Agricultural and Biological Engineering 1(2): 8-14.
21- Rosegrant M.W., Cai X., and Cline S.A. 2002. World water and food to 2025: dealing with scarcity. Intl Food Policy Res Inst.
22- Sullivan C. 2001. The potential for calculating a meaningful water poverty index. Water International 26(4): 471-480.
23- Sullivan C. 2002. Calculating a water poverty index. World development, 30(7): 1195-1210.
24- Sullivan C.A., Meigh J.R., and Giacomello A.M. 2003. The water poverty index: development and application at the community scale. In Natural Resources Forum 27(3): 189-199.
25- Sullivan C., Meigh J., and Lawrence P. 2006. Application of the Water Poverty Index at Different Scales: A Cautionary Tale: In memory of Jeremy Meigh who gave his life's work to the improvement of peoples lives. Water International 31(3): 412-426.
26- United Nations. 2009. Water in a Changing World, United Nations World Water Development Report 3. World Water Assessment Programme.
27- Van Beek E., and Arriens W.L. 2014. Water Security: Putting the Concept into Practice. Global Water Partnership.
28- Van Ty T., Sunada K., Ichikawa Y., and 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. International Journal of River Basin Management 8(3-4): 305-317.
29- Zhang R., Duan Z., Tan M., and Chen X. 2012. The assessment of water stress with the Water Poverty Index in the Shiyang River Basin in China. Environmental Earth Sciences 67(7): 2155-2160.