Sustainable Water Resources Management Assessment Frameworks (SWRM-AF) for Arid and Semi-Arid Regions: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Sustainable water resources management assessment frameworks (SWRM-AF) with associated indicators and benchmarks have appeared widely during the last decades to improve or maintain water resources. Examination or evaluation of their appropriateness and refinement for particular arid and semi-arid regions is a relatively unexplored area. To fill this gap in knowledge, a systematic review of relevant 21st century studies identified within two extensive databases, Scopus and Engineering Village, and in grey literature, is undertaken in this study. Therein, 17 studies are identified and thoroughly explored to identify their focus, application, and framework construction. The results of the comparative analysis among these frameworks show that the average numbers of components and indicators are 4.5 and 17.6, respectively. Meanwhile, categorical rescaling (47.1%), equal weighting (47.1%), arithmetic technique (82.35%), local scale (52.8%), and interval of the final index value of [0–100] (41.2%) are the most commonly used normalization methods and elements. The paper concludes that none of the existing tools reviewed is 100% applicable for arid and semi-arid regions, and therefore the case is made for developing a new bespoke SWRM-AF. The outcomes of this paper provide some useful insights into what should be included therein (e.g., stakeholder engagement and specific indicators to fit the context).

A Sustainable Water Resources Management Assessment Framework (SWRM-AF) for Arid and Semi-Arid Regions—Part 2: Refining the Conceptual Framework Using the Delphi Technique

“…Regarding how this is related to the questionnaire, a statement was given to the experts to inform them about the selection of the three pillars of sustainability and the addition of the infrastructure. This is very much supported by the findings of a systematic literature review undertaken by [1] as part of the development process of the SWRM-AF. This statement ended with a 'yes' or 'no' question to check whether these four components should carry the same weight during the calculation process.…”

“…Indicators under the economic, social, and infrastructure components will have equal weights (Table 8), while only environmental indicators will have different weights, as illustrated above in Table 7. Regarding additional information on the SWRM-AF that has been used to develop the SWRM-AF, the reader is directed to the systematic literature review undertaken by the authors [1]. Each indicator's benchmarks or metrics are provided in Part 1 of this paper [53].…”

“…The SWRM-AF application scale for ASAR and particularly GCC countries is assumed to be national. The normalization method, which is another main element in the formation of an indicator-based water sustainability framework (IBWSF) [1], is mainly the categorical scaling method. At the same time, few indicators require the continued rescaling method.…”

“…The results of a systematic literature review (see [1]) showed that a number of sustainable frameworks developed for the assessment of water resource management (WRM) were solely based on searching the literature to find appropriate components and indicators [2][3][4] as the first stage. The review showed that, either for creation or validation purposes, stakeholder opinion should be sought [5][6][7][8][9][10].…”

Assessing the Role of Autonomous Vehicles in Urban Areas: A Systematic Review of Literature

“…This method ensures transparency and complete reporting of research. As such, this paper applies a methodology consistent with other authors [21]. The scope includes peer-reviewed conference papers.…”