assessment of water affordability based on emerged ... · my deeply thanks with my love for my...
TRANSCRIPT
I
Assessment of Water Affordability Based on
Emerged Desalination Plant in Rafah City
تقييم القدرة على تحمل تكاليف المياه على أساس محطات التحلية الموجودة في مدينة رفح
By
Alaa-Eldeen M. Shanan
Supervised by
Dr. Khalil Alastal
Dr. Azzam Abuhabib
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science in Civil Engineering – Engineering Projects Management
January/2019
The Islamic University- Gaza
Deanship of Research and Graduate Studies
Faculty of Engineering
Civil Engineering Department
Engineering Project Management
زةـــــغ- ةــالميــــــــة اإلســــــامعـالج
عمادة البحث العلمي والدراسات العليا
الهــــــــــــندســــــــــــةة ــــــــــــــليـــك
قســـــم الهــــــــــندسة المـــــــــــدنــية
ادارة المــــــشروعات الهـــــــــــندسية
ماجستير إدارة المشاريــــع
II
إقــــــــــــــرار
أنا الموقع أدناه مقدم الرسالة التي تحمل العنوان:
Assessment of Water Affordability Based on Emerged
Desalination Plant in Rafah City
تقييم القدرة على تحمل تكاليف المياه على اساس محطات التحلية الموجودة
في مدينة رفح
اعا و دا أقر بأن ما اشتتتت علي لذه الر الر تتتتالو نتعا اه ت ال اص، التانا با تتتت اإلاا ما لعي ايشتتتتا نلذه ذ
لإلذا د او أو ل ب لعي أو بحاي ل،ى أ االخري وأن الر الر تتتتتتتتتتتتتتتالو نها أو أ ا ا مإلصا ل ، م ق ا
مؤ سو لعلذعذو أو بحاذو أخرى.
Declaration
I understand the nature of plagiarism, and I am aware of the University’s policy on
this.
The work provided in this thesis, unless otherwise referenced, is the researcher's own work,
and has not been submitted by others elsewhere for any other degree or qualification.
:Student's name عالء الدين محمد شـنن ا الطالب:
:Signature ال هقذع:
:Date 02/01/2019 ال ا يخ:
IV
Abstract
Water is right for all, and therefore must be available for all people, poor and
rich, on the other hand, it is fair and equality that all households are able to afford the
water consumed, and this is the main goal when making the pricing policy of water,
and make it affordable to ensure the financial sustainability of their providers.
The objective of this work is to assess the water situation in Rafah city in terms
of water affordability by the households by knowing the proportion of monthly water
bills’ costs from the monthly income of the households in Rafah city and compare this
proportion with international standards of water affordability.
Data have been collected from several reliable sources on the quantities of
annual water production and consumption over the past years. Also, a questionnaire
was distributed to 380 households in different areas of Rafah, where obtained on data
about monthly household income and the number of household members, as well as
the quantity of consumption and other important data for research. Then, calculate the
proportion of the cost of water bills of total household income on the households and
municipality level, which is called the index of affordability of water
The results showed that there is a big problem in the index of the affordability
of water and per capita water from the year of 2017 up to now. On the households and
municipality level, the results also showed that the proportion of the cost of the water
bill out of total household income exceeded 2.8%, which is a large percentage
compared to international standards that recommended by the majority of countries
and international organization not to exceed the ratio of more than 2.8% at the rate of
consumption (100-120) liters per day per capita.
The study recommended that the government and relevant organizations
should consider the results of the study to improve this percentage by carrying the
burden of part of the water bill on the households.
Keywords: Desalination Plant, Sea Water Desalination Plant, Brackish Desalination
Plant, Water Affordability, Consumption, Production, Gaza Strip, Rafah city.
V
ملخص البحث
وبال الي جب أن لكهن م ا و لجعذع الإلاس تتتتتهاا ناتها راا ا أ.إلذاا. للجعذعاالعذار اي ق لى لحعا لكالذف ا تتت ص ذو أخرى؛ م الع،ل والعستتتاوا أن لكهن اعذع ا تتتر قاد م تاا واعلصا ي م إلاول الجعذع ستتتتتتي إل، ناراا تتتتتتذا تتتتتتو لستتتتتتعذر العذارا والا اه الص،ف الرئذالعذار
لضعان ا رااع لكالذفصا لع وديصا.
ذتتا ال تت، لى لحعتتا الصتت،ف م اتتلا الععتتا اه ل ذذ الهاتتتتتتتتتتتتتتع العتتائي ي متت،يإلتتو م ال كالذف م ق ا ا ر طريق معر و تس و لكالذف هالذر العذار الشصريو م ال،خا الشصر
.لأل ر ي م،يإلو وم ا تو الر الإلس و مع الععايذر ال،ولذو لل ، لى لحعا لكالذف العذار
الستتتتتتتتإله للعذار لى ل اعع بذاتات م ، مصتتتتتتتتاد مهكهقو نعذات ايت ال واال تتتتتتتت ص ;أ تتتر ي مإلاطق مت لفو م 380ل لهزيع ا تتت ذان لى ;أ ضتتتا م،ى الستتتإلهات العااتتتذو.
الى نعذو باياا و ; ذا ل الحصهل لى بذاتات هل دخا ا ر الشصر و ،د أ راد ا ر م ناعالي لذر العذار اال تتتتتتت ص ومعلهمات أخرى اامو لل حا. ك ل ستتتتتتتاو تستتتتتتت و لكلفو ها
.ا واه ما سعى بعؤشر ال ، لى لحعا لكالذف العذاردخا ا ر
أواحي الإل ائج واهد مشهلو ن ذر ي مؤشر ال ، لى لحعا لكالذف العذار وتصذب الفرد م . نعا أظصرت ن ى اآل 2017مستتتتتتتت هى اال تتتتتتتتر م ا العذار لى مستتتتتتتت هى م،يإلو و لى
٪ ي تفس الهقي الل 2.8ه العذار م ناعالي دخا ا ر لجاوزت الإل ائج أن تس و لكلفو الواي تس و ن ذر م ا تو بالععايذر ال،ولذو ; 2017ل ًرا ي الذه ي ا 80بلغ ذه تصذب الفرد
ي العائو بعع،ل ٪2.8 أوصتتتتتتتتتتتي بصا .ال ذو ال ل،ان والعإلةعات ال،ولذو لى أال ل جاوز تستتتتتتتتتتت و ( ل ر ي الذه للفرد الها ،.120-100)ا ص
أوصتتتي ال، ا تتتو بضتتترو أن لإلةر الحههمو والعإلةعات ات الصتتتلو ي ت ائج ال، ا تتتو ل حستتتذ للك الإلس و ر لحعا با ا ا م اله العذار اال ر .
ال ، العالحوامحطو ال حلذوا محطو لحلذو مذار ال حرا محطو لحلذو العذار :المفتاحية الكلمات .قطاع . ا م،يإلو االت الااال ص ا لى لحعا ال كالذفا
VI
Dedication
This thesis is dedicated to
My father and mother for their everlasting love and endless fervent prayers, who have
supported me all the way since the beginning of my life.
My beloved wife who I cannot force myself to stop thanking her for bearing me
through this research
My brother: Dr Ali, who has been a great source of motivation and inspiration.
My wife's father and mother, who have been a great motivation for me,
My beloved sisters and their husbands, my family, the family of my wife, friends,
colleagues and all those who believe in the richness of learning.
All the people in my life who touch my heart.
I dedicate this research
I love you all so much
VII
Acknowledgment
First, I thank Allah who gave me patience and strength to accomplish this
research. I would like to thank all those who helped me, guided me and supported me
in my study leading to this thesis. I would like to express my gratitude and deep thanks
to my supervisors, Dr. Khalil Al-Astal and Dr. Azzam Abu Habib for their great
assistance, guidance and continuous encouragement and useful critiques of this
research work. It is really a great pride to be one of their students and to have the
opportunity to be under their supervision.
Acknowledgments to my great university, the Islamic University - Gaza (IUG) for the
opportunity to pursue my higher studies. Also, I would like to thank the Department
of Engineering at the University and all its lecturers.
I would like to express my gratitude and thanks to all those who have given me support
to shed light on this research. Coastal Municipalities Water Utility (CMWU), the
Palestinian Water Authority (PWA) and the Municipality of Rafah.
Special thanks to Eng. Omar Shatat, Eng. Fared Shaaban, Eng. Firas Abu
Nakhira, Eng. Basil Al-hamarneh, for the great help and effort that they have offered
me.
Special appreciation to the members of the Project Management Teaching Staff, for
their moral and scientific knowledge they convey us.
Special thanks to Ms. Sawsan Almasri and Mr. Ahmed Dalloul of the Water
Authority for their help in this research.
Special thanks to the staff of the Middle East Desalination Research Center (MEDRC),
which supported this research financially. Without this very valuable support, it cannot
be practical in this good form that has been achieved.
My deeply thanks with my love for my colleague Eng. Mohammed Fathy Al-
Kahlout for endless helping and patience.
Finally, my deepest appreciation is to my parents, my brothers and sisters and my
family for their full support, encouragement and patience that gave me the ability to
continue.
VIII
Table of Contents
III ...................................................................................................................... نتيجة الحكم
Abstract ...................................................................................................................... IV
V .................................................................................................................... ملخص البحث
Dedication .................................................................................................................. VI
Acknowledgment ...................................................................................................... VII
Table of Contents ..................................................................................................... VIII
List of Figures ............................................................................................................ XI
List of Tables ........................................................................................................... XIII
Chapter One Introduction ............................................................................................ 1
1.1 Background ........................................................................................................ 2
1.2 Research Problem ............................................................................................... 3
1.3 Research Goal .................................................................................................... 4
1.4 Research Objectives ........................................................................................... 4
1.5 Research Limitations .......................................................................................... 4
1.6 Methodology ...................................................................................................... 5
1.7 Thesis Organization ........................................................................................... 5
Chapter Two Study Area ............................................................................................. 7
2.1 Location and Population .................................................................................... 8
2.2 Administration.................................................................................................. 10
2.3 Climate ............................................................................................................. 10
2.4 Water Resources ............................................................................................... 11
2.4.1 Production of Water by Water Resource in Rafah city ............................. 12
2.5 Assessment of Water and Economic Situation in Rafah city and Gaza Strip in
General ................................................................................................................... 18
2.5.1 Water Situation .......................................................................................... 18
IX
2.5.2 Economic Situation ................................................................................... 22
2.5.3 Power Consumption Situation in Gaza Strip ............................................. 29
Chapter Three Literature Review .............................................................................. 30
3.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 31
3.2 Definition of Water Affordability .................................................................... 33
3.3 Affordability and Social Protection Measures ................................................. 35
3.4 Water Affordability on International Level and Law ...................................... 37
3.5 Range of Water Affordability Indices in Various Countries ........................... 38
3.6 Methods for Measuring Water Affordability ................................................... 41
3.7 Water Affordability Case Studies .................................................................... 43
3.7.1 Water Affordability in Spain (García-Valiñas, 2010) ................................... 43
3.7.2 Water Affordability in Malaysia (Anang, 2017) ........................................... 46
3.7.2 Water Affordability in India (RAJE, 2002) ............................................... 47
3.8 Conclusion........................................................................................................ 49
Chapter Four Methodology ........................................................................................ 51
4.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 52
4.2 Research Design ............................................................................................... 52
4.3 Reviewing Previous Relevant Studies ............................................................. 53
4.4 Data Collection Methodology .......................................................................... 53
4.4.1 Research and previous studies ................................................................... 54
4.4.2 Field Survey ............................................................................................... 54
4.4.3 Interview Data Collection .......................................................................... 54
4.4.4 Questionnaire ............................................................................................. 54
4.5 Evaluating and Measuring the Water Affordability in Rafah city ................... 58
Chapter Five Results & Discussion ........................................................................... 59
5.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 60
X
5.2 Analysis of Current Water Situation and their Resources in Rafah city and its
Relation to the Water Affordability -Households Level- ....................................... 61
5.2.1 Water Balance in households in Rafah city ............................................... 61
5.2.2 Economic Analysis .................................................................................... 68
5.3 Evaluating and Measuring the Water Affordability in Rafah City .................. 71
5.3.1 The potential determinants of water affordability ..................................... 71
5.3.2 Water Affordability Analysis .................................................................... 75
5.3.3 Water Affordability Analysis -Municipality Level- .................................. 86
5.3.4 Relationship between Water Affordability and some Indicators .............. 90
5.3.5 Water Affordability Analysis based on Real Cost and Production – CMWU
Level- .................................................................................................................. 96
Chapter Six Conclusion and Recommendations ...................................................... 102
6.1 Conclusion...................................................................................................... 103
6.2 Recommendations .......................................................................................... 106
References ................................................................................................................ 107
Appendixes .............................................................................................................. 112
Appendix 1 ........................................................................................................... 112
Appendix 2 ........................................................................................................... 151
Appendix 3 ........................................................................................................... 155
Appendix 4 ........................................................................................................... 164
Appendix 5 ........................................................................................................... 166
XI
List of Figures
Figure (2.1): Gaza Strip map ....................................................................................... 8
Figure (2.4): Spatial variation of annual rainfall over the twelve climatic stations in
Gaza Strip (1973-2007). (MoT, 2007) ....................................................................... 11
Figure (2.5): Water Resource in Rafah city ............................................................... 12
Figure (2.6): Amount of water production from wells per m3 in past years ............. 13
Figure (2.7): Amount of water production from sheoot brackish desalination plant per
m3 in past years ......................................................................................................... 15
Figure (2.8) Amount of water production from Alsalam brackish desalination plant per
m3 in past years ......................................................................................................... 15
Figure (2.9): Amount of water production from seawater desalination plant per m3 in
last year ...................................................................................................................... 16
Figure (2.10): Percent of people who have committed to pay these bills over the past
three years .................................................................................................................. 22
Figure (2.11): Change in GDP by region from 2011 to 2016 .................................... 26
Figure (2.12): Unemployment rate by region from 2011 to 2016 ............................. 28
Figure(4.1): The steps of Methodology that used in this Research ........................... 53
Figure (5.1): How much does your Household consume Water that come from piped
Water per Month ........................................................................................................ 62
Figure (5.2): How much does your Household consume Water that purchased from
desalination plant per Month ..................................................................................... 62
Figure (5.3): What is the main Source of Tap Water ................................................. 63
Figure (5.4): What is the main Source of Drinking Water ........................................ 64
Figure (5.5): Does current Water Quantities cover your needs of Water .................. 65
Figure (5.6): The answer of question "Are you ready to buy the Quantity of Water you
need if the Municipality is ready to provide you" ..................................................... 65
Figure (5.7): What is the way that you suggest to be adopted by Water Authority and
expect will give better results in commitment to paying water invoices ................... 66
Figure (5.8): Water Households Debts to Water Provider ......................................... 67
Figure (5.9): The Age of the respondent (The Head of Households) ........................ 71
Figure (5.10): Educational level of the respondent of the Questionnaire .................. 72
XII
Figure (5.11): Number of People live in Housing unit .............................................. 72
Figure (5.12): The percent of Water Affordability from Respondents ...................... 81
Figure (5.13): Do you agree to provide desalinated Water through the Water Tap for a
selected Day or more per Week with increase the Value of Water Monthly Invoice
slightly ....................................................................................................................... 84
Figure (5.14): The Ability to afford the Value of Water Invoice if the Price of cubic
meter of Water on those selected becomes 0.833$ by Households ........................... 85
Figure (5.15): Number of Days that Households want to bring a Drinking Water by
Water Piped During the Week ................................................................................... 85
Figure (5.16): Relationship between water affordability Index and quantity of water
produced during past years ........................................................................................ 91
Figure (5.17): Relationship between water affordability and percent of commitment
for paying the water bills ........................................................................................... 93
Figure (5.18): The relationship between GDP and water affordability index in the past
years ........................................................................................................................... 94
Figure (5.19): Average monthly income of households in Rafah city during the past
years ........................................................................................................................... 96
XIII
List of Tables
Table(2.1): Area of Governorates in Gaza Strip (PCBS,2016) ................................... 9
Table(2.2): Development of Rafah Governorate population in thousand inhabitants
(PCBS,2016) ................................................................................................................ 9
Table(2.3): A Quantity of Water Production During the Past Years ......................... 13
Table(2.4): A Quantity of Water Production from Two Brackish Desalination Plants
During the Past Years ................................................................................................ 14
Table(2.5): Total Amount of Water Produced from wells and public desalination plants
in The Past Years ....................................................................................................... 17
Table(2.6): Some of Data about Private and Public brackish Desalination Plant
(CMWU,2017b) ......................................................................................................... 17
Table(2.7): Comparison of the quantity of water produced from a desalination plants
as planned with the current situation in Rafah city .................................................... 19
Table(2.8): A Quantity of Water Consumption from Households during the Past
Years(CMWU,2017a) ................................................................................................ 20
Table(2.9): The price of cubic meter of water in Rafah according to amount of
consumption by consumer (CMWU,2017d) .............................................................. 23
Table(2.10): The GDP in Gaza Strip during Past Years ............................................ 25
Table(2.11): Labor Market Indicators for Individuals aged 15 years and above in Gaza
Strip in the Year of 2011- 2016 ................................................................................ 27
Table(2.12): Average Monthly Income of Households in Gaza Strip During the Past
Years (PCBS,2017) .................................................................................................... 28
Table(3.1): Some Indices of Water Affordability for Some Countries and International
Institutions ................................................................................................................. 39
Table(4.1): Age of the Respondent ............................................................................ 56
Table(4.2): Sex of the Respondent ............................................................................ 56
Table(4.3): Educational level of the Respondent ....................................................... 56
Table (5.1): You pay the invoice when you have the required money ...................... 66
Table (5.2): The Actual Reason for Non-Payment the Debts from Households Point of
View ........................................................................................................................... 67
Table (5.3): The Customer Head of The Household ................................................. 69
XIV
Table (5.4): The Breadwinner of the Family ............................................................. 69
Table (5.5): The Sector in which the Breadwinner Works ........................................ 69
Table (5.6): Number of Workers in the Family, including Parents ........................... 69
Table (5.7): What is the Type of Work ...................................................................... 70
Table (5.8): Is there another Source of Income ......................................................... 70
Table (5.9): If the Answer is "Yes", what is the Source ............................................ 70
Table (5.10): The Total Household's Income per Month .......................................... 70
Table (5.11): Sex of the respondent in the Questionnaire ......................................... 72
Table (5.12): The price of a cubic meter of Water from Private Desalination Plants 74
Table (5.13): The share of Monthly Water bills from Monthly Income for the
Household Respondents ............................................................................................. 80
Table (5.14): The percent of Water Affordability from Respondents ....................... 81
Table (5.15): Relationship between share of Water Bills from Income and other
Factors ........................................................................................................................ 82
Table (5.16): How much Households spend for piped water per month ................... 83
Table (5.17): How much Household for Water that purchased from Desalination Plant
per Month ................................................................................................................... 83
Table (5.18): Households Opinion about the Cost of Water that coming from the Water
Network (Piped Water) .............................................................................................. 83
Table (5.19): Households Opinion about the Cost of Water that you purchase from
Private Desalination Plants ........................................................................................ 84
Table (5.20): The percentage of Monthly Water Cost according to Monthly Salary for
Households in last eight years ................................................................................... 90
Table (5.21): The amount of water produced and value of water affordability in the
past years .................................................................................................................... 90
Table (5.22): The quantity of water consumption in the past years .......................... 92
Table (5.23): The relationship between GDP and water affordability index in the past
years ........................................................................................................................... 93
Table (5.24): Relationship between Unemployment and Affordability Index .......... 95
Table (5.25): Average monthly income of households in Rafah city during the past
years ........................................................................................................................... 95
XV
Table (5.26): The percentage of Monthly Water Cost according to Monthly Salary for
Households in last eight years -Municipality Level- ............................................... 100
1
Chapter One
Introduction
2
Chapter One: Introduction
1.1 Background
Water is right for all, and therefore must be available for all people, poor and rich,
on the other hand, it is fair and equality that all households are able to afford the water
consumed, and this is the main goal when making the pricing policy of water, and
make it affordable to ensure the financial sustainability of their providers.
Water is abundant in nature. However, there is a shortage of potable water in many
cities in the world.
The Gaza Strip depends primarily on water sources from groundwater desalination
and on water purchased from Israeli companies due to the limited resources available
in the Gaza Strip. Increasing the daily consumption of water per capita, where the
individual consumes about 100 liters per day as a minimum (WHO, 2016), led to a
shortage of groundwater and significantly increased costs than necessary to find
alternatives.
Desalination plant appears to be the most appropriate solution, in Gaza strip there
is many large brackish water desalination plants (BWDPs) and one seawater
desalination plant which provide quantity of water for the Gaza population.
In the city of Rafah, there are two brackish desalination plants and more than 19
wells distributed throughout the city as well as the seawater desalination plant, which
feeds the city of Rafah with water (CMWU, 2017a).
Also, there are small public desalination plants distributed over the city to produce
small quantities of water for citizens in addition to thirteen private desalination plants
which sell the drinking water for citizens.
However, the desalination technology needs a great dealing with cost, whether the
capital cost or the cost of maintenance and operation. In the Gaza Strip in general and
Rafah city in particular, these projects often funded by international donors, Therefore,
the problem remains in how can it return the costs of maintenance and operation and
make it affordable for consumers. There are two types of water desalination plants
available in Gaza Strip: brackish desalination plants and seawater desalination plants,
which vary in cost and sustainability in the future. For brackish desalination plants, it
3
is better than seawater desalination plant in terms of the cost like the capital cost,
maintenance costs and water production cost are less. Therefore, the price of cubic
meter of water produced from brackish water desalination plants is less than the price
of water that is produced from seawater desalination plants. On the other hand,
according to continuity of producing water, the seawater desalination plants are better
than brackish desalination plants, where the continuous withdrawal of groundwater
has led to a shortage of groundwater, which leads to several problems, the most
important of which is seawater drift into groundwater
Due to the difference in income levels of individuals in the Rafah city and in the
difficult economic situation in Gaza strip in general, there is a problem with water
affordability, as there is significant water consumption without cost recovery that
covering maintenance and operation.
1.2 Research Problem
Due to the poor economic situation in the Gaza Strip and the lack of available
water resources, it is important to find solutions to the problem of water costs on the
households, to become affordable, in addition to addressing the problem of water
shortages so that become applicable and appropriate to the current economic situation
of the households.
In the Gaza Strip in general, the sources of water consumed are either from
brackish desalination plants or seawater desalination plants, which are slightly
available in the Gaza Strip and do not provide the required amount of water consumed,
or through water that purchased from Israeli companies (Mecrot). But in Rafah city,
the source of water consumed is only either from groundwater wells that distributed
on over all the city or from existing sea and brackish desalination plants.
Therefore, the problem here revolves around the share of water bills of the total
monthly income of the households in Rafah city and to know if the costs of water
affordable for the households by comparing those proportions with international
standards.
4
1.3 Research Goal
The main objective of the research is to assess the water situation in Rafah city
in terms of water affordability by the households by knowing the proportion of
monthly water bills’ costs from the monthly income of the households in Rafah city
and compare this proportion with international standards of water affordability.
1.4 Research Objectives
1. To assess the water situation in the city in terms of quantities of production and
consumption during previous years.
2. To assess the economic situation of the city during the previous years.
3. To evaluate the existing tariffs of water services and the proportion of those
who are committed to paying them.
4. To estimate the existing costs for water services in Rafah city in Gaza strip
where new seawater desalination plants are operated.
5. To assess current water affordability on the households and municipality level
in Rafah city.
6. To assess the affordability of previous years at the municipal level in Rafah
city and to know if the households was able to afford the cost of water more.
7. To assess the household’s ability to afford water cost when putting the real cost
of production cubic meter of water from Public brackish desalination plant,
ground water wells and seawater desalination plant.
1.5 Research Limitations
The main limitations of this study are:
- Geographically: the study was focused on Rafah city where the aquifer is
vulnerable to seawater intrusion and also where the new seawater desalination
plant is operating.
- Water usage: the study was focused on domestic and drinking usage only.
- Water resources: the study was focused on brackish and seawater desalination
as the only technology considered to provide drinking water to population.
5
- Time: the study focused on present and past situation over past eight years.
1.6 Methodology
To achieve the objectives of this study, the following methodology was adopted
- Review of previous studies.
- Collect relevant data.
- Make a questionnaire to provide valuable information on household level such
as the amount of water consumption and the monthly income of households in
addition to know the willingness of households to pay water bills.
- Analyze of the data to know the proportion of monthly water bill costs from
the monthly income of the households based on the water affordability by
households.
- Analyze data to assess the proportion of monthly water bill costs of monthly
household income at the municipality level and to know if the households was
able to pay for the water cost more.
- Compare this proportion with proportion recommended by international
standards.
1.7 Thesis Organization
The research contains the following chapters that cover the subject as the
following:
• Chapter 1: an introduction, which covers research problem, goal, objectives,
limitations and methodology.
• Chapter 2: study area, which presents the area in which the research was
carried out in terms of population, growth rate, water sources, desalination
plants, the importance of desalination plants, and a review of water desalination
in Gaza strip and rafah city, economic situation in Rafah city.
• Chapter 3: literature review, which presents the definitions of the concept of
water affordability and the methods of measurement and water affordability
index in some countries and international organization in addition to their
impact on households.
6
• Chapter 4: approach and methodology, which focuses on the methodology
adopted in the study, the tools used to achieve the goals, and the assessment
that focused on analysis of the current water affordability in Rafah city.
• Chapter 5: which involves the results and discussion of the output of the study.
• Chapter6: In this chapter, some of valuable conclusions and recommendations
were presented.
• Appendix: contains additional data, tables and figures about Rafah city relate
to public and private desalination plants and water wells in addition to some
calculations on the water affordability index during past years
7
Chapter Two
Study Area
8
Chapter Two: Study Area
This chapter focuses on the general conditions of the study area. In addition to
the water situation and the quantities of its production and consumption in the city
during the previous years. This chapter also discussed some information about the
economic situation in Rafah city. A general description about the location,
administration and population issues of the Rafah city was introduced.
2.1 Location and Population
The Gaza Strip is located on the south-eastern coast of Palestine with long lines
from 34:21:38 H and latitude 31:29:45 N. Mediterranean Sea bordered the Gaza Strip
from west, and the cease-fire line of 1950 (the occupied Palestinian territories) from
the north and east of Gaza Strip and bordered by the Arab Republic of Egypt (see
Figure (2.1)) from south. The total area of the Gaza Strip is about 365 square
kilometers (see Table (2.1)), approximately 45 kilometers long and about 6-12
kilometers wide.
Figure (2.1): Gaza Strip map
9
Table (2.1): Area of Governorates in Gaza Strip (PCBS,2016)
Governorate Area (km2)
North Gaza Governorate 61
Gaza Governorate 74
Central Governorate 58
Khan Younis Governorate 108
Rafah Governorate 64
Total 365
The majority of Palestinians are refugees who were expelled from their homes
or left during the war of 1948 (Nakba war). Since then, the population of the Gaza
Strip has continued to increase. By 2017, based on the Palestinian Central Bureau of
Statistics (PCBS), the total residents in the Gaza Strip is 1.94 million.
Rafah is located on the southern tip of the Palestinian coastal plain and is considered
as a point of contact between Asia and Africa. The city also has many Palestinian
households with an average household size of 6, with a population growth rate of 3.3%
(PCBS, 2016). Table (2.2) shows population growth in the last decade.
Table (2.2): Rafah Governorate population in thousand inhabitants (PCBS,2016)
Years Locality
Name 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009
164,000 158,414 152,950 147,618 142,427 137,385 132,533 128,150 Rafah city
46,541 44,956 43,405 41,892 40,419 38,988 37,611 36,367 Rafah camp
8,495 8,206 7,923 7,647 7,378 7,117 6,865 6,638 Al-Nasser
14,453 13,961 13,480 13,010 12,552 12,108 11,680 11,294 Al-Shoka
233,489 225,537 217,758 210,167 202,776 195,598 188,689 182,449 Total
10
2.2 Administration
Rafah governorate consists of four basic areas: Rafah, Rafah camp, El-nasser
and Al-shouka. The municipality and Coastal Municipalities Water Utility are
responsible for public services and water, where Palestinian Water Authority (PWA)
and Ministry of Local Governorate (MoLG) take the coordination role concerning
water and sanitation works. In general, the main organizations that are working in
water and sanitation sector in Gaza Strip are:
- PWA,
- CMWU and municipalities,
- UN organizations; UNICEF, OCHA, UNRWA, WHO, UNDP, UN-Habitat.
- International organizations; ACF, CARE, GVC, International Relief, OXFAM,
Save the children, Islamic Relief, CHF, ICRC, International Relief.
- Development and others local NGOs; PHG, Maan and PEF.
2.3 Climate
Rafah is located on the Mediterranean coast, characterized by a dry hot spring
climate and a short winter with a rainy climate from November to March. The climate
is milder even though it is bordering the desert because of the sea. Through the data
obtained from the Palestinian Ministry of Transport on metrological stations of
temperatures in Gaza Strip during the last three decades (1975 to 2005) there was an
increase in average temperature, minimum temperature and maximum degree. The
average daily temperature for the entire period ranges from 19 to 21 °C, minimum 15
to 18 °C and a maximum of 21 to 24 °C.
Rainwater is the main source of groundwater recharge. Based on the data collected
in the past three decades, there is a significant difference in the Gaza governorates in
the amount of annual rainfall. In Rafah city, the amount of rain is less than the northern
areas of Gaza Strip. On the other hand, there is a very large difference between the
amount of rain that falls during the same months and from year to year as the rainy
season extends from mid-October until the end of March. As shown in Figure 2.4, the
annual rainfall rate varies significantly, where the meteorological stations in Gaza Strip
11
for 1973-2010 recorded the highest rainfall in the northern Gaza Strip at Beit Hanoun
(about 440 mm / Year), while the lowest value was recorded in the southern Gaza Strip
at Rafah station (about 220 mm per year).
Figure (2.2): Spatial variation of annual rainfall over the twelve climatic stations in
Gaza Strip (1973-2007). (MoT, 2007)
2.4 Water Resources
Rafah city has two main sources of water: a groundwater and seawater, where it
has a seawater desalination plants that supply the area of Tal al-Sultan with a part of
quantity of water that it produced and has a brackish desalination plants, as well as
ground water wells distributed around the city for ground water.
Rafah city has two brackish desalination plants, one seawater desalination plant,
many small public desalination plants and has 19 wells distributed throughout the city
which transfer water from those wells to 5 large reservoirs that distributed through the
city. Then, distribute this water over the households through water networks which
connected to these reservoirs (CMWU,2017a). In addition, it has a thirteen private
desalination plants that sells a drinking water for households in the city
(CMWU,2017a).
12
Figure (2.3): Water Resources in Rafah city
2.4.1 Production of Water by Water Resource in Rafah city
2.4.1.1 Production of Wells
In general, Rafah city has 19 groundwater wells distributed throughout the city
which transfer water from those wells and with the water that produced from public
desalination plants to 5 reservoirs that distributed over all the city areas. Then,
distribute water over the households through water networks connected to these
reservoirs (CMWU, 2017a). In terms of total water production from wells distributed
to all Rafah city areas, it varies from year to year where the quantity of production in
the years before the year of 2014 was more than the years that after of the year of 2014
which may be related to the bad conditions of electricity (CMWU,2017b). The
following table (2.3) and figure (2.4) show the difference in the quantity of water
produced during the past years:
13
Table (2.3): A Quantity of Water Production During the Past Years
Quantity of
Production(m3)/d
Quantity of Production
(MCM)/Y Year
21886 7,99 2011
21545 7,86 2012
22897 8,36 2013
22808 8,32 2014
20565 7,51 2015
20635 7,53 2016
20733 7,57 2017
Figure (2.4): Quantities of water production from wells per m3 in past years
In comparison with the past and current years, the quantity of water produced
from wells before the year of 2015 has been greater than the current quantities that
produced, this is due to the number of operation hours of the wells which was operate
more and better. Also due to the operation of desalination plants, resulting in the
compensation of that deficit of water from those plants
79.8809978.63869
83.57213 83.24707
75.0618975.676 75.31602
70
72
74
76
78
80
82
84
86
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2017 2016
Wat
er
Pro
du
ctio
n(m
3 )
x 1
00
00
0
years
14
2.4.1.2 Production of Public Desalination Plants
In Rafah city, there is two brackish desalination plants were established to
produce 400 m3/d of water for assumption that the plant is operated for 8 h/d and the
seawater desalination plant which established to produce 2,000 m3/d of water for
assumption that it is also operated for 8 h/d (CMWU,2017b). Also, small desalination
plants were constructed to produce about 50 m3/d of water, thus the total water
production of all desalination plants are about 3,000 m3 for 8 h/d (estimated)
(CMWU,2017b). But unfortunately, the total water production from brackish
desalination plants and seawater desalination plant in the past year was different. Table
(2.4) and figures (2.5) and (2.6) show the difference in the quantity of water produced
from desalination plants during the past years:
Table (2.4): Quantities of Water Production from the two Brackish Desalination
Plants During the Past Years
Years Quantity of Production(m3)/Year Quantity of Production in Day (m3)/Year
2011 63,440 174
2012 164,760 451
2013 239,120 655
2014 265,080 726
2015 377,620 1035
2016 473,639 1298
2017 392,558 1076
15
Figure (2.5): Quantities of water production from sheoot brackish desalination plant
(m3) in the past years
Figure (2.6) Quantities of water production from Alsalam brackish desalination plant
(m3) in the past years
As shown in table and figures above, the quantity of water produced from
brackish desalination plants varied. In the year of 2012, the quantity of water produced
6.344
12.51414 13
16
27.4039
19.7578
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
(Qu
anti
ty o
f P
rod
uct
ion
(m
3 )
x 1
00
00
Years
0
39620
98703
132624
217645201616 196997
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Qu
anti
ty o
f P
rod
uct
ion
(m
3 )
Years
16
increased significantly due to the operation of second brackish desalination plant
(Alsalam Plant), which was operated in May of the same year. In the year of 2017, the
quantity of water produced was reduced which is most probably due to the increase in
the blockade imposed on the Gaza Strip and as a result of the increase in the electricity
shortage which prevented the plants from operating sufficiently.
Regarding the seawater desalination plant, it was operated in the middle of 2017
to supply a quantity of water that produce to Tal Al sultan area, west of Rafah and
during that year, it supplied about 396682 m3 of desalinated water for Rafah city
during the year of 2017. The following figure (2.7) show the quantity of water
production from seawater desalination plant during last year:
Figure (2.7): Quantities of water production from seawater desalination plant (m3) in
2017
1825
4140 4163
7544
5103
6973
6163
3672
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Qu
anti
ty o
f P
rod
uct
ion
(m
3 )
Years
17
Table (2.5): Total Amount of Water Produced from wells and public desalination
plants in The Past Years
Total Production
(MCM)/Y
Production of
Desalination
Plants(m3)/Y
Production of
Wells (MCM)/Y Year
8.05 63,440
7.99 2011
8.03 164,760
7.86 2012
8.60 239,120
8.36 2013
8.59 265,080
8.33 2014
7.88 377,620
7.51 2015
8.01 473,639
7.53 2016
7.96 392,558
7.57 2017
It should be noted that there is other data about desalination plants and
water wells in Appendix 1
2.4.1.3 Production of Private Desalination Plant
Rafah city contains a numbers of private desalination plants, the following table
(2.6) shows these stations with some information about them:
Table (2.6): Data for Private and Public brackish Desalination Plant (CMWU,
2017b)
Tanks
Capacity(m3)
Number of Storage
Tanks (m3)
Plant Type Plant Name
47.5 12 Private Nahr elneel
300 1 Private Hejazy well
15 3 Public Shout (al-salam)
18
Tanks Capacity
(m3)
Number of Storage
Tanks (m3)
Plant Type Plant Name
15 3 Public Ebn taymea
25 14 NGO Al-salah
8 4 Private Al-khayreya
50 10 NGO Alhuda
11 11 NGO Alkhayrea society
105 5 Private Al-shaer
24 8 NGO Al-fadeela
85 17 Private Abuzohry
15 3 Private Al-nas
25 5 School Beer-elsaba
12 3 Private Yafa
50 10 Private Baldna
2.5 Assessment of Water and Economic Situation in Rafah city and Gaza
Strip in General
2.5.1 Water Situation
2.5.1.1 Production of Water in Rafah City
As for water that produced from groundwater wells or public desalination
plants, it was mentioned in the previous section, but it should be noted here that when
transporting this produced water to the households through water networks, a percent
of losses occurs by (30-40)% of the total water produced as a result of the thefts, illegal
water connections, and the leakage that occurs in the pipes themselves as a result of
erosion and lack of maintenance (CMWU,2017a).
19
Table (2.7): Comparison of the quantity of water produced from a desalination
plants as planned with the current situation in Rafah city
Desalination plant
seawater desalination plant Brackish desalination plant
UNICIF
D.plant
small D.plant
(min 4 plants)
Ibn
Taymea
Produce produce
250 m3/h 50 m3/h 50 m3/day 50 m3/h
work 8 hour per day (assumption)
total production/day for Rafah total production/day
3000 m3 400 m3 At least 200 m3 400 m3
Total Production/month
90,0000 m3 30,000 m3
The Result is that this Quantity with the Quantity produced from Water Wells
can cover the Minimum Amount of Water Needs of Households
The Current Situation in Rafah city
work less than 40 hour /week work less than 40 hour per week
Total production/day
17,000 m3 (15000 m3 from wells and 1500 m3 from brackish and 300 m3 from sea water
and 200 m3 from small plants)
There is percentage of loss (30-40%)
Total Quantity distributing/day
12000-14000 m3
The quantity required is 25,000 m3/day
The quantity of deficit is approximately 12000 m3/day
Per capita of this quantity is less than 65 liter per day
Per capita water according to WHO standards is 100-120 liters per day
20
2.5.1.2 Consumption of water in Rafah city
The total amount of water needs of the citizens in Rafah city reach to 25,000
m3/day for assumption that the consumption per capita is between (110-120) liters per
day according to the criteria referred by (WHO,2016). But unfortunately, the amount
consumed by citizens in the last three years is 5,276,214 m3 in the and in the year of
2016 is 5,575,882 m3 and the same in the year of 2017 which the amount of
consumption reached to 5,411,912 m3. The following table (2.8) shows the difference
in the quantity of water consumed during the past years:
Table (2.8): A Quantity of Water Consumption from Households during the Past
Years (CMWU, 2017a)
Per Capita of
Water(L/day)
The Quantity of Consumption
(MCM) Years
68 4.18 2010
75 4.79 2011
72 4.80 2012
81 5.58 2013
74 5.26 2014
72 5.28 2015
73 5.58 2016
68 5.41 2017
As shown in table above, the quantity of water consumption was varied in the
past years, where the highest water consumption was recorded in 2013, while it was
also the highest per capita of water in the same year, this is due to that the largest
quantity of water production from both wells and public desalination plant which was
in the same year as indicated in table (2.8). On the other hand, the lowest per capita
water in Rafah city was recorded in 2010 and 2017, with per capita water reaching to
68 liters per day in those years, which is below the recommended level by the World
Health Organization. This is due to that in the year of 2010, there was no current
number from the water wells. In addition, there was one brackish desalination plant,
and therefore, there was not enough water production. According to the year of 2017,
the reason was that the population increased significantly without any significant
21
change in the quantity of water production compared to previous years which led to
the occurrence of this significant water shortage.
2.5.1.3 Ground Water Depletion in Gaza Strip
Due to the full dependence on groundwater in Gaza Strip and the growth in
private desalination plants from past years to date, Gaza Strip is suffering now from
groundwater degradation. According to the Palestinian Water Authority (PWA), the
amount of groundwater used by private desalination plants is about 4.2 million cubic
meters per year (PWA, 2012).
The continuous withdrawing of groundwater leading to a decrease in the level of
groundwater, which causes intrusion of salt water to groundwater. This will increase
the high salinity in groundwater. desalination plants lead to delay the positive effects
of Mother Nature's rehabilitation of the aquifer by natural recharge. (Assaf,2001).
2.5.1.4 Number of Bills with People Committed to Payment in Rafah city
As mentioned earlier, there is a great deal of suffering for the residents of the
Gaza Strip in general and the city of Rafah in particular in the amount of water. In the
city of Rafah, there is another problem which is the lack of commitment by the citizens
to pay the monthly water bills, where the public desalination plants and water wells
produce the water permanently, but unfortunately there is no recovery of the costs of
operation and maintenance of these plants and wells and thus lead to the low
production of water of these plants and wells with the years due to the lack of
continuous maintenance and the establishment of more public desalination plants and
water wells. The following figure (2.8) shows the number of participants in Rafah city
during past years with the number of people who have committed to pay these bills
over the past three years:
22
Figure (2.8): Percent of people who have committed to pay these bills over the past
three years
The average number of participants in water in Rafah city at the beginning of
2015 is about 15929 subscribers (CMWU, 2017c). Also, there was increase in the
number of subscribers in 2016 which reached to 16852 subscriber, but in the year of
2018 this average number of subscriber reached to 17042 subscriber which is
increasing compared to previous years, but with this increase in the number of
subscribers continuously and with this number of subscribers, the average percentage
of subscriber who's committed to paying bills was exceed to 19.7% of the total number
of subscribers in years 2015 and 21.55% in the year of 2016, and it reached to 18.8%
in the year of 2017, which is a very small percentage which it leads to many problems
especially with bad economic situation that increase continuously, and if this ratio
remains as it is, and with the increasing numbers of population and subscribers, the
result will be increasing in the fiscal deficit and difficulty in providing the required
quantity of water for households (CMWU,2017c).
2.5.2 Economic Situation
At present, the water sector in Rafah city is operated and managed by the
CMWU who have their own water sources and distribution systems. It has its own
tariff structure. In general, the maximum tariff charged to domestic users is about 0.5
to 1.5 NIS/m3, which is 0.139 to 0.416 $/m3 (assume that 1 dollar =3.6), which are
related to the amount of water consumed by citizens (CMWU,2017c). This means that
1523016852 16852
3150 3628 3171
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
2015 2016 2017
subscriberbills
pays 19.74% 21.5% 18.8%
23
the average tariff is 0.278 $/m3. The following table (2.9) clarifies the price of cubic
meter with related to the amount of consumption:
Table (2.9): The price of cubic meter of water that coming from water distribution
network in Rafah according to amount of consumption by consumer (CMWU,2017d)
Price ($) (NIS) Consumption (m3/month)
0.139 (0.5) 1-30
0.278 (1) 31-50
0.416 (1.5) More than 50
As shown in the table above, the average price per cubic meter is 0.278$, this
rate does not cover the real cost of production of cubic meter of public brackish
desalination plants or sea water desalination plants, where the real cost of producing a
cubic meter of water from public brackish desalination plants is (0.47$-0.66$) and the
real cost of producing a cubic meter from seawater desalination plant is 0.81$
(CMWU,2017d). It was necessary to find the appropriate solution for the next years to
address the problem of water and cost and to find the appropriate way to become
affordable according to the citizen in proportion to the cost of production with taking
consideration the ongoing shortage of groundwater due to the wrong and illegal use of
citizens, which in turn will increase the problem in the coming years if we do not find
solutions.
According to Gaza Strip in general, its economy is in free fall, marking minus
6 percent growth in the first quarter of 2018 with indications of further deterioration
since then. While the decade long blockade is the core issue, a combination of factors
has more recently impacted the situation in Gaza; including the decision of the
Palestinian Authority (PA) to reduce the monthly payments by USD30 million to the
area, the winding down of the US$ 50- 60 million per year of the US Government aid
program, and the cuts to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency program
(TWB,2018).
24
The year 2017 marks ten years of the siege of Gaza. Already weakened by
years of economic blockade and isolation, the 2014 hostilities wreaked further damage
to Gaza’s infrastructure, housing, and economy, with dire consequences for
Palestinians in Gaza. 90% of Gaza’s drinking water is unsafe for human consumption,
and more than 60% of the population is reliant on humanitarian aid. The progress of
the reconstruction effort remains far too slow, due to a lack of funding and access
restrictions. The UN has warned that Gaza may be uninhabitable by 2020 unless
immediate action is taken. The humanitarian crisis in Gaza threatens Palestinian
stability and is a serious threat to a strong and unified State of Palestine (UNDP, 2017).
Three years after the 2014 hostilities (08 July – 26 August), Gaza is yet to
recover from the extensive destruction caused by the war. A crippling Israeli economic
blockade (land, air and sea), now entering its eleventh year, continues to take a
debilitating toll on all aspects of life in the occupied Palestinian territory, with a loss
in potential GDP of over 50%. One-third of Gaza’s arable land, and more than half of
its Oslo-agreed fishing waters – both unilaterally declared by Israel as high risk/no-go
zones–remain off-limits to Gazan economic use. Isolated and under severe restrictions
on movement of people and trade, Gaza’s economic troubles are further compounded
by continued chronic shortages in electricity, water2, and fuel supplies, and by an
unconventional institutional and regulatory environment caused by ten years of
Palestinian internal political split (UNDP,2017).
The struggle of the Gaza private sector is rooted in the significant challenges
posed by turbulent shocks to the Gaza economy of the past years. The history of the
Gaza economy since 1994 has been one of continued declines in real terms, where
economic growth has failed to match pace with population increases and the entry of
young people into the labor market (UNDP,2017). This economic stagnation has
largely been caused by a series of highly disruptive and destructive events that have
adversely affected its growth performance and vastly reduced its productive potential.
As a result, Gaza’s total real GDP over the entire two-decade period remained virtually
stagnant, “only a couple of percentage points higher” than it was in 1994
(UNDP,2017).
25
Hereafter, we will present some of the economic indicators that describe the
changes over the last years in the Gaza Strip:
2.5.2.1 Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
The growth rates in GDP varied between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank in
2016, where the growth rate in Gaza Strip reached 7.7% compared to 3.0% in the West
Bank. The growth in Gaza Strip, resulted most importantly from the continuing in
reconstruction efforts of Gaza Strip, and reduced restrictions on the importation of
goods and raw materials, as well as increased aid and assistance sent to the Strip.
Despite this remarkable growth in Gaza Strip during 2016, the GDP value remained
lower than its value before the Israeli aggression on Gaza Strip in July 2014, which
culminated in significant deterioration in the infrastructure and economic activity. As
shown in table (2.10), the Gaza Strip witnessed steady growth in 2012 by 7.0%, but
significant fall in 2014, where GDP dropped by 15.1% following the Israeli aggression
and siege on Gaza Strip before rising again by 7.7% in 2016. In the West Bank, GDP
growth rate dropped from 6.0% in 2012 to 1.0% in 2013, then rose again to 3.0% in
2016. This is mainly due to continued Israeli restrictions on the economic activity and
the financial crisis faced by the State of Palestine, especially with the dramatic decline
in external aid (PCBS, 2015). Due to this variation in growth rates, the contribution of
Gaza Strip to GDP slightly rose to 24.3% during 2016 compared to 23.5% in 2015. It
is still significantly lower than its level in 2005, where it represented 37.4%. As shown
in the following figure (2.9), the GDP of Gaza Strip (at constant prices) reached USD
1,952.1 million in 2016, while the GDP for Palestine stood at USD 8,037.0 million.
The following table shows the GDP in Gaza Strip during past years:
Table (2.10): The GDP in Gaza Strip during Past Years
GDP (Million $) Years
1781.1 2011
1905.8 2012
GDP (Million $) Years
26
2012.7 2013
1709.1 2014
1813.2 2015
1952.1 2016
Figure (2.9): Change in GDP by region from 2011 to 2016
2.5.2.2 Unemployment
The labor component is the most important factor of production in the Palestinian
economy, especially in light of limited natural resources, Israeli control over land and
water, and restrictions on the movement of people, goods and capital. By comparing
the indicators of labor market for individuals aged 15 and over in the Gaza Strip over
the past three years, the size of the labor force is increasing continuously, reaching
443.8 thousand in 2014 and about 470.7 thousand in 2015 And in 2016 they were about
496.4 thousand people, while the unemployment rate increased significantly in 2014
compared to previous years, reaching 43.9% in the Gaza Strip of the total rate of
80377719.37463.474777314.86,882.30
6084.95906.15754.35464.354095101.2
1952.11813.21709.12012.71905.81781.1
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Mili
on
Do
llar(
$)
palestine
West Bank
Gaza Strip
27
Palestine as a whole, which amounted to 27%. And fell slightly in 2015 to reach 41%
of the total of Palestine as a whole, which amounted to 26.1%. In the year 2016, the
unemployment rate increased slightly to 41.7% of the total of the percentage of
Palestine as a whole, which amounted to 27.1%. Unemployment rate in the Gaza Strip
is currently at 49.1%, which is the highest rate since the past years (PCBS,2017), while
the daily wage per capita has witnessed a steady decline, reaching in 2016 to 16.8 $
(PCBS,2017).
Table (2.11): Labor Market Indicators for Individuals aged 15 years and above in
Gaza Strip in the Year of 2011- 2016.
Indicators 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Labor force
(thousand person)
341.5 371.4 396.2 443.8 470.7 496.4
Employed persons
(thousand person)
243.6 256.3 267 248.4 276.7 289.3
Participation rate
(%)
38.4 40.1 41.2 44.4 45.3 46.1
Unemployment rate
(%)
28.7 31 32.6 43.9 41 41.7
Nominal average
daily wage (US$)
17.6 18.4 18.1 18.3 17.7 17.6
Real average daily
wage (US$)
17.5 18.2 18 17.7 16.9 16.9
Average value added
per employed
person** (USD/
employed person)
7,311.6 7,435.8 7,538.2 6,880.4 6,552.6 6,747.7
28
Figure (2.10): Unemployment rate by region from 2011 to 2016
2.5.2.3 Households Income
As for average monthly income of households in Gaza Strip, the value varied over
the past years (PCBS). Table (2.12) shows the average monthly income of the households
over the past years.
Table (2.12): Average Monthly Income of Households in Gaza Strip During the Past
Years (PCBS, 2017)
Avg Monthly
Income ($)
Avg Daily
Income ($) Years
445 17.1 2011
464.4 17.9 2012
456 17.5 2013
461.66 17.75 2014
447 17.17 2015
445 17.1 2016
In the table above, it found that there is a difference in the monthly income of
families during the past years, where income increased in 2012 because in that year
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
pe
rce
nt
of
un
em
plo
yme
nt
(%)
Years
Palestine
West Bank
Gaza Strip
29
there was a war for a week in the Gaza Strip, which left a large destruction in the
sector, which led to the work of many humanitarian projects and reconstruction in the
Gaza Strip led to create jobs and increase the salary of citizens. In 2014, an
approximately two month-long war broke out in the Gaza Strip, which caused severe
damage in all aspects of life, which were not dealt with until after some time, which in
turn led to the absence of job opportunities and increased unemployment in these years.
The monthly income of the citizen then increased after that due to the opening of many
humanitarian projects and reconstruction in the years after 2014.
2.5.3 Power Consumption Situation in Gaza Strip
Gaza Strip suffers greatly from power and electricity. During the past two years
from now about 111 megawatts of power were supplied by the Israeli company, about
4 megawatts from Egypt, about 45 megawatts of the power plant in Gaza. Thus, the
total available power was about 160 Megawatts, but the actual need for energy was
about 495 MW which means that there was a large deficit of power and electricity
(OCHA,2019).
The public electricity network the main sources of energy on which
desalination plants depend. This has led to additional load on the network.
As it was mentioned above, the current situation for electricity is miserable, and the
leakage in electricity make it necessary to use an alternative power generator which
consumes a lot of fuel. Recently, solar energy is used as an alternative solution but not
in al desalination plants due to the high costs.
30
Chapter Three
Literature Review
31
Chapter Three: Literature Review
This chapter focuses on general information about the affordability of water by
households, as well as the history of this term. It also includes how to measure water
affordability as well as stating the acceptable limit of water affordability in some
countries and international institutions, and then presents some related case studies.
3.1 Introduction
One of the most vital things in life is to be sure that water is reachable for all
people with the high available standards. Indeed, there are now approximately 884
million people can't reach good and safe water resources (UN, 2010). With reference
to the World Health Organization, there are approximately 1.6 million child deaths per
year because of unsafe water and poor hygiene (UNICEF, 2006).
Nowadays, these problems are being considered through the global community
further widely. In 2000, one among the essential UN millennium development goals
was to ensure having the ratio and percentage of people with no full access to a quantity
of a good drinking water and basic sanitation by 2015 with comparison to 1990. The
shortage of access to water isn't only because of the shortage in infrastructure, but the
shortage of power and supplies by the owner to reach the service.
For the same reason, reaching to water could be a big trouble in both developed
and developing countries. A previous study on the definition of affordability in 25 of
The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) members
shows that approximately 50 percent of these countries put the cost of water for low-
income households, a very important case, or perhaps now the inexistence of similar
policy measures (OECD, 2003).
Based on an old report that recently has been published, the real problem of
water affordability in some areas over the world is forecasted to be more
catastrophically due to the increase demand because of the population growth (United
Nations, 2010), and real pressure on water associated with climate change (Bates et
al., 2008).
32
One of the common obstacles and challenges that faces those who are
responsible on managing water services over the world is tariffs. Water definitions
must guide us to different aims and goals such as efficiency, equity, cost recovery and
environmental protection, which considered as a key principle for guiding tariff design
(OECD, 2003). The massive and expanding pressure on scarce water resources will
make affordability a complex problem in the few coming years. So, it's very important
to make studies and researches on affordability to make sure that water is available
and accessible for everyone.
The main case in the debate on infrastructure reform in developing countries is
considered to be water affordability. During the last years, poverty levels in the Gaza
Strip have risen dramatically, with approximately 55% of the populace residing in
poverty (PCBS,2018). One example shows the growing common problems around the
world is substantial water poverty, which shows, for instance, the case of a poor
households who find a difficulty in paying for water bills.
It has been expected that the issue of affordability may become worse. In the
real world, enhancement of water infrastructure and mode of operation may lead to
high prices on the end-user. In the Gaza Strip, real time affordability issues have
arisen regardless of the frequently low tariffs and the weak payments record because
of the difficult financial state in the Gaza Strip. The work of
those enhancements will consequently increase the economic burden among low
earnings families, especially in the current economic situation.
Decision-makers completely think of the consequences of society to the
process of infrastructure reform. Although, affordability fears could be used as an
argument versus tariff reform many ways affect the tariff adjustment and life
definitions (see, for example, Velody et al., 2003; Lovei et al., 2000). For sure, setting
up these systems can be complex, it needs the availability of specialized institution and
large administrative capacities, which sometimes impossible in ones like Gaza Strip,
where it requires a social protection. Then for the toolkit it exists to beat and overcome
the affordability problem. The reasons for affordability should not be grounds for
postponing customs reform.
33
The main obstacle in the improvement of social assistance programs and the
political debate on tariff reform is the insufficient information on how the household
spending on infrastructure and water services. Water affordability evaluated by cutting
the share of water expenditure out of the total household expenditures. If this share
grows up by a specified amount, water affordability will make a real problem in the
future.
The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is
one of the most active organizations conducting studies in water affordability around
the world (OECD, 2003). The study confirms the essentiality of analyzing different
income levels and groups. The amount of water charges in household expenses is
inversely related to income. Maybe one of the most published reports that have details
on affordability so far is the study of Insightful Perceptive Analysis (IPA) company
for Advisory. The study talks about a group of country analyzes and cross-country
comparisons of seven South-Eastern European countries. The constrains of
affordability evaluated and assessed the different income groups and specific
vulnerable groups (eg retirees and recipients of social assistance). The most important,
that the research also gives a result about the future of affordability from the ratio under
key policy scenarios, with account to the effects of tariff increases and income growth
on demand for electricity (OECD,2003).
3.2 Definition of Water Affordability
Water affordability is generally considered as one of the first priorities on the
agenda of international organizations and European institutions. The United Nations
classified the human right to water and recommended that water bills shouldn't be more
than 3% of the household salary to make sure that water is available for all people as
one of sustainable development goals for 2030.
The definition of water affordability between countries and international
institutions differed. It is easy to understand the concept of affordability as a concept,
but it is difficult to define it accurately. There are many concepts that are quite related.
One important distinction is "affordable" and "low cost" (Frankhauser, 2005). Utility
services may be low-cost, in the sense that a basic, no-frills service provided cheaply,
34
but this does not mean consumers have enough income to pay for it (Frankhauser,
2005). Affordability has to do with the ability of certain consumers or consumer groups
to pay for a minimum level of service. Ability to pay is also distinct from willingness
to pay, which has a clear technical meaning in consumer theory, where it defined as
the amount of income someone is willing to forego to obtain a certain service. Finally,
the notion of affordability is closely related to poverty. As outlined above, the
affordability of utility services is one of many indicators used to measure poverty
(Frankhauser, 2005). At its simplest, affordability (or affordability ratio) defined as
part of the monthly household income spent on utility services such as electricity,
water and sanitation. Also, the term affordability can be defined as the ability to pay
the share of water bills from the total household expenditure which was used in this
research, although in about half of the countries, the income-based definition should
be used for data reasons (Frankhauser, 2005).
The affordability could be defined as "the ability to pay for consumption a
specific amount of water to meet all basic needs"(Hutton, 2012). This definition talks
only about the basic needs. Meanwhile, ability to pay is also specified by the financial
ability of household, prices of other basic goods and services, social services, the
infrastructure and components of the water bill (eg the inclusion of sewage services,
the existence of social tariffs).
Although, the international focus is on essential and basic things, but all the
empirical studies don't take the concept of "basic water use" based on needs. (Hutton,
2012; Mack and Wrase, 2017), as an estimation of the household's expenditure which
consider the water as a part of the spending item on schedule of expenditure, in other
mean the water bill is a portion of the household's income, the threshold is traditional.
However, the used portion of water doesn't really reflect the actual demand and needs
of the household. Actually, the high-water usage could be due to "overuse" like a
private swimming pool, or inappropriate use, for example by the under-water
infrastructure (OECD, 2003). Same thing, if low water expenditure could be because
of low consuming due to budget constraints.
The latter shows a "hidden" issue of affordability that can't be figured when a real
consumption is used in the affordability equation.
35
To keep away of that the affluent families with high water consumption float
in the affordability statistics, one could restrict the sample to the bottom of the income
distribution (e.g. Smets, 2009), or evaluate whether income after water expenses falls
below the poverty threshold (e.g. Miniaci et al., 2008). On the contrary, we ensure that
increases the focus in the affordability of a pre-defined level of water expenses that
allows to fulfill a predetermined set of needs, instead of the real expenses, derive to
complementary approach. By doing that, the user could know immediately the amount
of water usage and try to reduce the high usage to increase the affordability. This will
assist to get extra insight into the quantity and the risks of water affordability within
different population groups. It must be defined as necessary water consumption- a
complex exercise that varies with context and household characteristics (García-
Vali~nas et al, 2010a, 2010b), and for which no convenient approach has been agreed
upon yet. Instead of that, research that do adopted the phenomenon of minimally
necessary instead or real and actual waters usage have opted for taking (a) the universal
standard of 100 L per person per day developed by Howard and Bartram (2003) for
water infrastructure allowing optimal access (Garcia-Valinas et al., 2010a) or (b)
deriving from an assumed demand function the portion of water use that is statistically
estimated to be inelastic, and therefore argued to be corresponding to the quantity
required to fulfill basic needs (Garcia-Valinas et al., 2010b; Sebri, 2015).
Contrary, there is many approaches need to specify the water amount which
minimally will ensure a decent life for the people in the societal context. This requires
a lot of extraordinary assumptions, especially when it comes to the household if he
will be able to use the water economically. Such an approach risks to be conceived ad-
hoc or overly paternalistic. Reference budgets should therefore be based as much as
possible on observable social norms, i.e. (inter)national legal standards and guidelines,
complemented by scientific and experientially grounded knowledge.
3.3 Affordability and Social Protection Measures
Based on the OECD reports, where it found that the cost of transporting the
water to the low-income families will be a real issue, by finding that the low-income
families in the developing countries are not connected to the water network and mostly
they are paying a high share of their simple income than the truckers. Various countries
have introduced a variety of approaches to protect the poor from high tariffs on water,
36
the water affordability cost for the low-income families (households) it either a real
problem now or it will be an issue in the close future unless we take the preventing
procedure now.
The current situation is tending to become more dangerous, not only for those
low-income, but also because the poor people are not connected to the water network.
Usually they paid a share more than their meager incomes for lower quantities of water
with low quality form the truckers (truck sell water in the street). From the other side
of the issue, public utility bills paid by those fortunate enough to be connected to the
network are often relatively low, especially in South Asia. Because of this situation,
the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) does not
recommend the use of uniform "thresholds" for the affordability of water bills and
sanitation. These "limits" are often mentioned in the range of 3-5% of household
income (Smets,2012).
Social protection measure has been classified due to be sure that water
transported through pipes will remain reachable for low-income people and to support
them. Measures assess the ability of individuals to pay through their incomes (through
income assistance, water service vouchers, tariff and discount reductions, rewriting
invoices, payment of payment plans and payment of arrears). A real example of the
support and assistance of low-income and poor people is Chile's support system. Tariff
measures defined the amount of water bills still low for a certain group eg improved
tariff definitions, tariff selection and tariff restrictions). Examples of a zero-block
mass increase were found in the first block in Flanders and South Africa. Another
measure is mutual support using different definitions for different neighborhoods, as
in Colombia. A similar approach has been used at the national level in Portugal. The
Portuguese Water Economic Organization conducted a study on affordability that
showed that 10.5% of the population paid more than 3% of their income for water and
sanitation services. As a result, the regulator has shown flexibility with respect to tariff
increases and tariff solutions in municipalities where affordability was a particular
issue (OCED,2009).
37
3.4 Water Affordability on International Level and Law
All agree that within the framework of economic and social rights, drinking
water must be available to all at reasonable prices, either as a political objective or as
a legal obligation. However, the meaning of an affordable price is generally not
restricted at the international and national levels (Elmoujabber, et al., 2009). In general
comment Nr 15 “The right to water” (E/C.12/2002/11) issued by the committee on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, it is stated that:
• “The human right to water entitles everyone to sufficient, safe, acceptable,
physically accessible and affordable water for personal and domestic uses”;
• “The obligation to fulfill requires States parties to adopt the necessary
measures directed towards the full realization of the right to water. The
obligation includes, inter alia,...ensuring that water is affordable for everyone”.
There is one sentence of the Comment helps for understanding what is meant by
“affordable”:
• “Equity demands that poorer households should not be disproportionately
burdened with water expenses as compared to richer households”.
Affordability is included in only a few international treaties. In Latin America,
the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, i. e. the so-called “Protocol of San Salvador”
(1988) states that:
“Everyone has the right to live in a healthy environment and to have access to basic
public services that including the most important thing which is a water.”
In Latin America, there are many national laws that need to provide basic
services to the poor. In Europe, the Protocol on Water and Health deals with the State's
water supply and sanitation obligations, including, in particular:
• "Fair access to water, sufficient in quantity and quantity
• Quality to be provided to all members of the population, especially those suffering
from deprivation or social exclusion.
38
And here we mean fair access is affordable price access or even free access in
some cases.
In many countries, national law provides that safe drinking water must be
available to all, even to the most disadvantaged, and that the price of water is fair, fair,
acceptable, affordable or reasonable. Examples of these laws have been found in more
than 20 countries. For example, the French Water Act of 2006 provides that water for
essential uses will be available in economically acceptable conditions to all
("conditions to be met in acceptable cases") and that this is true for the individual.
However, the content of this right is still unclear.
In Indonesia, a regulation issued in 2006 states that domestic expenditure on
basic drinking water needs should not exceed 4 per cent of the household. In this case,
the goal is clear and measures can be taken to achieve the goal (El moujabber, et al.,
2009).
3.5 Range of Water Affordability Indices in Various Countries
Because of the large number of parameters leading to lower drinking water
prices, and household income, the affordability indices vary widely (from 0 to 10 per
cent), where they can be cost-free if water is available freely (For example, a public
fountain) or at a high cost if the citizen must buy it from the water seller. There is no
consistent chain of reliable affordability indicators.
In Western Europe, the affordability index for middle families in various
industrialized countries is about 1.1%. The range of indicators (0.7 to 1.7%) is
relatively limited as if countries had decided what to impose on their citizens for their
water consumption and what they should afford through subsidies. These values
represent levels that are usually observed from indicators, not the target (Smets,2012).
For households with 40% of average income and corresponding water
consumption (120 cubic meters per year for households 1), the affordability index is
2.75% when there is no social measure (social tariffs, water assistance, water debt
assistance, etc.). The affordability index can be higher than 2.75% if families are very
poor (eg unemployed people living on government aid) or in municipalities where
water is particularly expensive. Indicators are higher than 5% in Western Europe and
39
can exceed 10% in developing countries. Fortunately, social assistance when available
relieves unsustainable problems such as reduced food consumption, less medical
treatment and dental care, non-payment of other facilities, lower school attendance,
and longer working hours (Smets,2012).
In middle- or low-income countries, the affordability index is generally higher
than in Western Europe because lower water prices are lower than disposable income.
This is especially true when inequality in income is large and poverty is deep. Because
of data constraints, the indicators were affordability compared with only three groups
of countries: countries in transition, Latin America and Africa (El moujabber, et al.,
2009).
For countries in transition (EECCA), the affordability index for household
averages is generally between 1.5 and 3 percent, more than double the index in
Western European countries (1.1 percent). A close examination of the data shows that
there are probably two EECCA groups: countries with high water support and low
water prices (the average household affordability index of 1%), those with reduced
subsidies and rising water prices Affordability of middle families (close to 3.5%).
While the first group of countries has no problem with affordability at this stage, the
second group of EECCA countries can face such problems because people in the lower
income bracket or below 40% of the average income will have a capacity indicator to
afford between 5 and 10%. For example, in Ukraine 6.4% of users are forced to pay
more than 6% of their income for water. In Russia, people in the lower intimates spend
more than 6% water. These numbers are large but people have little alternative
(Elmoujabber, et al., 2009).
In the following table, there are some indices of water affordability for some
countries and international institutions:
Table (3.1): Water Affordability Thresholds in some Countries and International
Institutions
Reference
Acceptable
Affordability
Percentage
Place
40
- Frankhauser, S & Tepic, S, 2005.
"Can poor consumers pay for energy
and water? An affordability analysis
for transition countries". Journal of
Research gate
5% for water and power World Bank
http://www.pacinst.org/publication/assessing-
water-affordability/ 3%
United Nations
Development
Program (UNDP)
http://www.pacinst.org/publication/assessing-
water-affordability/ 2.50%
Environmental
Protection Agency
(EPA)
http://www.pacinst.org/publication/assessing-
water-affordability/ 1.50%
California
Department of Public
health
http://www.pacinst.org/publication/assessing-
water-affordability/ 2%
legislation Affirming
A human right to
water in California
(AB 2334)
El Moujabber M.(ed.), Mandi L. (ed.),
Trisorio-Liuzzi G.(ed.), Martín I.(ed.), Rabi
A. (ed.), Rodríguez R. (ed.), 2009. "Access
to drinking water at an affordable price in
developing countries”, ciheam
(1.5-3) % for median
household
Transition Countries
(EECCA)
El Moujabber M.(ed.), Mandi L. (ed.),
Trisorio-Liuzzi G.(ed.), Martín I.(ed.), Rabi
A. (ed.), Rodríguez R. (ed.), 2009. "Access
to drinking water at an affordable price in
developing countries”, ciheam
4% OECD
Arnaud Reynaud, 2006. "Assessing the
impact of public regulation and private
participation on water affordability for poor
households: An empirical investigation of the
French case"
3% France
- Frankhauser, S & Tepic, S, 2005.
"Can poor consumers pay for energy
and water? An affordability analysis
for transition countries". Journal of
Research gate
2% Lithuania
Smets, H. Quantifying the affordability
standard, in The Human Right to Water:
Theory, Practice and Prospects. (2012).
Cambridge University Press.
3% Northern Ireland
El Moujabber M.(ed.) Mandi L. (ed.),
Trisorio-Liuzzi G.(ed.), Martín I.(ed.), Rabi 2.5% United States
41
A. (ed.), Rodríguez R. (ed.), 2009. "Access
to drinking water at an affordable price in
developing countries" ciheam
El Moujabber M.(ed.) Mandi L. (ed.),
Trisorio-Liuzzi G.(ed.), Martín I.(ed.), Rabi
A. (ed.), Rodríguez R. (ed.), 2009. "Access
to drinking water at an affordable price in
developing countries”, ciheam
2.8% for media
household South Africa
3.6 Methods for Measuring Water Affordability
There are many ways to calculate water affordability, among these methods:
1- Method 1: compares the monthly household water and expenditure with total
monthly income. This way has so far dominated the assessment of affordability
in many countries. As the scope of water expenditure normally captured from
national household surveys is limited in this way, it is termed ‘subset’ of water
expenditure (Hutton,2015)
= Subset of water expenditure ÷ Total monthly income.
2- Method 2: focuses on whether a household can afford the one-off cash
expenditure on capital hardware (Hutton, 2015).
= Capital water expenditure ÷ Total monthly income
3- Method 3: broadens the range of water financial expenditure to include water
expenses not usually captured in method 1(Hutton, 2015).
= Full water expenditure ÷ Total monthly income
4- Method 4: further broadens the range of costs captured in method 3 to include
non-financial (economic) costs (Hutton, 2015).
= Full financial and economic water costs ÷ Total monthly income
5- There is another method used by Arnaud Reynaud to calculate the water
affordability in his search. Arnaud used this equation to obtain the water bills
share of total household income (Reynaud,2006):
Wi =𝐹ᵢ+𝑃ᵢ∗𝐶ᵢ−𝐴ᵢ
𝐼ᵢ, ᵢ ∈ {1, …,I}
42
Where is Fᵢ the fixed charge paid by the household (in dollar), Pᵢ is the unit
water price (in dollar per m3), Cᵢ is the annual water consumption (in m3), Aᵢ is the
financial aid (social benefits) received by households for paying the water bill (in
dollar) and Iᵢ is the total household income (in dollar) (Reynaud,2006).
If income data are unavailable or unreliable to be used as the denominator in
these four ways, total monthly household expenditure can be used as a proxy for
income. The four ways options were evaluated according to four criteria: validity,
relevance, global coverage of data sets and resources required for monitoring. Validity
includes content validity (comprehensiveness), estimation validity (methodological
approach) and accuracy (reliability of data sources). Relevance includes whether the
ways would have been taken by the sector stakeholders.
The main advantage of method 1 (subset of financial cost) is that it is the easiest
to tabulate from existing data sources; it is easy to understand and as it has been
previously used in many countries; and it is probably the most politically acceptable.
For these reasons, it would be the easiest of the four ways options to gather support for
acceptance as the global affordability indicator. However, this way is incomplete as
several components of water costs are omitted from the water questions typically
included in expenditure surveys. This omission is most likely to lead to an
underestimate the water costs of non-networked services, which the majority of poor
and vulnerable households use.
Method 2 (capital cost) can serve to increase the validity of the other three
affordability indicators by providing a perspective on the affordability of the initial
investment. The capital costs pose a major barrier to many households, especially poor
and vulnerable households who are the primary focus of the affordability assessment.
Given that it excludes recurrent costs, it does not have sufficient validity to reflect
water affordability on its own. It can therefore be an additional way to method 1,
method 3 or method 4.
Method 3 (full financial cost) provides a more complete representation of
financial costs by adding some expenditure items that are usually excluded from
questions in expenditure surveys on water service costs. Importantly, it is a more
complete cost measure for non-networked services or those with irregular billing and
43
payments. Thus, for poorer and more marginalized populations, water expenditure
captured in Method 3 is expected to be significantly greater than in method1. However,
an accurate estimation of these additional costs requires other types of data. The
measurement of this way needs further compilation, cross-tabulations and analysis of
data. While method 3 is more complete than method 1, it still lacks non-financial
access costs.
Method 4 (full financial and economic cost) is the most comprehensive way. It
captures the access time of poor and vulnerable groups to access distant water services.
It builds on data collected in method 1, method 2 and method 3, and hence for those
components it has the same strengths and weaknesses as these indicators. However,
method 4 is the least practical indicator given the additional research methodologies
and additional data collection and compilation efforts required to capture time costs.
Given the complexities of valuing the time to access services, it is more likely to meet
with resistance both at political level, as well as amongst sector specialists
3.7 Water Affordability Case Studies 3.7.1 Water Affordability in Spain (García-Valiñas, 2010)
Water is a basic right which must be universally guaranteed, at least at some
basic level, by the public sector. Both on grounds of efficiency and on grounds of
equity it is normally agreed that all households must be able to afford a basic or
`lifeline’ quantity of water consumption. The objective of making tariff policies that
are affordable to all, including the poorest in society, must also be combined with
ensuring the financial sustainability of service providers. This case study is based on
a database built from information about 301 Andalusian municipalities. The data refer
to the year 2005 and cover all the services that constitute the integrated water cycle,
namely water supply, sewage collection, and sewage treatment. The information of
these case study covered almost every municipality over 25,000 inhabitants and it was
representative of almost 40% of all the municipalities in Andalusia and of almost 79%
of the population in Andalusia autonomic community. The information of these case
study was collected from several sources, where the selection of the municipalities was
informed by the nature of the data case study process. In this case study, the process
began with the extraction of information on the approved tariffs from each
44
municipality from the 2005 issues of the Official Gazette of the Government of
Andalusia and the official gazettes of each of the eight provinces of Andalusia. In order
to take effect, the tariffs for the various services of the water cycle must be approved
by the city councils and published, as appropriate, in the Official Gazette of the region
or province. Although it is normal for the water utilities review their rates each year to
at least adjust them for inflation, not all water utilities reviewed their prices annually.
This means that their selection process might have caused a problem of selection bias.
Smaller municipalities, typically less able to face the administrative costs associated
with annual price revisions, are underrepresented in their sample (the average size of
the municipality in their sample was 20,605 but only 7360 in the population).
Additionally, their municipalities served by a private company are somewhat
overrepresented (43% in their sample versus 26% in the population), since private
suppliers will have more incentives than the public agencies to adjust water rates every
year. Having this type of municipalities over-represented in their sample was useful in
this case.
This case study analyzed the affordability associated with the water tariffs in
different municipalities of Andalusia. An index based on the relative cost of water
amounts related to (income and price) inelastic water needs has been proposed. The
main focus in this case study was on the calculation of the component of the average
amount of water use that was irresponsive to prices in the short run and on investigating
whether that basic amount of water use was equally affordable in relative terms in all
their municipalities and, if not, which factors explained the differences. Their results
suggested that there exists substantial variation in the relative affordability of that
`lifeline’ level across their municipalities. Both their tariffs structure and price levels
matter, and some elements of the water tariffs may end up exhibiting a strong
regressive character. To the extent that water is a basic human right, finding out the
size of the `lifeline’ becomes a significant issue. Additionally, a minimum
consumption is a key element in the design of water price structures which allow to
achieve both environmental and social aims. This issue was really significant in
Andalusia (Spain), a region with a relatively low income as these case study
mentioned. In these case study, the characteristics of the sample the they used and the
features of water tariffs in their municipalities sampled were carefully analyzed, which
45
it illustrated some key aspects such as the type of fixed charge used, the number of
blocks, and the diversity of “social” discounts.
Also, an alternative “affordability index” was calculated in these case study,
which it relating in percent terms the cost of the minimum threshold to the average
income in their municipality. The percentage ranged from 0.2% to 2.6%, which was a
very broad interval. Therefore, in terms of average income, no serious problems of
water affordability were detected in Andalusian municipalities. However, it is possible
that in those municipalities with a ratio value close to 3% there are some problems for
low-income and medium-low income of their households that were not eligible for any
discount. Among other results in these case study, water tariffs in Andalusia were
found to be regressive, since following Engels Law the proportion of income needed
to purchase a basic amount of water, even when those amount rises with income, is
decreasing with income. This, although in principle unsurprising in itself, suggested
that their municipalities may not be especially concerned with making those basic
amounts of water available to their citizens at a cost that reflects their average level of
purchasing power. Additionally, higher charges were found to affect basic levels of
use in tourist municipalities, and it was observed that lower prices are charged where
water services are directly managed by the municipality. It should be acknowledged
that these results are severely limited by the aggregate nature of the data. If data were
available at a higher level of disaggregation, a much more interesting look beneath
aggregate income data by municipal area would be possible in order to explore how
their households with different levels of income are affected by their structure and
level of water tariffs. Furthermore, the limitations of the data prevented them a
complete affordability analysis, since the effects of discounts, which are likely to have
a strong effect on affordability for individual households, could not be taken into
account. One additional concern was that it was plausible that their tariff structures
themselves might not be wholly exogenous, since their policymakers tailor water tariff
structures to the particular socioeconomic profile of their municipality. Finally, the
analysis of the factors behind the differences in that ratio across Andalusian
municipalities in this case study showed that the relative cost of purchasing the lifeline
appears inversely related to average income level.
46
3.7.2 Water Affordability in Malaysia (Anang, 2017)
Safe drinking water is needed for survival. Households have to pay the water
bill monthly. However, lower income households are sometimes unable to afford the
cost. This case study examined water access and affordability among households in
Malaysia and the determinants of water affordability using cross-sectional data and
multiple regression. this case study expected that the bill for basic water consumption
is inversely related to average income. This means that policy makers need to redesign
the water tariff to improve the quality of life of lower income households. this case
study used sample comprised 441 households in selangor which has the highest GDP
and Kelantan which has lowest GDP in Malaysia. The made interviews face to face in
Petaling Jaya, and Sabak Bernam district were chosen as the representatives of urban
and rural areas in Selangor whereas Kota Bharu and Jeli reoresented in Kelantan,
respectively. In this case study, the socioeconomic demographics included gender,
marital status, education sector, the head of household (HoH), the size of households
and gross income. The majority of HoH comprised males with 83.4%. Most
respondents were aged between 31 to 40 years (30.2%). The majority of respondents
had qualification STPM/Diploma/certificate at 35.1%. most of respondents had 1-3 as
a member of their family with 49.4%. As for gross income, most respondents had more
than RM5001 with 31.5%.
The result showed that in B40 group (this group pay for bills 477RM which
mean 23.6% from their income), if the depts increases 1%, the water affordability will
increase by 30.7% due to changes in the level of water affordability. Whereas if the
variable location increases by 1%, the water affordability will decrease by 27.7%. This
is because the cost of living in rural areas was lower than urban areas. The result also
showed that if the age increases by 5%, the water affordability will increase by 21.5%.
This is because households taken on greater financial burden as their children grow in
age. Also, the result showed that income influenced in water affordability. It’s because
of most spouse work and support the HoH due to the higher cost of living. This variable
was significant at the 5% level meaning that an increase of 5% in spouse income
contributes to water affordability. They can pay their water bills for better water
services. the result showed that if the dept in M40 group (this group pay of water bills
47
793RM which meant 21.8% from their income) increase 1%, the water affordability
will increase by 42.2% and if the age and location are significant at 5% where the
increase of 5% of age contributes approximately 15.2% to water affordability. and the
location increases the water affordability by 16%.
3.7.2 Water Affordability in India (RAJE, 2002)
This study was conducted in Mumbai, one of India's metro cities. Preliminary
information collected about the city revealed some typical features. The city is one of
the busiest shopping centers where people are attracted from across the country. Due
to restrictions imposed on construction, the city is growing vertically with the
construction of huge residential and commercial buildings in the last two decades.
Also, slums were developed in an uncontrolled way that made public services
overloaded day after day. Among many of these services, the water supply and
sanitation sector are one of the hardest hit sectors. Authorities are trying to improve
supply standards, but people's perception of these efforts and whether they are
financially prepared to support the system has been a matter of interest for this case
study in India.
Accordingly, a sample survey was planned where only local users were targeted. Two
sub-categories of these users, ie residents living in slums, and those living in multi-
storied apartment buildings (condominiums / independent blocks). The water supply
in slums is directly from the main distribution main, while multi-storied buildings have
a suction tank on the ground floor of the property building with a top tank at the top
where the water is pumped and then used for daily needs. Water levels for slum
dwellers and shawls range from 1.0 to 1.5 Rs/m3, while in the other category they range
from 2.0 to 2.5 Rs/m3.
An interviewer -assisted questionnaire was tested on a sample of about 50
people to determine whether they could answer the questions. People can respond
appropriately to questions about existing water supplies.
As regards willingness to pay (WTP), few respondents refused to pay more
because of lack of faith in the management system. The impact of this factor was
48
quantified by including the variable ‘belief’ in the expression of WTP. Also, people
were told that after the implementation of a new scheme, there would be a rise in water
charge; hence, they should take the issue seriously and state their true WTP. As a
result, some respondents indicated their WTP partially more than the existing amounts,
while very few agreed to pay as per the future production cost of water, i.e. Rs. 4/m3.
This reduced the chances of respondents stating unrealistically high WTP values. The
starting bid bias due to varying initial bids was overcome in this study, as the same
initial bid amount, i.e. Rs. 4/m3, was offered to each respondent. Further, attempts were
made to reduce the bias in response due to lack of information or knowledge about
future services to respondents. A brochure was prepared giving brief information about
the existing and upcoming water supply scheme, its location and capacity, capital
expenditure and the future production cost of water.
Researchers were trained to convey this information to users in an easy and
understandable way and to make them aware of future improvements in the system.
A sample of 1000 households was targeted in 8 selected areas. But only 755
families were visited due to some operational difficulties and time constraints. 239 of
these families were unable to contact the person responsible for paying bills for reasons
such as leaving the city, some were very busy and some were not allowed to enter the
premises. Thus, the analysis presented in this paper is based on 516 interviews and
responses. Before using the logistic regression model, LOS, which is one of the
predictive variables in the model, was measured.
The poll showed that respondents were concerned about the water and pressure
in the system, while they were less concerned with deadlines, supply hours, and water
quality. The level of satisfaction (LOS) of the respondent was determined using these
weights to achieve uniformity of the results. The response of each respondent to the
satisfaction associated with different factors on Likert's five-point scale was obtained
to assess the overall satisfaction level. A frequency distribution of the satisfaction level
was obtained for each category and it was found that in both categories, the larger
frequencies were to higher satisfaction levels. More than 70% of respondents in each
category expressed their satisfaction with water supply services.
When determining the level of satisfaction, the logistic regression model was
used with LOS, belief and affordability as predictive variables. The analysis was
49
performed on a category basis with the regression coefficients obtained. In both
categories, the two values are very important, indicating the suitability of the models.
Another measure of relevance is the correct classification of the percentage given by
models. In the category of slums and shawls, the accuracy of the forecast is 96%, while
in the other category 88%. The numbers show frequency schemes for the estimated
probability of the event. If this probability is less than 0.5, the event, ie WTP, does not
occur as shown from 0 on a probability scale of 0 to 0.5. For probability values greater
than 0.5, the event is supposed to occur as indicated by 1 on a probability scale of 0.5
to 1. The quality of the model's suitability is its ability to classify. The events where
the event occurred were to the right of 0.5, and those who did not happen to the event
were to the left of 0.5, the better the model. Of the figures, it is clear that in each
category, the two sets of groups at their own end of the plots, giving a clear distinction
between groups.
The results of the research tables also gave rise to regression coefficients along
with the Wald statistic. This statistic is the square of the ratio of the parameter value
to the standard error and the tracking of the distribution. The importance level of the
"W" statistic is indicated by the column named Sig and shows the difference
significance for each regression coefficient from zero. In both groups, the values of
significance are less than 0.05 (the assumed level /of significance), which means that
the variable deviates sufficiently from zero. With regard to WTP more, there were very
few respondents who agreed to pay by the initial bid amount, ie Rs. 4 / m 3 of water.
However, many of them were willing to pay more in part than they currently pay.
3.8 Conclusion
As mentioned above, one of the most important things is to make sure that
water is available to all people with high standards. There are many different
definitions of the term "water affordability", which have been issued by international
and scientific reports and research, also on the acceptable share of water bills from
total household income. In this thesis I will adopt a definition of "water affordability"
which says that the term affordability means the share of water bills out of total
household income.
50
2.8% is the percentage of water affordability that was adopted in this thesis
according to the percentages shown in table (3.1). Where the average of the
percentages in table is 2.8% and therefore, this percentage has been adopted.
Arnaud reynaud method was also adopted to calculate the water share of total
household income (affordability) in my thesis. This method is the closest method,
which is applied in measuring the water affordability in many countries.
51
Chapter Four
Methodology
52
Chapter Four: Methodology
4.1 Introduction
To ensure the achievement of the research objectives, it was done through
many steps. First, previous studies, research papers and scientific theses were reviewed
in the same field. Then, visits were made to public and private institutions like Coastal
Municipalities Water Utility (CMWU) and Palestinian Water Authority (PWA), and
interviews were conducted with several people related to water desalination to ensure
the achievement of aim. A questionnaire was also distributed to the households in
Rafah city to collect some basic and important data in the process of analyzing the
affordability of water by the households in the city.
4.2 Research Design
The first phase of the research thesis included identifying the problems and
defining the objectives of the research and development plan.
The second phase of the research included a summary of the review of the
related literature.
The third stage of the research included conducting interviews with related
entities and institutions. The fourth phase of the study focused on the design and
distribute of questionnaire to the households in Rafah. The fifth phase of the research
was data analysis and discussion. The sixth stage of the research was an analysis and
measure the ability of households in Rafah to bear water costs at the municipality level
and the population of Rafah city in general, in addition to assessing whether the
households was able to pay for the water bills more than the value that paid during the
past years through the use of data collected. The final stage also includes conclusions
and recommendations.
53
Figure (4.1): The steps of Methodology that used in this Research
4.3 Reviewing Previous Relevant Studies
In order to enhance understanding of the scope of the research, relevant local
and global studies were reviewed in order to obtain a useful information for research.
4.4 Data Collection Methodology
Data was collected from different sources and using different tools as follows:
At Household’s Level
Research Design
Reviewing Previous Relevant
Studies
Data Collection
Methodology
Previous
research and
papers
Data Collection
and field survey
Questionnaire
methodology
At Municipality Level
Evaluate and Measuring the
Water Affordability
At CMWU Level by Using
Real Cost in Water Bills
54
4.4.1 Research and previous studies
The information taken from previous research and studies in addition to the
information on the Internet sites is one of the most essential required information for
the research, many literatures were reviewed including: scientific papers and research,
relevant MSc dissertations in addition to scientific websites. Unfortunately; Rafah city
suffers from data scarcity in addition to lack of documentation process.
4.4.2 Field Survey
During the study, the researcher used different methodologies. The First was
used for municipality, CMWU and PWA through interviews with relevant institutes,
engineers and managers to study the current water situation and to collect some
important data that may help to achieve the objectives. This data that collected from
interviews were the main stake for this research according to the unique nature of this
field and the obligation of utilizing whatever available sources. So, the primary and
secondary data were collected from those relevant institutions.
4.4.3 Interview Data Collection
The data collected from interviews were the main stake for this research
according to the unique nature of this field and the obligation of utilizing whatever
available sources. So, the primary and secondary data were collected from the relevant
institutions such as: Coastal Municipal Water Utility (CMWU), Palestinian Central
Bauru of Statistics (PCBS), Palestinian water authority (PWA), and Rafah
Governorate.
4.4.4 Questionnaire
This section describes the procedures followed by the researcher in the
implementation of this part of study, including the definition of the questionnaire
methodology, the description of the research population, the sample of the study, the
55
preparation of the study tool, the validation of the study procedures, and the statistical
methods used in processing the results, these procedures are described below.
4.4.4.1 Questionnaire Methodology
The researcher used descriptive field methodology to collect data from the study
community and identify water affordability based on desalination trends in Rafah. This
method is suitable for study purposes.
4.4.4.2 Research Population
The research population consists of the subscribers in water service in many
areas in Rafah city which about 17000 subscribers.
4.4.4.3 Sample of the Study
The sample of study is consisted of 380 households of the population of Rafah
city for the year 2018. The study sample was selected according to the Robert Mason
equation (Taei, 2012) to determine the sample size:
Where:
n= Sample size
M = The size of society.
S= Divide the standard score corresponding to the mean level of 0.95, which mean
1.96 divided by the error rate 0.05.
P= The property availability ratio is 0.50
q= The remainder of the property availability which is 0.50
( )( ) 112 +−=
pqMS
Mn
56
By applying the equation which the size of society was 17000(the number of
subscribers in water service), the sample size was 376 subscribers (household). So, the
researcher applied on 380 household to represent the sample of the total study.
The questionnaires were distributed to the households that subscribe in water
service in Rafah city, where most of the respondents who filled out the questionnaires
were the heads of households and their ages were over the age of 30, which proves the
validity of the answers as illustrated in the following tables:
Table (4.1): Age of the Respondent
Frequency Percent
a. Less than 30 years 51 13.4
b. From 30 to less than 40 years 135 35.5
c. From 40 to less than 50 years 126 33.2
d. 50 years or more 68 17.9
Total 380 100.0
Table (4.2): Sex of the Respondent
Frequency Percent
a. Male 348 91.6
b. Female 32 8.4
Total 380 100.0
Table (4.3): Educational level of the Respondent
Frequency Percent
a. B.Sc. or more 166 43.7
b. Diploma 102 26.8
c. Secondary 77 20.3
d. Primary or less 35 9.2
Total 380 100.0
57
4.4.4.4 Questionnaire Design
In the light of the previous studies on the problem of the study that was
reviewed, and in the light of the survey of a sample of specialists through personal
interviews, the researcher built the questionnaire according to the following steps:
• The main units of the questionnaire were identified.
• The questionnaire consists of three sections as follows:
- Section 1: General and social information on households, housing, income and
expenditure.
- Section 2: Practices and problems of water use in the city of Rafah
- Section 3: Ability to pay extra costs for desalinated water by households.
4.4.4.5 Validation of the Questionnaire
The questionnaire was presented in its initial form to a group of experts and
university professors who are experienced in research methods and the preparation of
questionnaires. Their observations, opinions, discussion and study were recorded
carefully to design the final shape of questionnaire.
4.4.4.6 Procedures for Applying the Tools of the Questionnaire
1. Finalization of the tool.
2. Identification of the sample of the study.
3. Distribution of the questionnaire.
4. Collecting the questionnaires from the samples and verify the validity of the
data.
5. The questionnaires were numbered and coded, and the data were distributed
according to the statutes and processed statistically, through the statistical
program (SPSS) to obtain the results of the study.
58
4.4.4.7 Statistical Way used in the Study
1. The Statistical Program (SPSS) Stochastic Package for Social Science was
used for data analysis and processing.
2. The following statistical analyzes were used to analyze the results of the field
study:
Percentages and arithmetic averages.
4.5 Evaluating and Measuring the Water Affordability in Rafah city
After estimating the amount of production and consumption in Rafah city in
addition to the cost of production and the cost of cubic meters of water for citizens
over the past eight years, it was necessary to assess the possibility of bearing these
costs on the households at the municipality level and the households of Rafah city in
general, and to assess whether households in Rafah city was able to pay more than the
cost of the water bills that paid during the past years so that we can know the possibility
of recovering water costs for making the maintenance work required and necessary
developments. Several reports, statistics and indicators were collected from several
countries and international organizations on the percentage that the citizen can bear
and pay from his income to the water bill. Then, required data were collected to reach
the percentage paid by the residents of Rafah for their income over the past eight years
to insure for reach the goal of basic research is to assess the possibility of carrying
water costs for the citizens of the city of Rafah.
59
Chapter Five
Results & Discussion
60
Chapter Five: Results & Discussion
5.1 Introduction
This chapter answered the research question on assessing citizens' water
affordability for last eight years, which had a significant impact on the production and
consumption of water in Rafah.
The first item discussed in this chapter is water analysis on municipality level
in term of consumption, production, number of bills with people who committed to
pay the bills and about the desalination plants. So, several meetings, interviews and
field visits with CMWU in both HQ in Gaza city and the branch in Rafah and
distribution of questionnaires on citizens in Rafah city were conducted in addition to
reviewing several scientific research and papers. Supplied water quantities were
calculated from the CMWU records. Consumed quantities were calculated by
reviewing the recording meter quantities on special software managed by CMWU-
Rafah and by the questionnaire results. Per capita of water was identified by assessing
the current water consumption situation.
The second item discussed in this chapter is evaluating and measuring the water
affordability in Rafah city on households’ level and municipality level. By the data
collected from institutions and reports and by the results of questionnaires, we
determined the percentage paid by citizens for water bills from their income during the
last years and we made a comparison between those percentages and the percentages
that have been adopted by many international institutions and countries about the
acceptable water affordability percentage. Water costs were also measured at the level
of the Coastal Municipalities Water Utility (CMWU), so that used the original price
per cubic meter of water pricing was calculated as well as the amount of water losses.
After the data have been collected, it has been noticed that there are problems
in the quantity of water produced, which does not cover the daily needs of the citizens
in Rafah city which reach to about 25000 m3/d (CMWU,2017a). Also, there is a
problem in the ability of most citizens to bear the costs of water production for several
economic reasons, which led to create many financial problems for CMWU which led
61
to an increase in its fiscal deficit.
5.2 Analysis of Current Water Situation and their Resources in Rafah city
and its Relation to the Water Affordability -Households Level-
5.2.1 Water Balance in households in Rafah city
With the problem of water and the quantitative deficit of water in the Gaza
Strip in general and in Rafah city in particular, a desalination was the strategic choice
because it would solve the problem of fresh water deficit and the continuous
exploitation of the groundwater aquifer which resulted in seawater intrusion into
groundwater. The idea of large-scale water desalination may be more attractive
because it positively affects water resources and, in particular, covers the water budget
gap. It also plays a major role in reducing water shortages, and can improve water
services in quantitative and qualitative terms. Where Rafah city is completely
dependent on the water of wells and desalinated water from the brackish desalination
plant, unlike some cities in the Gaza Strip, which rely on the water extracted from
wells as well as the water purchased from the Israeli company "Mecrot". In this term,
there are some factors that have changed over the past years, which have affected the
water situation in Gaza Strip in general and Rafah city in particular:
5.2.1.1 Monthly Consumption of households
In terms of consumption and per capita water consumption, data on total
consumption of households in Rafah city has been obtained, where a questionnaire
was conducted to determine the average consumption per household and to determine
the average number of household members which led us to know the per capita of this
water in the city. In order to reach the quantity of water consumed by the household in
Rafah city, two questions were made in the questionnaire which are Q17 and Q18,
referring to the quantity of water consumed coming from water pipes and drinking
water which are often purchased from private desalination plants by the household.
The results of these questions were as follows:
62
Figure (5.1): How much does your Household consume Water that come from piped
Water per Month
Figure (5.2): How much does your Household consume Water that purchased from
desalination plant per Month
Through the results of these two questions in figures above, the largest number
of households consumes between 20 cubic meters to less than 30 cubic meters from
the water that coming from water pipes, which is about 51% from the percent of the
total number of households that the questionnaire has been applied on (380
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Less than 10 m3 From 10 m3 toless than 20 m3
From 20 m3 toless than 30 m3
More than 30m3
Per
cen
t o
f R
esp
on
den
ts%
0% 4%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Less than 1 m3 From 1 m3 toless than 2 m3
From 2 m3 toless than 3 m3
More than 3 m3
Per
cen
t o
f R
esp
on
den
ts%
29%
47%
19%
5%
51%
45%
63
households). The results showed that the average household consumption of water
coming from water pipes is about 25 cubic meters per month. As for drinking water,
the largest number of households consume from 1 to less than 2 cubic meter of drinking
water which is about 47% from the total number of households that have applied the
questionnaire on (380 households) as shown in figure (5.2) above.
It should be noted that the results of the questionnaire showed that 93.4% of the
households surveyed obtained tap water through water distribution networks (i.e.
through the Coastal Municipalities Water Utility). The results also revealed that 87.1%
of households obtained drinking water through purchase the water from the private
desalination plants as shown in figure (5.3) and figure (5.4).
Figure (5.3): What is the main Source of Tap Water
.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
a. Water from themunicipality bywater networks
b. Wells c. Other (specify) ……………
93.4%
6.1%
64
Figure (5.4): What is the main Source of Drinking Water
5.2.1.2 Number of Bills regarding People committed to Payment
In Rafah city, the average number of water participants varied over the past three
years, with the average number of participants continuing to increase as shown in table
(2.9). Also, the average percentage of subscribers committed to paying bills during the
past three years varied. From the questionnaire results, it was found that 90.3% of the
respondents would be obliged to pay water bills if they had the money as it shown in
the table (5.1).
In order to know the reason for non-commitment to pay the water bill, several
questions were formulated in the questionnaire to find out this reason and to ascertain
the desire to pay if the households have the economic capacity to pay for the water bill
and also to know whether the quantity of water supplied to households in Rafah covers
their needs from water, as well as the household willingness to pay for water bills if
providing their need of water. Questions have also been made about the household’s
commitment to pay for water bills and ways that can lead to improvement of the
percentage of commitment to pay the water bills by households. The results of the
questionnaire analysis showed that 74.7% from the samples of questionnaire (380
households) don’t take their water requirements as shown in figure (5.5), while the
percentage of people who will pay for water if they are provided with water reached
.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
a. Privatedesalination
plants
b. Waterfrom the
municipalityby waternetworks
c. GoodQualityWells
d. Other, (specify) …………...
e. "a" and"b"
87.1%
8.2% 1.8% 1.6% 1.3%
65
to 43.7% as shown in the figure (5.6). Also, the results of the questionnaire also
showed some solutions that could be applied to address the problem of commitment
to pay water bills, among these solutions making discount on imposed interests on
debts, making discount on the debts, doing rescheduling for the debt and making
discount for interests and reducing the pricing as shown in figure (5.7).
Figure (5.5): Does current Water Quantities cover your needs of Water
Figure (5.6): The answer of question "Are you ready to buy the Quantity of Water
you need if the Municipality is ready to provide you"
.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
a. Yes b. No
.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
a. Yes b. No
74.7%
43.7%
66
Table (5.1): You pay the invoice when you have the required money
Frequency Percent
a. Yes 343 90.3
b. No 37 9.7
Total 380 100.0
Figure (5.7): What is the way that you suggest to be adopted by Water Authority and
expect will give better results in commitment to paying water invoices
The results of the questionnaire showed that many households in Rafah city
have accumulated debts to the Coastal Municipalities Water Utility (CMWU) as a
result of their non-commitment to pay their water bills. These debts led to increases in
the volume of CMWU's suffering in recovering water costs for improving water
production and doing the needs of maintenances and developments. The following
figure (5.8) and table (5.2) show the accumulated debts on households and the reason
of non-payment for these debts:
.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
a. Discounton imposedinterests on
debts
b. Discounton debts
c. Debtrescheduling(Installment
only)
d. Debtrescheduling
anddiscountinterests
e. Reducedpricing
14.5% 13.7% 11.8%
25%
35%
67
Figure (5.8): Water Households Debts to Water Provider
Table (5.2): The Actual Reason for Non-Payment the Debts from Households Point
of View
Frequency Percent
a. The value of invoice is higher
than my income
89 23.4
b. The invoices are not received
on time
29 7.6
c. Expect to receive exemptions 77 20.3
d. There are a lot of accumulated
debts
95 25.0
e. Others encourage non-
payment
23 6.1
f. Unwillingness to pay 12 3.2
g. Several invoices received at
the same time
13 3.4
h. Absence of law forcing
payment of water
30 7.9
i. The municipality does not
claim payment
4 1.1
j. Impose delay fines on past
debts
8 2.1
Total 380 100.0
.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
a. Lessthan1,000
NIS
b. Between1,000 to lessthan 2,000
NIS
c. Between2,000 to lessthan 3,000
NIS
d. Between3,000 to lessthan 4,000
NIS
e. Morethan 4,000
NIS
22.1%
14.2%
20.5%
15.8%
27.4%
68
5.2.2 Economic Analysis
In this section, we will talk about the data that will help us reach the main
objective of the research which is the extent to which water costs are affordable for
households. As we mentioned in the chapter of study area, the water sector in Rafah
city is operated and managed by the CMWU who have their own water sources and
distribution systems. It has its own tariff structure.
5.2.2.1 The Structure of Water Tariff
As we mentioned in table (2.9) in the chapter of study area, the households pay
for the cubic meters of water that coming from water distribution network (from
available desalination plants and ground water wells) about 0.5 to 1.5 NIS/m3, which
is 0.139 to 0.416 US$/m3 (assume that 1 dollar =3.6 NIS). This means that the average
tariff is 0.278 US$/m3. And by reference to the real cost of producing a cubic meter
of water, the real cost of producing a cubic meter of water through the brackish
desalination plants and the water wells or production through the seawater desalination
plant varied, where the real cost of produce one cubic meter of water by water wells
and brackish desalination plants is about 0.47$ if a public electricity is used for
generating, and if the electricity generators are used, the real cost of production will
be increased due to the use of fuel to operate these generators, which increases the real
cost to reach 0.66 $ per cubic meter(CMWU,2018 d). As for the real cost of producing
one cubic meter of water from the seawater desalination plant, it reaches to about $ 0.8
(CMWU,2018 d) as shown in the table (13) and (14) in Appendix 1. There is a
significant discrepancy between the price of cubic meter of water that the citizens pay
and the real cost of producing cubic meter by the Coastal Municipalities Water Utility.
The commitment of paying the monthly water bills by households lead to recovering
water costs which leads to alleviating the problem of the deficit suffered by the Coastal
Municipalities Water Utility but it will not solve the problem because the price per
cubic meter of water paid by the citizen is less than the cost of production.
69
5.2.2.2 Households Income
As for the value of household’s income in Rafah city, the results of the questionnaire
showed that 86.3% of the households have the father is the responsible for the family as
shown in the following table (5.4). Also, the results of the questionnaire showed that 88.4%
of the respondents were the heads of household as shown in table (5.3) and 47.4% of them
works in public sector as shown in table (5.5), while 65.3% of them are employed in
permanent work as shown in table (5.7). Also, the results showed that 65.5% of the
surveyed households have one person that work as shown in table (5.6) and 92.1% didn't
have any other source of income as shown in table (5.8). The questionnaire results showed
that 32.4% of the households had a monthly income of not more than 1000 NIS, and 36.3%
of them had a monthly income between 1000 to less than 2000 NIS as shown in table (5.10).
Table (5.3): The percent of respondents that are the head of the Household
Frequency Percent
a. Yes 336 88.4
b. No 44 11.6
Total 380 100.0
Table (5.4): The Breadwinner of the Family
Frequency Percent
a. Father 334 87.9
b. Mother 11 2.9
c. Both 30 7.9
d. Others 5 1.3
Total 380 100.0
Table (5.5): The Sector in which the Breadwinner Works
Frequency Percent
a. Private 102 26.8
b. Public 180 47.4
c. NGO's 39 10.3
d. Others 59 15.5
Total 380 100.0
Table (5.6): Number of Workers in the Family, including Parents
70
Frequency Percent
a. None 81 21.3
b. One 249 65.5
c. Two 45 11.8
d. More than two 5 1.3
Total 380 100.0
Table (5.7): What is the Type of Work
Frequency Percent
a. Permanent 248 65.3
b. Temporary 132 33.4
Total 380 100.0
Table (5.8): Is there another Source of Income
Frequency Percent
a. Yes 30 7.9
b. No 350 92.1
Total 380 100.0
Table (5.9): If the Answer is "Yes", what is the Source
Frequency Percent
No 350 92.1
Private Job 10 2.6
Trading 9 2.4
Social Affairs 11 2.9
Total 380 100.0
Table (5.10): The Total Household's Income per Month
Frequency Percent
a. Less than 1000 shekels 123 32.4
b. From 1000 to less than 2000
shekels
138 36.3
c. From 2000 to less than 3000
shekels
81 21.3
d. more than 3000 shekels 38 10.0
Total 380 100.0
71
5.3 Evaluating and Measuring the Water Affordability in Rafah City
5.3.1 The potential determinants of water affordability
As we discussed in the chapter of literature review, Reynaud method was used
to measure the water bills share of total households’ income.
There are many potential determinants that may explain the level of water
expenditure shares from household’s income. These determinants include household
characteristics, housing characteristics, the type of water pricing plan implemented
by the service provider, and the level of private sector involvement in water service
management.
5.3.1.1 Household Characteristics
Water consumption depends on the composition of the households (number
of children, age of the household head). Such characteristics of the household should
be introduced as potential determinants of the water income shares. According to the
result of the questionnaire, 88.4% of the respondents were household heads, while
35.5% of them were between 30 to 40 years of age as indicated in figure (5.9), the
percentage of males was about 91.6% as were their scientific qualification as
indicated in table(5.11) and figure(5.10), The results of the questionnaire also
showed that 42.4% of the households with the questionnaire had 4 to 6 members as
shown in figure (5.11).
Figure (5.9): The Age of the respondent (The Head of Households)
.05.0
10.015.020.025.030.035.040.0
a. Less than 30years
b. From 30 toless than 40
years
c. From 40 toless than 50
years
d. 50 years ormore
13.4%
35.5% 33.2%
17.9%
72
Table (5.11): Sex of the respondent in the Questionnaire
Frequency Percent
a. Male 348 91.6
b. Female 32 8.4
Total 380 100.0
Figure (5.10): Educational level of the respondent of the Questionnaire
Figure (5.11): Number of People live in Housing unit
.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
a. B.Sc. or more b. Diploma c. Secondary d. Primary orless
.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
Less than 3individuals
From 4-6individuals
More than 6individuals
26.8%
20.3%
9.2%
43.7%
47.1%
42.4%
10.5%
73
5.3.1.2 Housing Characteristics
The water consumption of household depends on housing characteristics (size
of the house or garden, number of cars or swimming-pool…). In the same vein, the
water consumption may depend upon the sanitary equipment's installed given the
difference in water consumption for these equipment's. It should be noted that as water
production increases, the consumption of water by citizens increase which mean that
the per capita of water increases which lead to increasing for the monthly water bill,
which is reflected on the percentage of monthly water cost from monthly income value
of the citizen. And thus, can affect the water affordability of citizens, especially if their
monthly incomes stay the same.
5.3.1.3 Water Pricing Schemes
From the above data, it is clear that the increasing of water price (either the
fixed or the unit price) leads to increasing in the share of water from income. As
discussed previously, the type of pricing schemes implemented by water utilities will
also have an important distributional effect on consumers. In particular, establish a
higher limit for water consumption rates may favor small consumers (that is poor
households). In the same vein, a small fixed charge will reflect a more socially-
oriented tariff policy. Hence, the choice of pricing schemes implemented by water
utility (increasing or decreasing block rates, flat rates, constant unit rate, etc.) has a
significant impact on the water income share (Reynaud, 2006). As for Rafah city, the
price of a cubic meter of water that coming from water distribution network (from
available desalination plants and ground water wells) was linked to the quantity of
household’s water consumption, where increasing of water consumption quantity lead
to increasing of cubic meter price, as shown in table (2.9). According to the water that
coming from private sector (drinking water), there is no specific water price, since the
price of water coming from private desalination plants varies between plants. The
results of the questionnaire showed that the price of cubic meters of drinking water
that purchased by most of households ranges from 20 to 25 shekels, as shown in the
following table:
74
Table (5.12): The price of a cubic meter of Water from Private Desalination Plants
Frequency Percent
a. Less than 20 shekels 82 21.6
b. From 20 to less than 25shekels 202 53.2
c. From 25 to less than 30 shekels 82 21.6
d. 30 shekels or more. 14 3.7
Total 380 100.0
5.3.1.4 Participation of the Private Sector
The price of water from private water providers in Rafah is approximately 20
times higher than the price of water from water distribution network (from available
desalination plants and ground water wells) as we mentioned above. Therefore, the
participation of the private sector will have a detrimental effect on household’s income
shares from water. Second, pricing schemes implemented by private facilities may
differ from public utilities for water services since public utility pricing schemes are
more appropriate for the social objectives of local communities (Reynaud, 2006).
5.3.1.5 Households Income
The income of citizens in Rafah varies between households. Table (5.10)
shows the average monthly income of households in Rafah according to the results of
the questionnaire. There is a direct relationship between the income of households and
water affordability which means that increasing of monthly household’s income lead
to decreasing of the percentage of water costs from household’s income which mean
the cost of water will be affordable by households. As mentioned above, 32.4% of
households don't exceed their incomes 1,000 NIS per month, while 36.3% of these
households their monthly income is between 1000 NIS and less than 2000 NIS and
21.3% of them their monthly income is between 2000 to less than 3000 NIS, while the
rest their monthly income is more than 3000 NIS.
75
5.3.2 Water Affordability Analysis
In the world, more interesting than average affordability – and more concern–
are the affordability ratios of low-income groups (Frankhauser,2005). In general, the
population of Gaza Strip and Rafah city in particular can be classified as low-income
groups in light of the difficult economic situation experienced by citizens now. at
current effective tariffs the affordability of water services does not seem to be an issue
for the average or high household. If affordability is a problem, it will be for low
income consumers and as we said above and with difficult economic situation and the
current wage crisis that effects on all segments of the population in Gaza strip, the
majority of population in Gaza Strip classified as low-income. Therefore, it was
important to conduct an analysis of the affordability of water to the citizens of the city
of Rafah so that we can find solutions to decrease the financial burden of citizens in
light of the difficult economic situation that they live in addition to attempt to reduce
the large deficit and difficulty experienced by the Coastal Municipalities Water Utility
in how to retrieve Water costs so that it can make new developments for networks and
increase the amount of water production commensurate with the needs of citizens
daily. After conducting interviews and visits to the specialists institutions for water
like CMWU and PWA in addition to make a questionnaire and distribute it on 380
households in Rafah city, the data needed for the analysis was collected which we
mentioned above like the monthly income of the households, the monthly consumption
of the households and the cost of cubic meter of water either water that coming from
public desalination plant and water wells or coming from private desalination plants.
After collected the data needed from the result of the questionnaire, then we did the
analysis as follows:
As for the Household #1
- The number of individuals in the household is 4 individuals.
- The value of the monthly income of the household is 416.66 $.
- The consumption quantity from water that coming from water distribution
network (from available desalination plants and ground water wells) by this household
76
ranges between 20 to 30 m3/month and therefore will take the average of this values
25 m3/month.
- The cost of m3 of water that coming from water distribution network (from
available desalination plants and ground water wells) is 0.139 $(we assume that 1
dollar =3.6 NIS) because the consumption is between 20 to 30 m3 which mean that
0.000139$/L.
- The consumption quantity from drinking water that coming from private
desalination plants by this household is less than 1 m3/month and therefore will take
this value 1 m3/month.
- The cost of m3 of drinking water that coming from private desalination plant is
between 25 to 30 NIS/m3, so will take the average value 27.5 NIS/m3 which mean that
7.6 $/m3 (we assume that 1 dollar =3.6 NIS) which mean that 0.0076 $/liter.
- Per capita water in this household was 208 liters per day as follows:
Daily water consumption = (Monthly water consumption(m3) *1000)/ (30)
= (25*1000)/ (30)
= 833.33 liter
Per capita of water= Daily water consumption/ number of households
= 833.33 / 4
= 208 liters
- Monthly cost of water for this household is 11.066$ as follow:
The individual of the household needs 6 liter/d of water for drinks and cooking
and the rest from water for domestic use which coming from public desalination plants
and wells (WHO,2016). In the questionnaire result, this household consume 1 m3/
month from drinking water so the per capita of this water is 8.33L/day.
The daily cost of water= ((quantity if water for drinks*cost of liter) + (water quantity
of domestic use* cost of liter)) * number of individuals for one household
77
= ((8.33 * 0.0076) + (208*0.000139)) *4
= 0.369$
So, The monthly cost of water= 0.369*30
= 11.06$
- Avg Monthly income for this household is between 1000 to less than 2000 NIS
from the result of the questionnaire, so assumed the average value is 1500 NIS which
mean 416.66$.
So,
Wi =𝐹ᵢ+𝑃ᵢ∗𝐶ᵢ−𝐴ᵢ
𝐼ᵢ, ᵢ ∈ {1, …,I}
= (0+(((208*4*0.000139) +(8.33*4*0.0076)) *30)-0) /417
= ((0.1157+0.253) *30)/416.66
= 2.66%
The percentage of water cost from this household income was about 2.66%,
which is therefore was affordable for households as it is less than the percentage of
affordability which is 2.8%.
It should be noted here that two important issues, the first is that the cost of water
don't care about the cost of desalination plants creation because that this cost come
often from External financing and therefore, if this cost entered with total cost of water,
it will increase the price of cubic meter of water and therefore increased the cost to the
household which mean that more unaffordable for citizens. Finally, there is a big
difference between the price of a cubic meter of water that coming from public
desalination plants and that paid by the citizen and the original cost of cubic meter that
produce. The CMWU adopted this price so that the households can bear the costs of
water and ensure recover part of total cost and therefore, the failure of the households
to pay the water bill at this price will increase the price difference and the problem of
recovery of part of the cost, which in turn leads to a lack of networks maintenance and
78
necessary developments for the plants to ensure continuous pumping water to the
citizen the same quality and quantity
As for the Household #2
- The number of individuals in the household is 5 individuals.
- The value of the monthly income of the household is 416.66 NIS.
- The consumption quantity from water that coming from water distribution
network (from available desalination plants and ground water wells) by this household
is between 10 to less than 20 m3/month as it shown in the questionnaire result. This
quantity is less than the minimum quantity of water to be consumed by CMWU and
therefore will considered the quantity of water that consumed by this household is 20
m3 which is the minimum quantity of water to be consumed.
- The cost of m3 of water that coming from water distribution network (from
available desalination plants and ground water wells) is 0.139 $(assume that 1 dollar
=3.6 NIS) because the consumption is less than 30 m3 which mean that 0.000139$/L.
- The consumption quantity from drinking water that coming from private
desalination plants by this household between 1 to less than 2 m3/month and therefore
will take this value 1.5 m3/month.
- The cost of m3 of drinking water that this household purchase it from private
desalination plant is between 25 to less than 30 NIS/m3, so we took the average which
is 27.5 Nis/m3 which mean that 7.66 $/m3 (assume that 1 dollar =3.6 NIS) which mean
that 0.00766 $/liter.
- Per capita water in this household was 133 liters per day as follows:
Daily water consumption = (Monthly water consumption(m3) *1000)/ (30)
= (20*1000)/ (30)
= 666.66 liter
Per capita of water= Daily water consumption/ number of households
79
= 666.66 / 5
= 133.33 liter
- Monthly cost of water for this household is 14.269$ as follow:
The individual of the household needs 6 liter/d of water for drinks and cooking
and the rest from water for domestic use which coming from public desalination plants
and wells (WHO,2016). In the questionnaire result, this household consume between
1 to 2 m3/ month from drinking water so will take the average value which is 1.5 m3/
month, so the per capita of this water is 10 L/day.
The daily cost of water= ((quantity if water for drinks*cost of liter) + (water quantity
of domestic use* cost of liter)) * number of individuals for one household
= ((10 * 0.00766) + (133.33*0.000139)) *5
= 0.476$
So, The monthly cost of water= 0.476*30
= 14.269$
- Avg Monthly income for this household is between 1000 to less than 2000 NIS
from the result of the questionnaire as shown in table (5.13), so assumed the average
value is 1500 NIS which mean 416.66$.
So,
Wi = 𝐹ᵢ+𝑃ᵢ∗𝐶ᵢ−𝐴ᵢ
𝐼ᵢ, ᵢ ∈ {1, …,I}
= (0+(((133.33*5*0.000139) +(10*5*0.00766)) *30)-0)/416.66
= ((0.09266+0.383) *30) /416.66
= 3.42%
The percentage of water cost from this household income was about 3.42%,
which is therefore was unaffordable for households as it is greater than the percentage
80
of affordability which is 2.8%. The following table show the share of water bills from
the income of households that filled out the questionnaire:
Table (5.13): The share of Monthly Water bills from Monthly Income for the
Household Respondents
The value
of Debts
they have
(NIS) Affordability
Index
monthly
income ($)
price of
m3 of
Drinking
water ($)
price of
m3 of
piped
water
($)
monthly
consumption
from
drinking
water(m3)
monthly
consumption
from piped
water(m3) N
# of
member
of
household Household
3500 0.027 416.7 7.6 0.139 1 25 4 1
2500 0.034 416.7 7.6 0.139 1.5 20 5 2
1000 0.038 416.7 7.6 0.139 1.5 30 7 3
3500 0.054 277.8 7.6 0.139 1.5 25 9 4
4000 0.043 277.8 7.6 0.139 1 30 11 5
3500 0.063 277.8 5.6 0.139 2.5 25 7 6
3500 0.036 416.7 7.6 0.139 1.5 25 12 7
4000 0.04 277.8 7.6 0.139 1 25 4 8
2500 0.036 416.7 7.6 0.139 1.5 25 9 9
3500 0.036 416.7 7.6 0.139 1.5 25 7 10
2500 0.023 694.4 7.6 0.278 1 30 3 11
1500 0.027 416.7 7.6 0.139 1 25 5 12
2500 0.016 694.4 7.6 0.139 1 25 5 13
3500 0.054 277.8 7.6 0.139 1.5 25 5 14
2500 0.046 277.8 6.3 0.139 1.5 25 11 15
2500 0.036 416.7 7.6 0.139 1.5 25 5 16
1500 0.029 416.7 6.3 0.139 1.5 20 3 17
1500 0.071 277.8 6.3 0.139 2.5 30 12 18
2500 0.036 416.7 7.6 0.139 1.5 25 6 19
2500 0.029 694.4 6.3 0.139 2.5 30 9 20
1500 0.046 277.8 6.3 0.139 1.5 25 5 21
1500 0.046 277.8 6.3 0.139 1.5 25 3 22
1000 0.029 416.7 6.3 0.139 1.5 20 4 23
1500 0.027 416.7 7.6 0.139 1 25 5 24
1500 0.049 277.8 6.3 0.139 1.5 30 8 25
3500 0.019 833.3 7.6 0.139 1.5 30 12 26
4000 0.04 277.8 7.6 0.139 1 25 5 27
1000 0.016 694.4 7.6 0.139 1 25 3 28
3500 0.043 277.8 7.6 0.139 1 30 8 29
4000 0.04 277.8 7.6 0.139 1 25 6 30
2500 0.029 694.4 7.6 0.278 1.5 30 7 31
3500 0.058 277.8 8.3 0.139 1.5 25 7 32
4000 0.058 277.8 7.6 0.278 1 30 3 33
3500 0.028 416.7 8.3 0.139 1 25 5 34
81
3500 0.024 833.3 7.6 0.278 1.5 30 10 35
1000 0.016 694.4 7.6 0.139 1 25 4 36
2500 0.027 416.7 7.6 0.139 1 25 5 37
Table (5.14): The percent of Water Affordability from Respondents
% of Respondents # of Respondents % of Affordability
29 110 less than 2.8%
27 104 2.8 % to less than 4%
44 166 4% or more
100% 380 Total
Figure (5.12): The percent of Water Affordability from Respondents
From the tables above, we note that the monthly value of water cost that paid
by households of their monthly income is varied, where there is values less than the
acceptable percentage of monthly water cost from income (2.8%) and there is more
than the acceptable percentage.
As shown in table (5.13) and (5.14), there is 29% of the households paid for
the water bills less than the acceptable percentage, while the 71% of them paid higher
than the accepted percentage (2.8%). The questionnaire results also showed that
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
%p
erc
en
t f
ho
use
ho
lds
share f water cost from monthly income
29%
71%
82
approximately 44% of the household paid for water more than 4% of their total
income, which is much higher than the acceptable rate.
The results also showed that 66.3% of households that paying less than 2.8%
of their income in favor of water responded that they pay water because it affordable
and the rest of them said that the water cost is unaffordable as shown in the table (5.15).
The questionnaire results showed that 55.4% of households that paying less
than 2.8% of their income in favor of water responded that they ready to buy the
quantity of water they need if the municipality provided to them as shown in the table
(5.15).
The results also showed that only 34.5% of households That paying less than
2.8% of their income in favor of water have debts for water providers less than 1000
NIS and the rest of them have a debt although they can pay for water because it is
affordable. In contrast, there are households that pay more than 2.8% from their
income for the water and have debts of less than 1,000 NIS as shown in table (5.15)
and figure (5.13). It should be noted that the rest of table (5.13) and table (5.15)
available in Appendix 1.
Table (5.15): Relationship between share of Water Bills from Income (Affordability
Index) and Depts and whether the households pay for water because it’s affordable or
not
Household
Affordability Index
You pay for water
because it's affordable
The value of
Debts they have
(NIS)
1 0.0267 Yes 3500
2 0.034 Yes 2500
3 0.038 Yes 1000
4 0.054 Yes 3500
5 0.043 No 4000
6 0.063 Yes 3500
7 0.036 Yes 3500
8 0.040 Yes 4000
9 0.036 Yes 2500
10 0.036 Yes 3500
11 0.023 Yes 2500
12 0.027 Yes 1500
13 0.016 Yes 2500
14 0.054 Yes 3500
15 0.046 Yes 2500
83
16 0.036 Yes 2500
From the questionnaire result, the average percentage of water cost from
household income is about 3.9%, which is not affordable for households as it is more
than the percentage of acceptable affordability which is 2.8%. The following tables
confirm data on monthly water consumption quantities:
Table (5.16): How much Households spend for piped water per month
Frequency Percent
a. Less than 30 shekel 40 10.5
b. From 30 to less than 40
shekels
146 38.4
c. From 40 to less than 50
shekels
142 37.4
d. 50 shekel or more, specify …. 52 13.7
Total 380 100.0
Table (5.17): How much Household for Water that purchased from Desalination
Plant per Month
Frequency Percent
a. Less than 20 shekels 81 21.3
b. From 20 to less than 30
shekels
176 46.3
c. From 30 to less than 40
shekels
87 22.9
d. 40 shekels or more, specify … 36 9.5
Total 380 100.0
Table (5.18): Households Opinion about the Cost of Water that coming from the
Water Network (Piped Water)
Frequency Percent
a. Expensive 245 64.5
b. Reasonable 116 30.5
c. Cheap 19 5.0
Total 380 100.0
84
Table (5.19): Households Opinion about the Cost of Water that you purchase from
Private Desalination Plants
Frequency Percent
a. Expensive 276 72.6
b. Reasonable 97 25.5
c. Cheap 7 1.8
Total 380 100.0
Among the solutions offered to the households in Rafah to solve the problem
of water affordability by households is to provide the households with drinking water
a day or two per week through water piped in exchange for an increase in the price of
a cubic meter of water in these days to 0.83$, this price can recover the water costs
for desalination plants in addition to reducing the monthly water share from household
income so that they will pay 0.83 $ for the cubic meter of drinking water instead of
more than 5$. Thus, reducing the share of water cost of the total monthly income of
households to the acceptable percentage. The following figures illustrate the view of
households in this solution:
Figure (5.13): Do you agree to provide desalinated Water through the Water Tap for
a selected Day or more per Week with increase the Value of Water Monthly Invoice
slightly
.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
a. Yes b. No
63.4%
36.6%
85
Figure (5.14): The Ability to afford the Value of Water Invoice if the Price of cubic
meter of Water on those selected becomes 0.833$ by Households
Figure (5.15): Number of Days that Households want to bring a Drinking Water by
Water Piped During the Week
.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
a. Yes b. No
.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
a. less than 2days
b. From 2 toless than 4 days
c. From 4 toless than 6 days
d. 6 days ormore
40%
31.6%
16.3%
12.1%
86
5.3.3 Water Affordability Analysis -Municipality Level-
In this section, an analysis of the affordability of water has been carried out as
done previously for households, but here it was done at the municipality level. After
conducting interviews and visits to the specialist’s institutions for water like CMWU
and PWA, the data needed for the analysis was collected which we mentioned above
like the monthly income of the households, the monthly consumption of the
households and the cost of cubic meter of water either water that coming from public
desalination plant and water wells or coming from private desalination plants. After
collected the annual consumption quantity of Rafah and the number of populations in
the same year, we get the annual amount of consumption per citizen (the daily
consumption after dividing the number of years, months and days of the month) for
last seven years, we then assumed that the number of household members was 6
individuals based on the results of the questionnaire, then we did the analysis as
follows:
In the year of 2010
- The number of populations in this year is 169,928 persons (Wafa news, 2016).
- The quantity of water consumption in this year is 4,175,949
m3(CMWU,2017a).
- The cost of m3 of water that coming from water distribution network (from
available desalination plants and ground water wells) is from 0.139 $ to 0.416 $ (0.5-
1.5 NIS) as mentioned in the chapter of study area, so it was adopted the average of
values which is 0.278 $ which mean that 0.000278 $/liter and the average cost of m3
of drinking water that coming from private desalination plant for drinks is 6.2 $/m3(we
take this value from the questionnaire results, where the average cost of m3 that paid
by households is 6.2$/m3 ) which mean that 0.0062 $ /liter(CMWU,2017c).
- Per capita water in that year was 68 liters per day as follows:
Daily water consumption in 2010 = (yearly water consumption(m3) *1000)/365
= (4,175,949*1000)/365
87
= 11,440,956 liters
Per capita water in 2010= Daily water consumption/ number of populations in2010
= 11,440,956 / 169,928
= 68 liters
- Monthly cost of water for household in year of 2010 was 10.098$ as follow:
The individual of the household needs 6 liter/d of water for drinks and cooking and
the rest from water for domestic use which coming from private desalination plants
and wells.
The daily cost of water= ((quantity if water for drinks*cost of liter) + (water quantity
of domestic use* cost of liter)) * number of individuals for one household
= ((6 * 0.0062) + (68*0.000278)) *6
= 0.3366$
So, the monthly cost of water= 0.3366*30
= 10.098$
- Avg Monthly income for households in this year is 421 $ (PCBS,2017).
So,
Wi =𝐹ᵢ+𝑃ᵢ∗𝐶ᵢ−𝐴ᵢ
𝐼ᵢ, ᵢ ∈ {1, …,I}
= (0+(((68*6*0.000278) +(6*6*0.0062)) *30)-0)/421
= ((0.1134+0.2232) *30)/421
= 2.4%
So, the percentage of water cost from household income in 2010 was about 2.4%,
which is therefore it affordable for households as it is less than the acceptable
percentage of affordability which is 2.8%.
88
It should be noted here that three important issues, the first is that the per capita
water was 68 liters per day, which is much less than recommended by the World Health
Organization which is (110-120) liters per day and therefore, if we assume that the per
capita of water was 110 liter/day as referred by WHO, In this case, the monthly cost
of water will be 2.9% from the total monthly income of households, which mean that
will be unaffordable by citizens because it's more than the percentage of 2.8% (the
percentage of affordability). another issue that the cost of water doesn’t care about the
cost of desalination plants creation because that these costs come often from External
financing and therefore, if this cost entered with total cost of water, it will increase the
price of cubic meter of water and therefore increased the cost to the citizen which mean
that more unaffordable for citizens. Finally, there is a big difference between the price
of a cubic meter of water that coming from public desalination plants and that paid by
the citizen and the original cost of cubic meter that produce. The CMWU adopted this
price so that the citizen can bear the costs of water and ensure recovering a part of total
cost and therefore, the failure of the citizen to pay the bill of water at this price will
increase the price difference and the problem of recovery of part of the cost, which in
turn leads to a lack of networks maintenance and necessary developments for the plants
to ensure continuous pumping of water to the citizen with acceptable quality and
quantity.
In the year of 2011
- The number of populations in this year is 176,373 persons (Wafa news, 2016)
- The quantity of water consumption in this year is 4,175,949 m3
(CMWU,2017a).
- The cost of m3 of water that coming from water distribution network (from
available desalination plants and ground water wells) is from 0.139 $ to 0.416 $ (0.5-
1.5 NIS) as mentioned in the chapter of study area, so it was adopted the average of
values which is 0.278 $ which mean that 0.000278 $/liter and the average cost of m3
of drinking water that coming from private desalination plant for drinks is 6.2 $/m3(we
89
take this value from the questionnaire results, where the average cost of m3 that paid
by households is 6.2$/m3 ) which mean that 0.0062 $ /liter (CMWU,2017c).
- Per capita water in that year was 75 liters per day as follows:
Daily water consumption in 2011 = (yearly water consumption(m3) *1000)/365
= (4,793,558*1000)/365
= 13,133,035 liters
Per capita water in 2011= Daily water consumption/ number of populations in 2011
= 13,133,035 / 176,373
= 75 liters
- Monthly cost of water for household in year of 2011 was 10.449$ as follow:
The individual of the household needs 6 liter/d of water for drinks and cooking
and the rest from water for domestic use which coming from public desalination plants
and wells.
The daily cost of water= ((quantity if water for drinks*cost of liter) + (water
quantity of domestic use* cost of liter)) * number of individuals for one household
= ((6 * 0.0062) + (75*0.000278)) *6
= 0.3483$
So, The monthly cost of water= 0.3483*30
= 10.449$
- Avg Monthly income for households is 445$ (PCBS,2017)
So,
Wi =𝐹ᵢ+𝑃ᵢ∗𝐶ᵢ−𝐴ᵢ
𝐼ᵢ, ᵢ ∈ {1, …,I}
= (0+(((75*6*0.000278) +(6*6*0.0062)) *30)-0)/445
= ((0.1251+0.2232) *30)/445
= 2.23%
90
So, the percentage of water cost from household income in 2011 was about
2.23%, which is therefore it affordable for households as it is less than the acceptable
percentage of affordability which is 2.8%. According to the calculations of the rest of
the years, it's available in the Appendix 4.
Table (5.20): The percentage of Monthly Water Cost according to Monthly Salary
for Households in last eight years
% Share of water
cost from income
Annual
Consumption(m3)
Avg Monthly
Income ($)
Avg Daily
Income ($) Years
2.4 4,175,949
421 16.1 2010
2.34 4,793,558
445 17.1 2011
2.21 4,802,534
464.4 17.9 2012
2.35 5,577,725
455.8 17.5 2013
2.25 5,256,142
461.67 17.75 2014
2.3 5,276,214
446.94 17.19 2015
2.32 5,575,882
445 17.11 2016
2.24 5,411,912
420 16.15 2017
5.3.4 Relationship between Water Affordability and some Indicators
5.3.4.1 Production of Wells and Desalination Plants versus water Affordability
In the following, we will show the relationship between the quantity
of water produced during the past years and the per capita water in those
years and the value of water affordability:
Table (5.21): The amount of water produced and value of water affordability in the
past years
per capita
(L)
Affordability
Index
% of
loss
Total
Production(m3)
Production of
Desalination
Plants(m3)
Production of
Wells(m3) Year
68 2.4 55 7,501,835 22,650 7,479,185 2010
76 2.34 40 8,051,539 63,440 7,988,099 2011
91
73 2.21 40 8,028,629 164,760 7,863,869 2012
82 2.35 34 8,596,333 239,120 8,357,213 2013
75 2.25 37 8,589,787 265,080 8,324,707 2014
73 2.3 30 7,887,929 404,720 7,483,209 2015
74 2.32 30 8,018,949 473,639 7,545,310 2016
69 3.6 30 7,955,575 392,558 7,563,017 2017
Figure (5.16): Relationship between water affordability Index and quantity of water
produced during past years
As mentioned in the table above, there is inverse relationship between the
amount of water produced by water distribution network (from available desalination
plants and ground water wells) and water affordability.
The increase in the quantity of water produced from wells and desalination
plants leads to a larger coverage of the households' need for water and therefore they
92
consume more quantity of water which mean increasing in water bills value for the
households. It should be noted that there is other data about desalination plants and
water wells in Appendix 1 and Appendix 4.
5.3.4.2 Monthly Consumption versus Water Affordability
As mentioned in the chapter of literature review, the quantity of consumption
varied over the past year, the following table shows this variety over the years and its
relation with water affordability:
Table (5.22): The quantity of water consumption in the past years
Years Consumption
(m3)
Affordability
Index
Avg
Monthly
Income ($)
2010 4,175,949 2.4 421
2011 4,793,558 2.34 445
2012 4,802,534 2.21 464.4
2013 5,577,725 2.35 455.8
2014 5,256,142 2.25 461.67
2015 5,276,214 2.3 446.94
2016 5,575,882 2.32 445
2017 5,411,912 3.6 420
As mentioned in the table above, there is an inverse relationship between
consumption and water affordability, where the increasing of water consumption leads
to increase in water cost for household and for water affordability, but it is not clear in
table (5.24) because the water consumption increased comes in parallel with increasing
in income. In 2011, the consumption amount was about 4,793,558 m3, while the water
affordability was in the same year 2.34% with a monthly income of 421$. In the year
of 2012, water consumption was about 4,802,534 m3, more than the amount consumed
in 2011 and the percentage of water affordability of water in the same year was 2.21%
with a monthly income of 445 $, we note here that the amount of consumption
increased while the affordability rate decreased as a result of increased household
income in the same year which happened in the other years.
93
5.3.4.3 Number of People committed to Payment Bills versus Water
Affordability
With reference to water affordability index in last three years, there is no
relationship between the percentage of households who's committed to paying bills
and the water affordability index as shown in figure (5.16). In the year of 2015, the
percentage of those who are committed to paying bills was about 19.7% of the total
number of subscribers, while the share of water cost from income was about 2.3%. In
2016, the percentage of those who are committed to pay was about 21.55% while the
water affordability index is not changed. In the year of 2017, the percentage of peoples
who are committed to pay bills fell to about 18.7%, which led to an increase in the
water affordability index to 3.6%, which is higher than the percent that approved in
the research (2.8%).
Figure (5.17): Relationship between water affordability and percent of commitment
for paying the water bills
5.3.4.5 Gross Domestic Product (GDP) versus Water Affordability
The following table shows the relationship between GDP and water
affordability index:
Table (5.23): The relationship between GDP and water affordability index in the
past years
19.721.55
18.7
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
2.3 2.32 3.6
Pe
rce
nt
%
Water Affordability Index
3.6% 2.32 % 2.3%
94
% Affordability Index
GDP
(American
Million Dollar) Years
2.34 1781.1 2011
2.21 1905.8 2012
2.35 2012.7 2013
2.25 1709.1 2014
2.3 1813.2 2015
2.32 1952.1 2016
Figure (5.18): The relationship between GDP and water affordability index in the
past years
There is no relationship was found between GDP and the water affordability
index due to lack of data. However, with refer to international researches, there is an
inverse relationship between GDP and the water affordability index, where increasing
in GDP leads to a reduction in the water affordability index. In the year of 2011, the
value of GDP was $ 1,781.1 while the water affordability index in the same year
reached to 2.34%. In the year of 2012, the gross domestic product reached to $ 1905.8
while the water affordability index reached in the same year to 2.21%. This inverse
relationship was demonstrated by the data for the rest of the years, where the increase
in GDP led to a decrease in the water affordability index in all other years.
1550
1600
1650
1700
1750
1800
1850
1900
1950
2000
2050
2.21 2.25 2.3 2.32 2.34 2.35
GD
P(A
mir
ican
Do
llar
Mill
ion
)
Affordability Index
1781.1
1905.8
2012.7
1709.1
1813.2
1952.1
95
5.3.4.6 Unemployment rate versus Water Affordability
The following table show the relationship between unemployment rate and
water affordability index.
Table (5.24): Relationship between Unemployment and Affordability Index
Years % of Unemployment % of Affordability
2011 28.7 2.34
2012 31 2.21
2013 32.6 2.35
2014 43.9 2.25
2015 41 2.3
2016 41.7 2.32
As shown in the table above, there is no relationship between the unemployment
rate and the affordability index. However, the increase in the unemployment rate is an
indication of the deterioration of the economic situation, which has a direct
relationship with the affordability index where the worse the economic situation the
more difficult to afford water by households.
5.3.4.7 Households Income versus Water Affordability
The following table shows the average monthly income differentials of the
households over the past years:
Table (5.25): Average monthly income of households in Rafah city during the past
years
% of Affordability Avg Monthly Income ($) Avg Daily Income ($) Years
2.34 445 17.1 2011
2.21 464.4 17.9 2012
2.35 455.8 17.5 2013
2.25 461.67 17.75 2014
2.3 446.94 17.19 2015
2.32 445 17.11 2016
96
Figure (5.19): Average monthly income of households in Rafah city during the past
years
As mentioned in figure above, there is an inverse relationship between the water
affordability index and the monthly income of households. In the year of 2011, the
monthly income of households was 445$ while the water affordability index for the
same year was 2.34. In the year of 2012, the monthly income of the household
increased to 464.4 $ which lead it to decrease the water affordability index to 2.21%.
In 2013, the monthly income of the citizen fell to 455.8$. Despite this decrease, the
water affordability index increase, as well as in the year of 2014, 2015 and 2016 where
the increase in income leads to lower the water affordability index.
5.3.5 Water Affordability Analysis based on Real Cost and Production –
CMWU Level-
As mentioned above, the share of water cost from the total household’s income
was calculated based on the water price set by the water supplier in Rafah (CMWU),
but this is significantly different from the original water cost. As shown in table (13),
table (14) and table (18) in Appendix 1, the cost of producing a cubic meter of water
from public brackish desalination plants is about (0.47-0.66) $ and 0.80$ from the
water that coming from seawater desalination plant and therefore, there is a significant
464.4
455.8
446.94445 445
455.8
435
440
445
450
455
460
465
470
2.21 2.25 2.3 2.32 2.34 2.35
Mo
nth
ly In
com
e $
Water Affordability Index
97
difference between the cost paid by households and the original water cost. Also, there
is a water loss of 30-40% of the water produced. Therefore, in this section, the share
of water from total monthly household income calculated by using the original cost of
water and by take the percent of water loss in consideration. Therefore, the previous
years was analyzed as follows:
In the year of 2010
- The number of populations in this year is 169,928 persons (Wafa news, 2016).
- The quantity of water production in this year is 7,501,835 m3(CMWU
report,2017a).
- The average real cost of m3 of water that coming from water distribution
network( available desalination plant and ground water wells) is (0.47-0.66) $ which
mean the average cost is 0.56$ which mean that 0.00056 $/liter (it should be noted
here that the cost of producing cubic meters of water from seawater desalination plants
was neglected because the plant was not available in that year), and the average cost
of m3 of drinking water that coming from private desalination plant for drinks is 6.2
$/m3(we take this value from the questionnaire results, where the average cost of m3
that paid by households is 6.2$/m3) which mean that 0.0062 $ /liter(CMWU,2017c).
- Per capita water in that year supposed to be 121 liters per day as follows:
Daily water consumption in 2010 = (yearly water consumption(m3) *1000)/365
= (7,501,835 *1000)/365
= 20,552,97 liters
Per capita water in 2010= Daily water consumption/ number of populations in2010
= 20,552,97 / 169,928
= 121 liters
- Monthly cost of water for household was supposed to be in those year 18.89$
as follow:
The individual of the household needs 6 liter/d of water for drinks and cooking
(UN,2006), and the rest from water for domestic use which coming from public
98
desalination plants and wells. The average number of household members in Rafah
city was 6.5 members which mean 6 members (PCBS,2007)
The daily cost of water= ((quantity if water for drinks*cost of liter) + (water quantity
of domestic use* cost of liter)) * number of individuals for one household
= ((6 * 0.0062) + (121*0.00056)) *6
= 0. 629$
So, the monthly cost of water= 0.629*30
= 18.89 $
- Avg Monthly income for households in this year is 421 $ (BCBS,2017).
So,
Wi =𝐹ᵢ+𝑃ᵢ∗𝐶ᵢ−𝐴ᵢ
𝐼ᵢ, ᵢ ∈ {1, …,I}
= (0+(((121*6*0.00056) +(6*6*0.0062)) *30)-0)/421
= ((0.4066+0.2232) *30)/421
= 4.48%
Therefore, the water cost of household income in 2010 was supposed to be about
4.48%, so households cannot afford it, especially when the original water cost is put
in place of the water price that currently used.
In the year of 2011
- The number of populations in this year is 176,373 persons (Wafa news, 2016)
- The quantity of water production in this year is 8,051,539 m3(CMWU
report,2017a).
- The average real cost of m3 of water that coming from water distribution
network ( available desalination plant and ground water wells) is (0.47-0.66) $
99
which mean the average cost is 0.56$ which mean that 0.00056 $/liter (it should
be noted here that the cost of producing cubic meters of water from seawater
desalination plants was neglected because the plant was not available in that
year), and the average cost of m3 of drinking water that coming from private
desalination plant for drinks is 6.2 $/m3(we take this value from the
questionnaire results, where the average cost of m3 that paid by households is
6.2$/m3) which mean that 0.0062 $ /liter(CMWU,2017c).
- Per capita water in that year supposed to be 125 liters per day as follows:
Daily water consumption in 2010 = (yearly water consumption(m3) *1000)/365
= (8,051,539 *1000)/365
= 22,059,010 liters
Per capita water in 2010= Daily water consumption/ number of populations in2010
= 22,059,010 / 176,373
= 125 liters
- Monthly cost of water for household was supposed to be in those year 19.29$
as follow:
The individual of the household needs 6 liter/d of water for drinks and cooking and
the rest from water for domestic use which coming from public desalination plants and
wells. The average number of household members in Rafah city was 6.5 members
which mean 6 members (PCBS,2007)
The daily cost of water= ((quantity if water for drinks*cost of liter) + (water quantity
of domestic use* cost of liter)) * number of individuals for one household
= ((6 * 0.0062) + (125*0.00056)) *6
= 0. 64$
So, the monthly cost of water= 0.64*30
= 19.29 $
100
- Avg Monthly income for households in this year is 445$ (BCBS,2017).
So,
Wi =𝐹ᵢ+𝑃ᵢ∗𝐶ᵢ−𝐴ᵢ
𝐼ᵢ, ᵢ ∈ {1, …,I}
= (0+(((125*6*0.00056) +(6*6*0.0062)) *30)-0)/445
= ((0.42+0.2232) *30)/445
= 4.33%
Therefore, the water cost of household income in 2010 was supposed to be about
4.3%, so households cannot afford it, especially when the original water cost is put in
place of the water price that currently used. The following table summarizes the
calculations for the other years.
Table (5.26): The percentage of Monthly Water Cost according to Monthly Salary
for Households in last eight years -Municipality Level-
% Share of water
cost from income
Annual
Productions (m3)
Avg Monthly
Income ($)
Avg Daily
Income ($) Years
4.48 7,501,835 421 16.1 2010
4.33 8,051,539 445 17.1
2011
4.24 8,028,629 464.4 17.9
2012
4.23 8,596,333 455.8 17.5
2013
3.87 8,589,787 461.67 17.75
2014
3.91 7,883,809 446.94 17.19
2015
3.88 8,005,241 445 17.11
2016
4 7,960,158 420 16.15
2017
As shown in the table above, when the price of cubic meter of water that
coming from water distribution network (available desalination plants and
101
groundwater wells) is replaced by the original water cost, the water share of the total
household’s income has become unaffordable over the past years, which indicates a
problem in the pricing of the cubic meter of water. The current pricing of cubic meter
of water in water tariff that paid by the households increases the problem of recovering
O & M costs for the CMWU and replacing the pricing at the original cost makes the
cost of water unaffordable to households. Also, noted that during the years beyond the
year of 2014, the share of water cost from total incomes was reduced because of the
low per capita of water compared to the years before year of 2014.
It should be noted that the maximum price of water that the households could
afford in the past years was calculated without affecting on the acceptable water
affordability index in Appendix 2.
102
Chapter Six
Conclusion and
Recommendations
103
Chapter Six: Conclusion and Recommendations
This chapter presented the conclusion derived from the results of the study and
the main recommendations for relevant institutions and researchers.
6.1 Conclusion
The desalination plants are a major priority to meet the increased water
demands of the domestic sector due to water scarcity in Gaza Strip and water
resources.
The results of the research obtained from this study yielded important data.
Research results records can assist institutions and other researchers in a better
understanding of the performance and effectiveness of water in terms of their cost,
quantity and affordability by households, as well as the effectiveness of these ratios in
relation to international standards.
1. The amount of production currently being produced from the desalination
plants and water wells in Rafah city is insufficient to meet the minimum needs
of water for households, which is referred by the World Health Organization
(100-120) liters per day for person, where the daily requirement of the city of
Rafah of water is about 25000 m3 while the daily water production does not
exceed 15000 m3/d and thus, per capita water does not exceed 80 liters per day,
which indicates the acute shortage of water.
2. The researcher found that there is a very large difference between the price that
the households pay for cubic meters of water that coming from water networks,
which is about (0.139-0.416) $/m3 and the price of cubic meter of water
produced from private desalination plants (drinking water) which is (5.5 to 7)
$/m3.
3. The researcher found that the cost of production of cubic meters of water that
produce from public brackish desalination plants ranged between (0.42-0.48)
$ while the cost of production per cubic meter of public seawater desalination
104
plants is 0.8 $ and these values is far from the value that paid by the households
for cubic meter of water which is (0.139-0.416) $/m3.
4. There is a problem in water affordability by households, where the
questionnaire results showed that there is only 29% of the households paid for
the water bills less than the affordability thresholds, while the 71% of them
paid higher than the accepted affordability thresholds (2.8%). Also, the result
showed that approximately 44% of the household paid for water more than 4%
of their total income, which is much higher than the acceptable rate.
5. After analyzing the water affordability at the household’s level from the
questionnaire results, we found that the share of water cost of their monthly
income varies among them, the lowest value reaching to 1.1%, while there was
value reached to 10% of total income with average value 3.9%
6. After conducting an analysis of water Affordability at the municipality level
from data collected over the past years, it was found that the water cost share
of the total households income(affordability index) was less than 2.5%, which
is less than the acceptable percentage (2.8%), but in 2017 due to the poor
situation in Gaza strip in general, the share of water costs from households
income in Rafah city reached to 3.5% which is higher than the acceptable
percentage.
7. After analyzing the past years at on real cost and production at CMWU level
so that the households bear the quantity of water production loss in addition to
replacing the price per cubic meter of water at the original cost of cubic meter
of water, we found that the water affordability index during the past year’s
ranges between (0.387 -0.48) which it's far from the accepted affordability
thresholds (2.8%).
8. The researcher found that there is a difference between the acceptable
percentage of monthly water cost and monthly water cost paid by households
from their monthly income. This indicates that the household cannot afford the
monthly water costs and therefore cannot pay the monthly water bills, and that
is what currently happening on the ground where just 18.7% of people in Rafah
city commit to pay bills during the year of 2017.
105
9. The results show that there is a direct correlation between the price per cubic
meter of water coming from water pipes and the consumption, as increasing
consumption of water leads to an increase in the price of cubic meters of water.
106
6.2 Recommendations
Based on the results of the study, the following points can be recommended in
order to find an optimal way to treat the problem of water and its affordability by
households of Rafah city. The recommendations of the research are stated on the light
of all the above discussions, as follows:
1. The researcher recommends the need to monitor the quantity of water production
and the quantity of consumption to determine the percent of loss, and thus know
the cause of this loss, whether theft or leaking from water pipes that feed
households.
2. The researcher recommends the need to do new projects for the development or
maintenance of existing water pipes to decrease percent of existing losses from
water
3. There is a need to distribute water to all households in a fair and ideal manner.
4. The researcher recommends the need to establish new desalination plants,
whether brackish desalination plant or sea water desalination plant to
accommodate the quantity of water required to meet the needs of households.
5. There is a need to increase control over the bills' system and how to recover it so
that the household must be committed to pay the value of their bills regularly and
without problems so that the municipality can recover the water costs and make
the development and maintenance required.
6. The researcher recommends the need to cure the water affordability index by
reducing the cost of water in proportion to household income so that the cost of
the water bills does not exceed 2.8% of the total monthly income for households.
7. The researcher recommends the need of reformulation of water tariff to protect
poor households and help them to afford the cost of water.
8. The researcher believes that these public awareness campaigns contribute to
tackling the problem of over-consumption of water and the consequences of non-
payment of water bills regularly through conducting training and public
awareness programs targeting students in schools, householder's and mothers.
107
References
Albattnigi, M.S., (2015). Impacts of Desalination Plants on Surrounding
Environment and Public Health in Gaza city, Palestine. The Islamic University
Gaza- Palestine
Al-Shayji, K.A. (1998). Modeling, Simulation and Optimization of Large-Scale
Commercial Desalination Plants, Ph.D. Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State University. available in this website:
http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/ etd-32898 13261/unrestricted/ETD.PDF
Assaf, S. (2001). Existing and Future Planned Desalination Facilities in the Gaza Strip
of Palestine and Their Socio-Economic and Environmental Impact.
Desalination. Volume 138, Issues 1–3, 20 September 2001, Pages 17-28.
Anang,Z., Rashid,k., Possumah,T., Muhamad.S.(2017). Affordability and Expenditure
Patterns towards Sustainable Consumption in Malaysia.
Bates, B.C., Z.W. Kundzewicz, S. Wu and J.P. Palutikof, Eds. (2008). Climate Change
and Water. IPCC Technical Paper VI of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, IPCC Secretariat, Geneva, Switzerland.
Buros, O.K. (2000). The ABCs of Desalting, International Desalination Association
CMWU report. (2017c). Number of bills from Coastal Municipalities Water Utility
CMWU. (2011). Final report from Coastal Municipalities Water Utility in the year of
2011.
CMWU. (2012). Final report from Coastal Municipalities Water Utility in 2012.
CMWU. (2013). Final report from Coastal Municipalities Water Utility in 2013.
CMWU. (2014). Final report from Coastal Municipalities Water Utility in 2014.
CMWU. (2015). Final report from Coastal Municipalities Water Utility in 2015.
CMWU. (2017). Coastal Municipalities Water Utility Report in 2017
CMWU. (2017a). Interview with Eng. Fared shaaban Coastal Municipalities Water
Utility
CMWU. (2017b). Interview with Eng. Alaa EL-hams Coastal Municipalities Water
Utility
CMWU. (2017c). Interview with Eng. Mohammed Abutaha Coastal Municipalities
Water Utility
(CMWU,2017d). Interview with Eng. Omer shatat in Coastal Municipalities Water
Utility
Raje D.V., Dhobe P.S., Deshpande A.W., (2002). Consumer’s willingness to pay
more for municipal supplied water: a case study.
Donoso, G. (2015). Water pricing in Chile: decentralization and market reforms. In:
Dinar, A., Pochat, V., Albiac-Murillo, J. (Eds.), Water Pricing Experiences and
Innovations. Springer, Switzerland, pp. 83e96.
108
El Moujabber M. (ed.), Mandi L. (ed.), Trisorio-Liuzzi G. (ed.), Martín I. (ed.), Rabi
A. (ed.), Rodríguez R. (ed.). (2009). Access to drinking water at an affordable
price in developing countries, ciheam.
El-Sheikh R., Ahmed M., Hamdan S. (2003). Strategy of Water Desalination in the
Gaza Strip, Desalination 156, pages: 39-42.
Frankhauser, S & Tepic, S. (2005). Can poor consumers pay for energy and water? An
affordability analysis for transition countries. Journal of Research gate
Garcia-Valiñas, M. A., Martínez-Espiñeira, R. & González-Gómez, F. J. (2010a).
Affordability of residential water tariffs: alternative measurement and
explanatory factors in southern Spain. Journal of Environmental Management
91(12), 2696–2706.
Garcia-Valiñas, M. A., Martínez-Espiñeira, R. & González-Gómez, F. J. (2010b).
Measuring water affordability: a proposal for Urban Centres in developed
countries. International Journal of Water Resources Development 26(3), 441–
458.
GWI,2007. Desalination markets. (2007). A Global Industry Forecast, Global Water
Intelligence”, Media Analytics Ltd., The Jam Factory, Park End St, Oxford OX1
1HU, UK, www.globalwaterintel.com/index.php.
Hearne, R.R., Donoso, G. (2005). Water institutional reforms in Chile. Water Policy
7, 53e69.
Hutton, G. (2012). "Monitoring Affordability” of water and sanitation services after
2015: Review of global indicator options. the United Nations Office of the High
Commission for Human Rights
Ismail M. (2003). Facts and Challenging of Desalination in the Gaza Strip. PWA.
(Arabic Version). Gaza. 2003, pp. 13-17.
Krishna, H. J., (1989). Virgin Islands Water Resources Conference, Proc. Editor,
University of the Virgin Islands and U.S. Geological Survey.
L. Lovei, E. Gurenko, M. Haney, P. O’Keefe and M. Shkaratan (2000), “Maintaining
utility services for the poor, policies and practices in central and eastern Europe and
the former Soviet Union”, May, World Bank, Washington DC.
Mack E.A. and S. Wrase (2017), A Burgeoning Crisis? A Nationwide Assessment of
the Geography of Water Affordability in the United States, PLoS ONE12(1):
e0169488. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169488
María Molinos-Senante, Guillermo Donoso. (2016), Water scarcity and affordability
in urban water pricing: A case study of Chile.
Miniaci, R., Scarpa, C., Valbonesi, P., (2008a). Measuring the affordability of public
utility services in Italy. Giornale degli Economisti ed Annali di Economia, 185–
230
Moi, (2018). “Palestinian Ministry of Interior- Gaza strip https://moi.gov.ps/
OCHA. United nation office for the coordination of humanitarian affairs. (2019). it
available from this website: https://www.ochaopt.org/page/gaza-strip-
electricity-supply
109
OECD, 2003. Social Issues in the Provision and Pricing of Water Services. OECD,
Paris.
OECD, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development., (2010).
Managing Water for All: An OECD perspective on pricing and financing,
Chapter 3: The Central Role of Tariffs, p. 73-94,
Palestinian Water Authority (PWA). (2012). Drinking water in Gaza strip Reality and
Solutions.
PCBS. (2014). The report of Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics of the year of
2014
PCBS. (2015). The report of Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics of the year of
2015
PCBS. (2016). The report of Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics of the year of
2016
PCBS. (2017). The report of Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics of the year of
2017
Reynaud. A. (2006). Assessing the impact of public regulation and private
participation on water affordability for poor households: An empirical
investigation of the French case
Salman N. (2012). "The effectiveness of antiscalants when used on multistage flash
distillers", Available from Sheffield Hallam University Research Archive
(SHURA) http://shura.shu.ac.uk/19265/1/10694145.pdf
Sebri, M. (2015). Use renewables to be cleaner: Meta-analysis of the renewable energy
consumption-economic growth nexus, Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, 42, 657-665.
SISS. (2014). Annual Report about Water and Wastewater Services in Chile. available
in this website:
www.siss.gob.cl/577/articles-11831_recurso_1.pdf. accessed on 02.02.16.
Smets, H. De l’eau potable à un prix abordable. (2009). Paris: Johanet. 12. White, G.,
D. Bradley, and A. White, Drawers of water: domestic water use in East Africa.
1972. The University of Chicago Press.
Smets, H. Quantifying the affordability standard, in The Human Right to Water:
Theory, Practice and Prospects. (2012). Cambridge University Press.
Smith, Juliet Christian, Carolina Balazs, Matthew Heberger,Karl Longley. (2013).
Assessing water Affordability, a Pilot Study in Two Regions of California.
available in this website:
http://www.pacinst.org/publication/assessing-water-affordability/
Subdere. (2015). Population in Chilean Regions. available in this website:
www.subdere.cl/ organizaci%C3%B3n/divisi%C3%B3n-de-administraci%C3%B3n-
y-finanzas. accessed on 02.02.16.
SWDP. (2017). Final report for sea water desalination plant in the year of 2017
110
Taei., Hussein I., (2012), How to determine the sample size. College of Physical
Education, University of Baghdad.
Tim Goedemé, Bérénice Storms, Karel Van den Bosch. (2015). Developing a
common methodology on reference budgets in Europe, available in this
website: https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=14048&langId=en
TWB. (2018). Economic Monitoring Report to the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee
http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/westbankandgaza/publication/economic-
monitoring-report-ahlc
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. (2003). Desalting Handbook
for Planners, 3rd Edition.
UNDP report., (2017). Three Years After the 2014 Gaza Hostilities Beyond
Survival: Challenges to Economic Recovery and Long-Term Development.
UNDP, (2014). Fast facts: The Gaza Strip – Facts. Available on this site:
http://www.ps.undp.org/content/dam/papp/docs/Publications/UNDP-papp-
focus-crisis-GazaFF082014.pdf
UNICEF. (2006). The Human Right to Water and Sanitation, available in this
website:
http://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/pdf/human_right_to_water_and_sanitatio
n_me dia_brief.pdf
United Nations, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR),
United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT), World Health
Organization (WHO). (2010). The Right to Water, Fact Sheet No. 35.
http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/FactSheet35en.pdf
USGS. (2012). Science for technical world available in this site:
http://waterwatch.usgs.gov/wqwatch/ [18-11-2012, last date accessed].
Velody, M., Cain, M.J. G., & Philips, M. (2003). A regional review of social safety
net approaches in support of energy sector reform. Washington, DC: US
Agency for International Development (PDF) The European Energy Divide.
Available in this website:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322040802_The_European_Energy_
Divide [accessed Sep 14 2018].
Wafa News Agency. (2016). Number of populations in Rafah city, submitted from this
website http://info.wafa.ps/atemplate.aspx?id=7381
Watan agency for news., (2018). Available in this website:
https://www.wattan.tv/ar/news/255631.html
Water Reuse Association Desalination Committee. (2012). Seawater Desalination
Costs. available in this website:
https://watereuse.org/wp/content/uploads/2015/10/WateReuse_Desal_Cost_W
hite_Paper.pdf
Weather. (2012). A web site for Palestine weather. available in this website:
http://palweather.ps/ar/node/monthly-bulletins.
WHO. (2016). http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/gdwq3rev/ar/
111
World Bank. (2011). Chile: Diagn_ostico de la gesti_on de los recursos hídricos (No.
63392). Available at: water.worldbank.org/node/83999. accessed on 02.02.16.
World health organization. (2011). A technical note on drinking-water, sanitation and
hygiene in emergencies. submitted from this web site:
http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/2011/tn9_how_much
_water_en.pdf
Yunes Mogheir, Ahmad A. Foul, A.A. Abu Habib, A.W. Mohammad. (2013).
Assessment of large-scale brackish water desalination plants in the Gaza Strip,
journal of Science Direct.
112
Appendixes
Appendix 1
Table (1) Comparison of the quantity of water produced from a desalination plants
as planned with the current situation in Rafah city
Desalination plant
seawater desalination plant Brackish desalination plant
UNICIF
D.plant
small
D.plant
Ibn
Taymea
Produce Produce
250m3/h 50m3/h 50m3/d 50m3/h
work 8 hour per day (assumption)
total production/day for Rafah total production/day
3000m3 400 m3 200m3 400 m3
total production/Month
90,0000 m3 30,000m3
The result is there is a Quantity cover the needs of water
The current situation in Rafah city
work less than 40 hour /week work less than 40 hour per week
Total production/Day
17,000 m3(15000 from wells and 1500 from brackish and 300 from sea water
and 50 from small plants )
There is percentage of loss (30-40%)
Total quantity distributing/Month
12000-14000 m3
The quantity required is 25000 m3
The quantity of deficit is approximately 12000m3
Per capita of this quantity is less than 65 liter per day
Per capita water according to WHO standards is 110-120 liters per day
113
Table (2): Data about the wells in Rafah city (MCWU)
Generator
Capacity
(KVA)
Pump
Capacity
(HP)
Subscription
value
(AMP)
Production
Quantity(m3/h)
Name #
220 75 100 80 P15 1
250 150 250 180 P124 2
200 50 100 55 P138 3
83 75 100 70 P139 4
300 150 250 180 P144 5
250 100 200 70 P145 6
220 75 200 90 P148 7
220 72 200 90 P153 8
220 50 0 50 P164 9
110 75 100 70 Elsekka 10
110 75 100 50 Al-safa 11
110 50 63 60 El-dherat 12
88 40 63 50 W1 13
88 40 100 50 W2 14
88 40 63 50 W3 15
110 40 100 60 TRC1 16
88 50 100 60 RTC2 17
88 40 0 50 TRC3 18
110 40 63 70 TIKA well 19
114
Table (3): Data about consumption of diesel and electricity and production of wells
in Rafah city. (MCWU)
Water
productio
n(m3)
genera
tor
operat
ion
hours
Pump
operat
ion
hours
Consum
ption of
chlorine
(l)
Electrici
ty
consum
ption
(kw)
Consu
mption
of diesel
(liters)
Supply
of
diesel
(liters)
Name
133112 0 4269 2400 126443 0 0 P15
472187 894 6548 11500 408545 25245 19455 P124
198299 361 5128 6000 179766 5044 2000 P138
1098 0 32 50 1016 0 0 P139
285497 745 5639 11700 229527 22350 15536 P144
219365 1419 6091 6000 147821 33214 24820 P145
576743 900 5404 11500 525519 19800 13620 P148
231253 1147 5490 11700 172682 25234 15000 P153
1236751 0 7310 5900 0 84980 63342 P164
441894 270 5174 5700 423700 4050 3000 Elsekka
114438 48 3247 4850 105573 720 0 Al-safa
260284 0 5956 6000 248328 0 0 Eldhrat
101338 690 5418 5900 78240 8230 2860 W1
130019 1663 6416 5400 90028 21012 5500 W2
55897 329 5050 500 45221 4297 500 W3
38323 1237 6152 5900 0 17934 7100 TRC1
188201 904 5378 5900 156874 11645 7500 TRC2
14824 309 4771 6000 0 3744 0 TRC3
115
150789 105 4771 5900 138525 1488 0 TIKA
Table (4): Data for reservoirs in Rafah city (MCWU).
Generator
Capacity
Pump
Capacity
Subscription
value (AMP)
Amount of
Production(m3/h)
Name
500 480 800 -
Ground
Tank
400 480 630 -
Canada
Tank
400 630 600 - Saudi Tank
275 300 630 - Meraj Tank
116
Table (5): Production of wells and desalination plants in the year of 2011 in Rafah city
TOTAL ديسمبر نوفمبر اكتوبر سبتمبر اغسطس يوليو يونيو مايو ابريل مارس فبراير يناير اسم المنشأه م
1 P15 0 0 520 27600 21100 24400 22000 11600 8857 5543 0 600 122220
2 P124 82000 87100 90700 84400 86300 75100 79000 83100 75071 81829 86000 62200 972800
3 P138 33400 34200 36710 33320 22530 38100 40110 41260 38692 40188 41140 32960 432610
4 P139 13396 11706 15848 14206 17594 18901 21298 17290 17180 18051 14676 12853 192999
5 P144 122035 93744 105900 95175 122300 117700 120500 122500 111571 118629 128000 104400 1362454
6 P145 44661 39312 40754 30842 37414 34507 49323 44271 40583 42741 44578 37970 486956
7 P148 45260 43540 45830 47590 47370 53200 49640 49930 45242 48558 47260 55200 578620
8 P153 42640 39520 46030 58810 45501 34140 63900 69190 64542 66318 57120 31860 619571
9 P164 30170 30630 37390 32770 36920 34140 37780 37910 33792 35018 35080 28700 410300
594170 36120 55310 54086 49264 60960 51430 46550 56120 56640 44810 43620 39260 السكة 10
300264 20864 23832 24581 22367 23472 14826 26712 32840 32790 28730 22380 26870 الصفا 11
434610 40060 34950 43939 38821 51660 42700 38470 36760 36470 26120 21440 23220 الضهيرات 12
13 W1 23532 19736 19590 24849 29987 23327 23483 22069 24135 27809 28153 21092 287762
14 W2 25640 29100 32720 36320 34960 34070 28960 26430 30742 36358 31346 35150 381796
15 W3 21820 24671 20528 25255 33506 30083 21614 17731 22445 30426 33136 28194 309409
16 TRC1 13402 5818 10115 10190 10370 14080 21400 29210 27714 38496 42570 38150 261515
17 RTC2 9280 9202 11058 8459 9790 16510 21160 21890 17735 10845 12050 28500 176479
18 TRC3 6440 5880 13190 8910 0 8024 5900 15180 0 20 20 0 63564
63440 8790 10140 7080 1400 4120 4090 4190 4090 4880 4760 4030 5870 محطة التحلية 19
608896 565629 631303 669476 685452 672204 719114 749773 670153 730515 725361 623663 8051539
117
Table (6): Production of wells and desalination plants in the year of 2012 in Rafah city
TOTAL ديسمبر نوفمبر اكتوبر سبتمبر اغسطس يوليو يونيو مايو ابريل مارس فبراير يناير اسم المنشأه م
1 P15 0 3900 4900 10800 11400 3600 11200 8200 32400 34300 43300 25100 189100
2 P124 70900 58600 58400 54400 50100 53800 73200 111800 111200 103600 120300 101300 967600
3 P138 37580 34590 31640 35430 24380 28330 35870 29210 34550 28120 32050 30050 381800
4 P139 13869 13440 11759 13986 15252 17335 19345 16577 16761 15178 14376 4454 172332
5 P144 99000 84300 102600 102800 119796 128000 106200 71400 99200 72900 93500 84400 1164096
6 P145 44660 44556 35070 42000 37260 41344 42199 43721 36440 26538 33331 34184 461303
7 P148 48500 52650 36260 61820 39840 52400 58830 40930 44750 39890 44660 39850 560380
8 P153 49680 38502 37668 44900 47340 51880 62680 56380 49480 59640 47530 38210 583890
9 P164 22510 21570 22050 25390 28320 32130 29280 19660 19740 22250 13850 25280 282030
546088 38920 46580 48110 48390 53720 53160 48210 45860 39360 40500 32538 50740 السكة 10
251159 26553 20443 24724 20395 22034 21997 9864 18341 19713 19043 21831 26221 الصفا 11
472090 34720 38340 35480 35390 39380 46590 41830 51650 44590 35700 34440 33980 الضهيرات 12
13 W1 22496 19657 17322 23895 22502 23227 25432 19452 19073 19955 22166 15813 250990
14 W2 31410 26030 26820 36940 34090 36940 34040 26300 24640 27800 31190 26570 362770
15 W3 26494 23064 19731 20003 23351 25649 26754 24021 22498 25498 23854 22832 283749
16 TRC1 28520 30380 23000 25330 28740 26940 26890 24030 29220 27250 26800 30590 327690
17 RTC2 25950 13900 15840 21990 24170 14920 19970 22760 24780 21031 27069 21540 253920
18 TRC3 0 190 62 0 0 80 13580 26310 25370 28600 42700 26160 163052
19 TIKA 950 1440 3800 5730 2210 2030 8320 24860 33330 32830 42390 31940 189830
20
محطه تحليه
الشعوت
7540 8610 7340 5910 10010 12560 14050 16010 12610 15650 6810 8040
125140
21
محطة تحليه
البرازيلNO NO NO NO NO
6470 3600 4270 5320 10540 3940 5480
39620
641000 564188 549505 634987 634612 657539 733187 701025 745537 719884 775179 671986 8028629
118
Table (7): Production of wells and desalination plants in the year of 2013 in Rafah city
TOTAL ديسمبر نوفمبر اكتوبر سبتمبر اغسطس يوليو يونيو مايو ابريل مارس فبراير يناير اسم المنشأه م
1 P15 25100 22000 32900 32800 36300 34500 40600 27100 27200 40500 35400 20300 374700
2 P124 102800 87600 104500 115400 124400 116200 131700 141100 121400 126300 124800 105000 1401200
3 P138 23580 26060 30770 29800 32890 31980 31090 26050 22180 33860 26450 22360 337070
4 P139 0 0 0 90 0 2896 1300 488 13745 0 2777 1750 23046
5 P144 81500 62500 77100 73300 78800 87900 86000 94900 68300 90400 75900 67000 943600
6 P145 31191 24146 34773 38700 36252 36794 30581 26340 23123 39437 27190 13569 362096
7 P148 30990 32980 40230 35160 43470 45840 48930 44900 36940 49270 40130 34570 483410
8 P153 42290 42010 51130 49650 52210 54250 55040 57400 47220 60820 50110 43100 605230
9 P164 25570 20170 22740 22250 27820 29810 33150 33160 27560 30600 25580 25480 323890
512320 17280 38210 44530 36190 40880 40620 49270 48950 53720 52020 46810 43840 السكة 10
270563 28652 12907 19301 19763 23620 23166 23581 25884 24529 25210 23297 20653 الصفا 11
439900 29880 32520 35120 32540 43530 32380 42840 31370 45220 48830 34270 31400 الضهيرات 12
13 W1 11529 17433 22769 22046 20072 21881 21619 22905 23010 28463 19349 20344 251420
14 W2 26230 25680 28960 25480 23500 25240 24530 32370 39180 45340 34990 35430 366930
15 W3 21497 20704 23751 21638 22777 21911 21553 24256 23886 28441 20609 19435 270458
16 TRC1 23070 25860 31000 31820 32100 30510 30480 28630 31380 31830 23270 24250 344200
17 RTC2 19370 19100 26440 26620 27260 26990 25350 16450 25560 28110 23480 20420 285150
18 TRC3 22060 20840 25550 28480 26220 24200 20740 16580 15870 22570 19980 16600 259690
TIKA 27270 37710 46340 46150 53510 41910 46920 44770 41430 44240 39750 32340 502340
محطه تحليه
الشعوت
11870 8010 9530 9380 13570 10350 15970 15160 15780 11200 11410 10200
142430
19
محطة تحليه
البرازيل
3640 4930 2050 2870 10620 8220 7820 7320 9950 8360 19340 11570
96690
625450 602110 736593 735103 767975 767073 769539 767909 702207 818692 704152 599530 8596333
119
Table (8): Production of wells and desalination plants in the year of 2014 in Rafah city
TOTAL ديسمبر نوفمبر اكتوبر سبتمبر اغسطس يوليو يونيو مايو ابريل مارس فبراير يناير اسم المنشأه م
1 P15 18000 17200 17700 27700 34900 32800 34550 34550 33800 26700 26650 27400 331950
2 P124 117300 114200 113500 130900 130300 128500 123200 111200 113300 102900 69300 85700 1340300
3 P138 25970 27300 31510 29900 30460 29940 21840 29200 30530 34810 30610 29500 351570
4 P139 0 0 0 0 0 2031 0 0 400 0 0 160 2591
5 P144 69700 71900 74200 77200 80000 89600 93600 98500 102900 111600 90900 91000 1051100
6 P145 30350 29780 31430 30130 29330 30020 30810 31640 27940 37000 51750 27230 387410
7 P148 40720 41820 38060 41890 47450 46090 33360 27920 43130 44710 43030 42190 490370
8 P153 46040 48080 50640 56990 52860 30120 55250 55400 52730 58360 53620 50070 610160
9 P164 24800 24120 26896 28940 28410 33440 31400 32200 34990 31290 29220 29740 355446
562160 48390 53990 53750 44700 44100 44100 43960 51250 48180 50450 40430 38860 السكة 10
143841 10269 10827 0 447 5482 5481 16782 21963 18906 27867 16320 9497 الصفا 11
438380 21380 23270 40830 42780 39190 39190 38480 43150 49480 36050 31410 33170 الضهيرات 12
13 W1 12779 12765 18523 21857 22351 30460 30947 0 35152 34682 23600 20900 264016
14 W2 22410 27340 33840 31500 35280 34320 28860 28470 27740 30410 33690 28210 362070
15 W3 16129 15684 19036 23409 21514 27343 23068 21350 29129 25433 20189 17709 259993
16 TRC1 26820 24890 25350 23640 29260 27410 26060 25790 33570 33410 28220 30400 334820
17 RTC2 21440 16510 27450 13000 33670 29220 21315 21315 35110 37810 30140 31930 318910
18 TRC3 21270 18760 21400 19400 20210 20890 6110 11450 20930 24260 20940 19470 225090
TIKA 35820 39130 42940 39570 40920 38700 40690 43800 45290 49340 43630 34700 494530
134470 8900 11100 11640 12900 16620 17410 10740 12000 9350 6190 8600 9020 الشعوتمحطه تحليه
130610 10180 7650 13080 13500 12000 18560 15220 9330 12970 11070 590 6460 محطة تحليه البرازيل 19
626555 626829 704102 734912 774608 756066 725801 690177 780968 802015 702326 665428 8589787
120
Table (9): Production of wells and desalination plants in the year of 2015 in Rafah city
TOTAL ديسمبر نوفمبر اكتوبر سبتمبر اغسطس يوليو يونيو مايو ابريل مارس فبراير يناير اسم المنشأه م
1 P15 28900 10600 27600 27600 40000 29200 43100 35100 43500 29100 22100 21600 358400
2 P124 88700 54600 67600 67300 63000 64000 61500 86500 72100 73300 71400 66100 836100
3 P138 27430 23290 21880 23780 31530 29260 27780 21610 21320 27590 26280 26400 308150
4 P139 0 0 0 0 0 773 181 1991 0 0 0 0 2945
5 P144 80500 74800 82100 81300 106100 117300 115400 93400 88000 79000 70700 74000 1062600
6 P145 25790 22260 27040 35000 44350 50330 48700 40300 38030 41630 32540 34010 439980
7 P148 44810 36050 31710 31940 44650 46710 41990 43010 37730 41630 30250 34910 465390
8 P153 46410 37350 45160 46020 30050 38690 45440 43240 43910 39690 43300 37630 496890
9 P164 28850 2290 29610 29400 32670 33110 32520 30810 27440 49280 28400 29900 354280
378510 30590 35000 29740 26720 25150 28010 34770 32780 26640 27670 39980 41460 السكة 10
181634 19968 20687 35000 17536 10575 12131 11311 14213 17245 8483 878 13607 الصفا 11
369673 16550 18630 20643 41590 36320 43420 42040 36230 34010 34960 20680 24600 الضهيرات 12
13 W1 25382 23069 24451 16688 26707 28463 29866 30061 14927 31100 17048 24453 292215
14 W2 34520 30260 33470 29310 41780 40490 39010 43500 44310 23014 31640 33720 425024
15 W3 25322 22025 25620 15316 21947 19276 16936 17180 16104 30270 20580 9166 239742
16 TRC1 28400 26210 24140 27880 30680 63100 39840 31760 27540 22100 27490 26740 375880
17 RTC2 27970 26760 26520 21900 33420 43230 36930 17660 12360 29790 30976 25460 332976
18 TRC3 17870 15890 15190 18650 18290 15850 15270 10620 10740 23250 14100 11450 187170
TIKA 34760 24150 25920 28380 39540 41310 33740 29300 29510 16060 39310 33670 375650
189090 9310 15440 43830 14560 14680 14920 22690 15850 10880 10470 8850 7610 محطه تحليه الشعوت
215630 4280 17280 38310 36410 19890 21900 14450 18310 18900 11340 8900 5660 محطة تحليه البرازيل 19
658551 508892 600934 608139 722097 786353 748584 682657 664337 724327 613151 569907 7887929
121
Table (10): Production of wells and desalination plants in the year of 2016in Rafah city
TOTAL ديسمبر نوفمبر اكتوبر سبتمبر اغسطس يوليو يونيو مايو ابريل مارس فبراير يناير اسم المنشأه م
1 P15 14900 32500 26900 22200 28500 25100 25500 30300 38430 24300 24400 22200 315230
2 P124 111780 112520 114050 123130 143180 115410 116570 103110 122260 105591 73566 65760 1306927
3 P138 18330 24130 25800 28960 20760 19970 21960 32850 36350 24120 19690 23440 296360
4 P139 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 P144 88900 84900 80000 83800 99700 90000 90900 85600 99400 101400 99200 85000 1088800
6 P145 29260 32300 35550 36310 42240 39870 38780 36560 33740 23200 25210 18510 391530
7 P148 21240 27540 38220 30350 35600 43050 44790 49050 48450 46200 46320 45400 476210
8 P153 22870 34380 35350 27710 34360 46040 47040 59170 55980 46950 42170 53080 505100
9 P164 30250 26150 26750 29250 31650 30100 31400 27750 26940 26810 26060 27660 340770
10 Al Seka 21350 22260 26820 27010 27860 20250 24370 22610 23920 21880 22300 22140 282770
11 Al Safa 16232 19144 13700 11688 12095 13618 8628 15009 14728 17062 14850 10976 167730
12 Al ethhirate 19010 23040 25080 25270 38840 30480 34010 39370 39390 24780 23000 17820 340090
13 W1 15915 20164 26335 28145 26422 29121 34272 35781 26699 19413 9596 19497 291360
14 W2 21800 25980 25500 24600 25980 30740 34650 34000 31850 30300 31320 24800 341520
15 W3 4093 5446 8124 6795 9779 17813 16875 19607 20301 24618 27904 21353 182708
16 TRC1 18950 27500 27580 30860 39500 33010 31560 31090 32560 34390 42920 30310 380230
17 TRC2 21530 29880 28350 25240 31530 21890 28970 28380 33345 17650 23760 20520 311045
18 TRC3 12710 16600 15420 13230 17970 9810 11880 14310 16410 16410 18920 15680 179350
19 Tika 27820 29590 34550 29540 32450 22640 24730 18810 28090 33450 34960 30950 347580
20 D P No.1 13850 15450 15510 23500 16250 20280 26463 25126 31620 31680 27230 27080 274039
21 D P No.2 220 3130 10500 13470 38290 3200 19000 32000 29620 23840 20970 5360
531010 612604 640089 641058 752956 662392 712348 740483 790083 694044 654346 587536 7819349
122
Table (11): Production of wells and desalination plants in the year of 2017 in Rafah city
TOTAL ديسمبر نوفمبر اكتوبر سبتمبر اغسطس يوليو يونيو مايو ابريل مارس فبراير يناير اسم المنشأه م
1 P15 22600 21000 22200 25400 16500 24300 19000 16500 21100 21300 14100 20600 244600
2 P124 104050 95160 114670 111150 99020 122520 119130 125970 125820 127920 114880 113200 1373490
3 P138 24220 28580 32680 27680 27440 24820 22970 20880 20440 18720 18110 13600 280140
4 P139 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 P144 86500 86200 93400 91500 89800 89600 90700 89900 75300 77300 72300 60200 1002700
6 P145 25620 26340 31790 28590 29640 30600 30180 28940 27150 22320 32370 25700 339240
7 P148 42570 43770 49210 39020 31310 34830 24310 24540 32250 24730 12280 0 358820
8 P153 48910 49880 56470 49630 50120 60470 61940 54850 57980 52710 52720 53090 648770
9 P164 28250 23960 26330 25480 24240 26140 28880 27300 24770 19870 41700 28460 325380
10 Al Seka 21200 22310 23300 20590 16610 17560 18200 16630 16820 13040 18690 17970 222920
11 Al Safa 15639 12153 14848 9450 6808 9850 11229 15443 13761 17028 15984 10776 152969
12 Al ethhirate 15120 20200 26550 28690 34060 39950 37680 37990 36230 33030 26190 25710 361400
13 W1 10251 13114 17837 15912 18405 19133 21989 23294 10859 11011 11884 14342 188031
14 W2 28020 20000 29380 31283 35035 36202 40271 33427 34938 33271 22466 23198 367491
15 W3 10367 897 10144 12703 12037 12603 8869 12448 16715 17631 16617 25349 156380
16 TRC1 30200 25220 23130 31630 27900 27320 37060 36490 30400 32120 21410 20400 343280
17 TRC2 10440 18000 25000 6070 33730 23532 36619 35368 33354 37198 23174 17413 299898
18 TRC3 13130 15530 16900 13420 12100 15080 16900 17040 15670 18390 14100 14010 182270
19 Tika 26210 27630 31910 29480 23110 25790 28200 26070 24360 27930 27620 24370 322680
20 D P No.1 16698 14094 15559 13607 10279 12759 11459 13811 21064 24232 24686 19330 197578
21 D P No.2 1220 270 2120 8210 21880 29460 22340 37310 12740 26630 17540 15260 194980
22 UNDP 43588 28322 24402 28629 30626 29310 37948 40136 37823 38532 39630 25874 404820
624803 592630 687830 648124 650650 711829 725874 734337 689544 694913 638451 568852 7967837
123
Table (12): Water quantity Consumption last years in Rafah city
years/Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Ayg Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL
2011 362754 350755 385274 438783 372595 390994 416114 415575 406288 448164 402514 403748 4793558
2012 383222 381344 389832 379216 328906 363864 401887 396477 385908 494205 456564 441109 4802534
2013 443494 404806 424170 410401 423120 441532 560899 446302 536924 479670 574051 432356 5577725
2014 408952 396255 412389 391767 435136 420627 445554 445057 445114 494419 488336 472536 5256142
2015 460768 389641 393620 388607 409473 396071 394803 401002 650594 475805 461654 454176 5276214
2016 401276 416013 418550 456966 442777 475902 467327 519908 497392 502377 497342 480052 5575882
2017 465755 447143 444377 426758 412900 386479 397988 389228 545888 555559 485251 454586 5411912
124
Table (13): The Cost of Production of Cubic Meter of Water from Brackish Desalination Plants and Water Wells if 100% powered by
Electricity (CMWU,2018d)
30000 m3
1 Staff Cost 4 Material
fixed cost
Unit Cost $
1,1 Operator (1) 4,1 membranes 1 1000.00
1,2 Electrician (Part
time)
4,2 spare parts 1 500.00
1,3 Mechanic -part
time
4,3 Water
analysis
1 200.00
1,4 Guards (2) 4,4 Repair &
maintenance
1 500.00
Total Total 2200.00
Specific staff
cost ($/m3)
Specific
material
fixed cost
2 Power and fuel
cost
Qty Cost $ 5 miscellaneou
s fixed costs
Unit Cost $
2,1 Power
consumption Kw/h
52,500.00 8,750.00 5,1 comm.&
Computers
1 40.00
5,2 Insurance 1 250.00
5,3 Fees 1 150.00
Total 8,750.00 Total 440.00
Specific Power &
fuel cost ($/m3)
Specific
miscellaneou
s fixed cost
($/m3)
3 Chemicals Cost Qty Cost $ 2 Other
Expenses
Unit Cost $
3,1 Antiscalant Kg 135.00 472.50 2,1 Hospitality 1 100.00
3,2 Sodium
Hypochlorite Kg
150.00 82.50 2,2
3,3 Sodium
metabisulfite Kg
2,3
3,4 Hydrochloric Acid
Kg
72.73 47.27
3,5 Caustic Soda
Kg
72.00 43.20
Total 645.47 Total 100.00
Specific
Chemical cost
($/m3)
Specific
Other
Expenses
Cost ($/m3)
0.47 14,235.47
1.76 51,247.70
KWh/m3 1.75
KWhr NIS 0.6
US$ NIS 3.6
TOT. PRODUCTION COST [$/m3] TOT. MONTHLY COST [$]
TOT. PRODUCTION COST [NIS /m3] TOT. MONTHLY COST [NIS ]
100% Powered by Electricity
0.29 0.01
0.02 0.003
0.07 0.07
2,2 Fuel consumption
(Liter)
Salary $
800.00
200.00
200.00
900.00
2,100.00
Brackish water Desalination Plants - COST ANALYSIS
Expected monthly Total production
No. Description No. Description
125
Table (127): The Cost of Production of Cubic Meter of Water from Brackish Desalination Plants and Water Wells if 50% powered by
Electricity and 50% by Diesel Fuel (CMWU,2017d)
30000 m3
1 Staff Cost 4 Material
fixed cost
Unit Cost $
1,1 Operator (1) 4,1 membranes 1 1000.00
1,2 Electrician (Part
time)
4,2 spare parts 1 500.00
1,3 Mechanic -part
time
4,3 Water
analysis
1 200.00
1,4 Guards (2) 4,4 Repair &
maintenance
1 500.00
Total Total 2200.00
Specific staff
cost ($/m3)
Specific
material
fixed cost
2 Power and fuel
cost
Qty Cost $ 5 miscellaneou
s fixed costs
Unit Cost $
2,1 Power
consumption Kw/h
26,250.00 4,375.00 5,1 comm.&
Computers
1 40.00
5,2 Insurance 1 250.00
5,3 Fees 1 150.00
Total 14,218.75 Total 440.00
Specific Power &
fuel cost ($/m3)
Specific
miscellaneou
s fixed cost
($/m3)
3 Chemicals Cost Qty Cost $ 2 Other
Expenses
Unit Cost $
3,1 Antiscalant Kg 135.00 472.50 2,1 Hospitality 1 100.00
3,2 Sodium
Hypochlorite Kg
150.00 82.50 2,2
3,3 Sodium
metabisulfite Kg
2,3
3,4 Hydrochloric Acid
Kg
72.73 47.27
3,5 Caustic Soda
Kg
72.00 43.20
Total 645.47 Total 100.00
Specific
Chemical cost
($/m3)
Specific
Other
Expenses
Cost ($/m3)
0.66 19,704.22
2.43 70,935.20
KWh/m3 1.75
US$/liter -diesel fuel 1.50
KWhr NIS 0.6
US$ NIS 3.6
Operation Scheme: 50% by Electricty &50% by Diesel Fuel
TOT. PRODUCTION COST [NIS /m3] TOT. MONTHLY COST [NIS ]
0.02 0.003
TOT. PRODUCTION COST [$/m3] TOT. MONTHLY COST [$]
0.47 0.01
0.07 0.07
2,2 Fuel consumption
(Liter)
6,562.50 9,843.75
200.00
900.00
2,100.00
Salary $
800.00
200.00
Brackish water Desalination Plants - COST ANALYSIS
Expected monthly Total production
No. Description No. Description
126
Table (15): GDP and Unemployment in Palestine in the past years
2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 السنة/ قيمة الناتج
االجمالي
8037 7719.3 7463.4 7477 7314.8 6,882.30 Palestine
6084.9 5906.1 5754.3 5464.3 5409 5101.2 West Bank
1952.1 1813.2 1709.1 2012.7 1905.8 1781.1 Gaza Strip
السنة / معدل البطالة 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
فلسطين 21.8 23.5 23.8 27.2 26.1 27.1
الضفة الغربية 18.4 19.7 19 18 17.5 18.3
قطاع غزة 28.70 31.00 32.60 43.9 41 41.7
السنة / في قطاع غزة 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
61.7 61.9 64 63.3 64.3 61.6 Nominal wages
59.3 59 62.1 63.1 63.6 61.2 Real wages
127
Table (16): Data about Reservoirs in Rafah city
General Data Physical Data Streamflow Data
Name Zone Construction Year Shape Volume (m3) High (m) Water Resourse Flow
Destination
UNDPخزان تل
السلطان2014 circle 3000 8 P148,P144,TRC1,TRC2,TRC3 700m3/h
الخزان السعوديتل
السلطان2007 circle 2500 7 W1,W2,W3,UNRWA Well,P153 350m3/h
TRC - 2011 circle 3000 8 TRC3,P148,P145 650m3/h
650m3/h الخزان السعودي ، خزان تل السلطان circle 2000 6 1970 منطقة البلد 1خزان يبنا
- - circle 4000 7 1997 منطقة البلد 2خزان يبنا
- - circle 300 40 -197 - خزان مصبح )موازنة(
خزان مشروع
عامر)موازنة(- 1997 circle 300 24 - -
128
Table (17): Data about water public water wells in Rafah city
اسم المنشأةانتاج البئر
m3/h قيمة االشتراك باالمبيرAmp HPقدره المضخة
قدره المولد
KVA
P15 80 100 75 220
P124 180 250 150 250
P138 55 100 50 200
P139 70 100 75 83
P144 180 250 150 300
P145 70 200 100 250
P148 90 200 75 220
P153 90 200 75 220
P164 50 0 50 220
110 75 100 70 السكة
110 75 100 50 الصفا
110 50 63 60 الضهيرات
W1 50 63 40 88
W2 50 100 40 88
W3 50 63 40 88
TRC1 60 100 40 110
RTC2 60 100 50 88
TRC3 50 0 40 88
TIKA 70 63 40 110بئر تيكا
محطة التحلية
75 250 70 الشعوت
220
محطة التحلية
75 250 70 البرازيل
200
UNDPبئر
500 480 800 - الخزان االرضي
400 480 630 - خزان كندا
400 630 600 - الخزان السعودي
275 300 630 - خزان ميراج
129
Table (18): Data about Seawater Desalination plant -Deer Elbalah city
3 Chemicals Cost Qty/year Cost $ Other Expenses Unit Cost $
3,1
Antiscalant Kg
11,120.00 3,243.33
Hospitality
1
500.00
3,2
Sodium
Hypochlorite Kg
33,500.00 1,535.42
3,3
Sodium
metabisulfite Kg
2,300.00 153.33
3,4
Ferric Chloride
Kg
14,700.00 857.50
3,5
Caustic Soda
Kg
12,900.00 591.25
3.6
Hydochloric Acid
33%
9,162.00 458.10
Total
6,380.83
Total
500.00
Specific Chemical
cost ($/m3)
0.04
Specific Other
Expenses Cost
($/m3)
0.003
TOT. PRODUCTION COST [$/m3]
0.80
TOT. MONTHLY COST [$]
143,779.96
TOT. PRODUCTION COST [NIS
/m3]
2.80
TOT. MONTHLY COST
[NIS ]
546,363.83
Kwhr NIS 0.6/Kwhr
NIS 3.5/US$
Diesel Fuel Cost US$ 1.22/Liter
3.7Kwhr /m3
Inlet water quality (sea water) TDS =39000ppm
Product Water Quality TDS < 200 ppm
130
Table (19): Data about Number of subscribers during past years
Number of subscriber during 1/2010 to 7/2018
Sub Month Sub Month Sub Month
16923 Mar-17 15056 Aug-13 11084 Jan-10
16941 Apr-17 14709 Sep-13 11054 Feb-10
16860 May-17 14985 Oct-13 11810 Mar-10
16969 Jun-17 15011 Nov-13 12892 Apr-10
17019 Jul-17 14960 Dec-13 12894 May-10
17051 Aug-17 14973 Jan-14 12955 Jun-10
17130 Sep-17 15007 Feb-14 12864 Jul-10
17333 Oct-17 15060 Mar-14 12915 Aug-10
17191 Nov-17 14981 Apr-14 12955 Sep-10
17173 Dec-17 15056 May-14 13027 Oct-10
17191 Jan-18 15113 Jun-14 12661 Nov-10
17106 Feb-18 15197 Jul-14 13002 Dec-10
17817 Mar-18 15260 Aug-14 13208 Jan-11
17271 Apr-18 15277 Sep-14 13216 Feb-11
17297 May-18 15327 Oct-14 12985 Mar-11
17385 Jun-18 15371 Nov-14 13275 Apr-11
17879 Jul-18 15477 Dec-14 13355 May-11
15585 Jan-15 13339 Jun-11
15617 Feb-15 13437 Jul-11
15678 Mar-15 13491 Aug-11
15746 Apr-15 13487 Sep-11
15832 May-15 13447 Oct-11
15861 Jun-15 13481 Nov-11
15936 Jul-15 13488 Dec-11
15956 Aug-15 13498 Jan-12
16086 Sep-15 13511 Feb-12
16165 Oct-15 13620 Mar-12
16311 Nov-15 13803 Apr-12
16381 Dec-15 13807 May-12
16471 Jan-16 13759 Jun-12
16491 Feb-16 13868 Jul-12
16563 Mar-16 13924 Aug-12
16580 Apr-16 14143 Sep-12
17711 May-16 14035 Oct-12
16891 Jun-16 14101 Nov-12
16902 Jul-16 14292 Dec-12
16887 Aug-16 14087 Jan-13
131
16900 Sep-16 14513 Feb-13
16936 Oct-16 14856 Mar-13
16962 Nov-16 14317 Apr-13
16928 Dec-16 14378 May-13
16947 Jan-17 14456 Jun-13
16973 Feb-17 14682 Jul-13
Table (5.28): The share of Monthly Water bills from Monthly Income for the
Household Respondents
The value
of Debts
they have
(NIS) Affordability
Index
monthly
income ($)
price of
m3 of
Drinking
water ($)
price of
m3 of
piped
water
($)
monthly
consumption
from
drinking
water(m3)
monthly
consumption
from piped
water(m3) N
# of
member
of
household Household
3500 0.027 416.7 7.6 0.139 1 25 4 1
2500 0.034 416.7 7.6 0.139 1.5 20 5 2
1000 0.038 416.7 7.6 0.139 1.5 30 7 3
3500 0.054 277.8 7.6 0.139 1.5 25 9 4
4000 0.043 277.8 7.6 0.139 1 30 11 5
3500 0.063 277.8 5.6 0.139 2.5 25 7 6
3500 0.036 416.7 7.6 0.139 1.5 25 12 7
4000 0.04 277.8 7.6 0.139 1 25 4 8
2500 0.036 416.7 7.6 0.139 1.5 25 9 9
3500 0.036 416.7 7.6 0.139 1.5 25 7 10
2500 0.023 694.4 7.6 0.278 1 30 3 11
1500 0.027 416.7 7.6 0.139 1 25 5 12
2500 0.016 694.4 7.6 0.139 1 25 5 13
3500 0.054 277.8 7.6 0.139 1.5 25 5 14
2500 0.046 277.8 6.3 0.139 1.5 25 11 15
2500 0.036 416.7 7.6 0.139 1.5 25 5 16
1500 0.029 416.7 6.3 0.139 1.5 20 3 17
1500 0.071 277.8 6.3 0.139 2.5 30 12 18
2500 0.036 416.7 7.6 0.139 1.5 25 6 19
2500 0.029 694.4 6.3 0.139 2.5 30 9 20
1500 0.046 277.8 6.3 0.139 1.5 25 5 21
1500 0.046 277.8 6.3 0.139 1.5 25 3 22
1000 0.029 416.7 6.3 0.139 1.5 20 4 23
1500 0.027 416.7 7.6 0.139 1 25 5 24
1500 0.049 277.8 6.3 0.139 1.5 30 8 25
3500 0.019 833.3 7.6 0.139 1.5 30 12 26
4000 0.04 277.8 7.6 0.139 1 25 5 27
1000 0.016 694.4 7.6 0.139 1 25 3 28
132
The value
of Debts
they have
(NIS) Affordability
Index monthly
income ($)
price of
m3 of
Drinking
water ($)
price of
m3 of
piped
water
($)
monthly
consumption
from
drinking
water(m3)
monthly
consumption
from piped
water(m3) N
# of
member
of
household Household
3500 0.043 277.8 7.6 0.139 1 30 8 29
4000 0.04 277.8 7.6 0.139 1 25 6 30
2500 0.029 694.4 7.6 0.278 1.5 30 7 31
3500 0.058 277.8 8.3 0.139 1.5 25 7 32
4000 0.058 277.8 7.6 0.278 1 30 3 33
3500 0.028 416.7 8.3 0.139 1 25 5 34
3500 0.024 833.3 7.6 0.278 1.5 30 10 35
1000 0.016 694.4 7.6 0.139 1 25 4 36
2500 0.027 416.7 7.6 0.139 1 25 5 37
3500 0.025 416.7 7.6 0.139 1 20 7 38
2500 0.015 694.4 7.6 0.139 1 20 4 39
3500 0.027 416.7 7.6 0.139 1 25 6 40
1000 0.023 694.4 7.6 0.278 1 30 2 41
4000 0.06 277.8 5.6 0.278 1.5 30 11 42
1000 0.016 694.4 7.6 0.139 1 25 6 43
2500 0.027 416.7 7.6 0.139 1 25 7 44
3500 0.038 416.7 7.6 0.139 1.5 30 9 45
1000 0.016 694.4 7.6 0.139 1 25 5 46
1000 0.019 833.3 8.3 0.139 1.5 25 8 47
2500 0.015 694.4 7.6 0.139 1 20 5 48
4000 0.024 833.3 7.6 0.278 1.5 30 11 49
2500 0.032 416.7 7.6 0.278 1 20 1 50
1500 0.043 277.8 5.6 0.139 1.5 25 9 51
2500 0.015 833.3 6.3 0.139 1.5 25 4 52
1000 0.028 694.4 6.3 0.139 2.5 25 4 53
1500 0.044 277.8 6.3 0.139 1.5 20 4 54
4000 0.022 416.7 5.6 0.139 1 25 4 55
1000 0.029 833.3 6.3 0.278 2.5 30 8 56
4000 0.019 694.4 6.3 0.139 1.5 25 3 57
4000 0.095 277.8 7.6 0.139 3 25 8 58
4000 0.04 694.4 8.3 0.139 3 20 14 59
4000 0.066 416.7 7.6 0.278 2.5 30 5 60
1000 0.069 277.8 6.3 0.139 2.5 25 10 61
1500 0.032 694.4 7.6 0.139 2.5 20 8 62
2500 0.046 277.8 6.3 0.139 1.5 25 5 63
4000 0.028 694.4 6.3 0.139 2.5 25 11 64
4000 0.028 694.4 6.3 0.139 2.5 25 12 65
4000 0.044 416.7 6.3 0.139 2.5 20 12 66
1000 0.046 277.8 6.3 0.139 1.5 25 8 67
133
The value
of Debts
they have
(NIS) Affordability
Index monthly
income ($)
price of
m3 of
Drinking
water ($)
price of
m3 of
piped
water
($)
monthly
consumption
from
drinking
water(m3)
monthly
consumption
from piped
water(m3) N
# of
member
of
household Household
4000 0.038 694.4 7.6 0.139 3 25 6 68
4000 0.063 416.7 7.6 0.139 3 25 10 69
4000 0.034 833.3 8.3 0.139 3 25 11 70
1000 0.043 277.8 5.6 0.139 1.5 25 9 71
2500 0.038 277.8 6.3 0.139 1 30 5 72
1500 0.026 694.4 6.3 0.278 1.5 30 4 73
4000 0.054 416.7 7.6 0.139 2.5 25 5 74
4000 0.046 277.8 6.3 0.139 1.5 25 10 75
4000 0.018 694.4 6.3 0.139 1.5 20 10 76
4000 0.064 277.8 6.3 0.278 1.5 30 11 77
4000 0.038 694.4 7.6 0.139 3 25 11 78
4000 0.033 694.4 7.6 0.139 2.5 25 4 79
4000 0.031 416.7 6.3 0.139 1.5 25 11 80
1000 0.012 833.3 6.3 0.139 1 25 7 81
4000 0.04 694.4 7.64 0.278 2.5 30 13 82
4000 0.02 833.3 5.56 0.278 1.5 30 7 83
3500 0.071 277.8 7.64 0.278 1.5 30 7 84
2500 0.031 416.7 6.25 0.139 1.5 25 8 85
4000 0.031 416.7 6.25 0.139 1.5 25 2 86
3500 0.064 277.8 6.25 0.278 1.5 30 6 87
3500 0.031 416.7 6.25 0.139 1.5 25 5 88
3500 0.021 694.4 6.25 0.278 1 30 10 89
4000 0.026 694.4 6.25 0.278 1.5 30 9 90
1000 0.033 277.8 5.56 0.139 1 25 6 91
4000 0.066 416.7 7.64 0.278 2.5 30 8 92
4000 0.042 694.4 8.33 0.278 2.5 30 7 93
4000 0.035 694.4 6.25 0.278 2.5 30 8 94
4000 0.066 416.7 7.64 0.278 2.5 30 9 95
4000 0.066 416.7 7.64 0.278 2.5 30 7 96
2500 0.058 416.7 6.25 0.278 2.5 30 5 97
1000 0.04 416.7 5.56 0.278 1.5 30 8 98
1500 0.064 277.8 6.25 0.278 1.5 30 7 99
1000 0.02 833.3 5.56 0.278 1.5 30 6 100
2500 0.043 416.7 6.25 0.278 1.5 30 5 101
1000 0.043 416.7 6.25 0.278 1.5 30 5 102
1000 0.031 416.7 6.25 0.139 1.5 25 8 103
1500 0.031 416.7 6.25 0.139 1.5 25 6 104
4000 0.029 694.4 5.56 0.139 3 25 8 105
2500 0.031 416.7 6.25 0.139 1.5 25 8 106
134
The value
of Debts
they have
(NIS) Affordability
Index monthly
income ($)
price of
m3 of
Drinking
water ($)
price of
m3 of
piped
water
($)
monthly
consumption
from
drinking
water(m3)
monthly
consumption
from piped
water(m3) N
# of
member
of
household Household
4000 0.035 694.4 6.25 0.278 2.5 30 7 107
2500 0.043 416.7 6.25 0.278 1.5 30 5 108
1500 0.043 416.7 6.25 0.278 1.5 30 8 109
1000 0.028 416.7 5.56 0.139 1.5 25 2 110
1000 0.054 277.8 7.64 0.139 1.5 25 5 111
1500 0.026 694.4 6.25 0.278 1.5 30 8 112
3500 0.035 416.7 6.25 0.278 1 30 5 113
1500 0.031 416.7 6.25 0.139 1.5 25 4 114
4000 0.064 277.8 6.25 0.278 1.5 30 11 115
1500 0.043 416.7 6.25 0.278 1.5 30 7 116
3500 0.086 277.8 6.25 0.278 2.5 30 5 117
1000 0.105 277.8 8.33 0.278 2.5 30 9 118
4000 0.014 694.4 6.25 0.139 1 25 5 119
4000 0.035 416.7 6.25 0.278 1 30 8 120
2500 0.043 416.7 6.25 0.278 1.5 30 8 121
3500 0.035 277.8 6.25 0.139 1 25 5 122
2500 0.053 277.8 6.25 0.278 1 30 7 123
1500 0.046 277.8 6.25 0.139 1.5 25 5 124
1000 0.021 833.3 6.25 0.278 1.5 30 7 125
1500 0.026 694.4 6.25 0.278 1.5 30 6 126
4000 0.019 694.4 6.25 0.139 1.5 25 5 127
2500 0.031 416.7 6.25 0.139 1.5 25 5 128
1000 0.021 833.3 6.25 0.278 1.5 30 5 129
2500 0.043 416.7 6.25 0.278 1.5 30 7 130
1000 0.044 416.7 6.25 0.139 2.5 20 2 131
2500 0.06 277.8 5.56 0.139 2.5 20 2 132
1000 0.058 416.7 6.25 0.278 2.5 30 9 133
4000 0.046 277.8 6.25 0.139 1.5 25 10 134
1000 0.026 694.4 6.25 0.278 1.5 30 5 135
1500 0.058 416.7 6.25 0.278 2.5 30 5 136
3500 0.026 694.4 6.25 0.278 1.5 30 8 137
1500 0.064 277.8 6.25 0.278 1.5 30 6 138
1500 0.035 694.4 6.25 0.278 2.5 30 6 139
2500 0.031 416.7 6.25 0.139 1.5 25 5 140
1500 0.031 416.7 6.25 0.139 1.5 25 4 141
1000 0.054 416.7 7.64 0.139 2.5 25 5 142
1000 0.014 694.4 6.25 0.139 1 25 5 143
1000 0.021 833.3 6.25 0.278 1.5 30 9 144
4000 0.043 416.7 6.25 0.278 1.5 30 7 145
135
The value
of Debts
they have
(NIS) Affordability
Index monthly
income ($)
price of
m3 of
Drinking
water ($)
price of
m3 of
piped
water
($)
monthly
consumption
from
drinking
water(m3)
monthly
consumption
from piped
water(m3) N
# of
member
of
household Household
1000 0.015 833.3 6.25 0.139 1.5 25 7 146
2500 0.058 416.7 6.25 0.278 2.5 30 11 147
4000 0.031 416.7 6.25 0.139 1.5 25 6 148
1000 0.026 694.4 6.25 0.278 1.5 30 11 149
1000 0.029 694.4 7.64 0.278 1.5 30 6 150
2500 0.033 277.8 5.56 0.139 1 25 4 151
1000 0.031 416.7 6.25 0.139 1.5 25 6 152
1500 0.026 694.4 6.25 0.278 1.5 30 5 153
3500 0.064 277.8 6.25 0.278 1.5 30 7 154
2500 0.043 416.7 6.25 0.278 1.5 30 6 155
1500 0.035 694.4 6.25 0.278 2.5 30 7 156
3500 0.046 277.8 6.25 0.139 1.5 25 4 157
2500 0.064 277.8 6.25 0.278 1.5 30 6 158
2500 0.026 694.4 6.25 0.278 1.5 30 5 159
4000 0.028 694.4 6.25 0.139 2.5 25 6 160
4000 0.09 277.8 5.56 0.278 3 30 7 161
1000 0.027 833.3 7.64 0.139 2.5 25 5 162
4000 0.028 694.4 6.25 0.139 2.5 25 6 163
2500 0.058 416.7 6.25 0.278 2.5 30 10 164
1500 0.031 416.7 6.25 0.139 1.5 25 5 165
1500 0.064 277.8 6.25 0.278 1.5 30 7 166
3500 0.075 416.7 7.64 0.278 3 30 8 167
1500 0.054 416.7 7.64 0.139 2.5 25 3 168
2500 0.031 416.7 6.25 0.139 1.5 25 4 169
4000 0.033 833.3 7.64 0.278 2.5 30 7 170
4000 0.04 694.4 7.64 0.278 2.5 30 10 171
3500 0.04 694.4 7.64 0.278 2.5 30 7 172
4000 0.033 694.4 7.64 0.139 2.5 25 4 173
4000 0.08 416.7 8.33 0.278 3 30 5 174
4000 0.08 416.7 8.33 0.278 3 30 11 175
4000 0.04 694.4 7.64 0.278 2.5 30 6 176
4000 0.04 694.4 7.64 0.278 2.5 30 9 177
4000 0.066 416.7 7.64 0.278 2.5 30 15 178
4000 0.017 694.4 8.33 0.139 1 25 4 179
4000 0.066 416.7 7.64 0.278 2.5 30 13 180
4000 0.04 694.4 7.64 0.278 2.5 30 4 181
4000 0.04 694.4 7.64 0.278 2.5 30 8 182
4000 0.058 416.7 6.25 0.278 2.5 30 10 183
4000 0.027 833.3 7.64 0.139 2.5 25 5 184
136
The value
of Debts
they have
(NIS) Affordability
Index monthly
income ($)
price of
m3 of
Drinking
water ($)
price of
m3 of
piped
water
($)
monthly
consumption
from
drinking
water(m3)
monthly
consumption
from piped
water(m3) N
# of
member
of
household Household
4000 0.027 833.3 6.25 0.139 3 25 7 185
4000 0.045 694.4 7.64 0.278 3 30 4 186
4000 0.027 833.3 7.64 0.139 2.5 25 5 187
3500 0.04 694.4 7.64 0.278 2.5 30 5 188
3500 0.035 833.3 8.33 0.278 2.5 30 10 189
4000 0.042 694.4 8.33 0.278 2.5 30 9 190
4000 0.033 694.4 7.64 0.139 2.5 25 5 191
4000 0.054 416.7 7.64 0.139 2.5 25 8 192
4000 0.028 694.4 6.25 0.139 2.5 25 5 193
2500 0.027 833.3 7.64 0.139 2.5 25 4 194
4000 0.026 694.4 6.25 0.278 1.5 30 6 195
4000 0.033 694.4 7.64 0.139 2.5 25 5 196
4000 0.033 833.3 7.64 0.278 2.5 30 6 197
4000 0.028 694.4 6.25 0.139 2.5 25 7 198
4000 0.043 416.7 6.25 0.278 1.5 30 6 199
2500 0.064 277.8 6.25 0.278 1.5 30 6 200
1000 0.015 833.3 6.25 0.139 1.5 25 4 201
3500 0.043 416.7 6.25 0.278 1.5 30 5 202
1000 0.058 416.7 6.25 0.278 2.5 30 4 203
4000 0.04 416.7 5.56 0.278 1.5 30 9 204
3500 0.033 416.7 5.56 0.278 1 30 8 205
1500 0.028 694.4 6.25 0.139 2.5 25 5 206
2500 0.046 416.7 6.25 0.139 2.5 25 7 207
1000 0.031 416.7 6.25 0.139 1.5 25 5 208
2500 0.064 277.8 6.25 0.278 1.5 30 8 209
2500 0.031 416.7 6.25 0.139 1.5 25 6 210
1000 0.025 416.7 7.64 0.139 1 20 3 211
4000 0.043 416.7 6.25 0.278 1.5 30 8 212
1500 0.035 416.7 6.25 0.278 1 30 4 213
2500 0.043 416.7 6.25 0.278 1.5 30 7 214
1500 0.059 277.8 6.25 0.278 1.5 25 9 215
2500 0.046 277.8 6.25 0.139 1.5 25 3 216
4000 0.064 277.8 6.25 0.278 1.5 30 9 217
1500 0.043 416.7 6.25 0.278 1.5 30 4 218
3500 0.022 416.7 5.56 0.139 1 25 7 219
2500 0.024 694.4 5.56 0.278 1.5 30 9 220
3500 0.043 416.7 6.25 0.278 1.5 30 8 221
2500 0.04 416.7 5.56 0.278 1.5 30 7 222
1500 0.019 694.4 6.25 0.139 1.5 25 5 223
137
The value
of Debts
they have
(NIS) Affordability
Index monthly
income ($)
price of
m3 of
Drinking
water ($)
price of
m3 of
piped
water
($)
monthly
consumption
from
drinking
water(m3)
monthly
consumption
from piped
water(m3) N
# of
member
of
household Household
4000 0.05 277.8 5.56 0.278 1 30 9 224
1500 0.024 694.4 5.56 0.278 1.5 30 5 225
2500 0.019 694.4 6.25 0.139 1.5 25 9 226
1500 0.043 416.7 6.25 0.278 1.5 30 5 227
4000 0.04 416.7 5.56 0.278 1.5 30 13 228
1000 0.02 694.4 5.56 0.278 1 30 5 229
1000 0.04 277.8 5.56 0.139 1.5 20 2 230
4000 0.06 277.8 5.56 0.278 1.5 30 13 231
4000 0.06 277.8 5.56 0.278 1.5 30 6 232
2500 0.06 277.8 5.56 0.278 1.5 30 7 233
1500 0.064 277.8 6.25 0.278 1.5 30 6 234
2500 0.035 277.8 6.25 0.139 1 25 6 235
2500 0.046 277.8 6.25 0.139 1.5 25 5 236
4000 0.019 694.4 6.25 0.139 1.5 25 11 237
3500 0.064 277.8 6.25 0.278 1.5 30 6 238
4000 0.06 277.8 5.56 0.278 1.5 30 13 239
1500 0.033 416.7 5.56 0.278 1 30 7 240
3500 0.035 277.8 6.25 0.139 1 25 9 241
2500 0.064 277.8 6.25 0.278 1.5 30 8 242
2500 0.033 416.7 5.56 0.278 1 30 8 243
3500 0.043 277.8 5.56 0.139 1.5 25 7 244
2500 0.028 416.7 5.56 0.139 1.5 25 7 245
2500 0.031 416.7 6.25 0.139 1.5 25 6 246
3500 0.024 694.4 5.56 0.278 1.5 30 10 247
2500 0.031 416.7 6.25 0.139 1.5 25 6 248
4000 0.019 694.4 6.25 0.139 1.5 25 6 249
2500 0.043 277.8 5.56 0.139 1.5 25 7 250
2500 0.046 277.8 6.25 0.139 1.5 25 7 251
2500 0.043 416.7 6.25 0.278 1.5 30 9 252
4000 0.023 416.7 6.25 0.139 1 25 5 253
1000 0.04 277.8 7.64 0.139 1 25 4 254
2500 0.035 416.7 6.25 0.278 1 30 6 255
2500 0.05 277.8 5.56 0.278 1 30 8 256
3500 0.028 416.7 5.56 0.139 1.5 25 6 257
3500 0.06 277.8 5.56 0.278 1.5 30 8 258
2500 0.04 416.7 5.56 0.278 1.5 30 9 259
1000 0.02 833.3 5.56 0.278 1.5 30 7 260
4000 0.086 277.8 6.25 0.278 2.5 30 13 261
3500 0.028 416.7 5.56 0.139 1.5 25 6 262
138
The value
of Debts
they have
(NIS) Affordability
Index monthly
income ($)
price of
m3 of
Drinking
water ($)
price of
m3 of
piped
water
($)
monthly
consumption
from
drinking
water(m3)
monthly
consumption
from piped
water(m3) N
# of
member
of
household Household
3500 0.033 277.8 5.56 0.139 1 25 4 263
3500 0.046 277.8 6.25 0.139 1.5 25 11 264
4000 0.026 694.4 6.25 0.278 1.5 30 11 265
2500 0.043 416.7 6.25 0.278 1.5 30 8 266
1000 0.012 833.3 6.25 0.139 1 25 4 267
4000 0.046 277.8 6.25 0.139 1.5 25 6 268
4000 0.031 416.7 6.25 0.139 1.5 25 10 269
3500 0.08 277.8 5.56 0.278 2.5 30 6 270
1000 0.021 833.3 6.25 0.278 1.5 30 10 271
3500 0.02 694.4 5.56 0.278 1 30 5 272
4000 0.046 277.8 6.25 0.139 1.5 25 5 273
3500 0.04 416.7 5.56 0.278 1.5 30 6 274
4000 0.022 416.7 5.56 0.139 1 25 7 275
4000 0.043 416.7 6.25 0.278 1.5 30 5 276
2500 0.06 277.8 5.56 0.278 1.5 30 7 277
3500 0.02 833.3 5.56 0.278 1.5 30 5 278
3500 0.02 833.3 5.56 0.278 1.5 30 9 279
2500 0.03 277.8 5.56 0.139 1 20 1 280
2500 0.022 416.7 5.56 0.139 1 25 6 281
3500 0.019 694.4 6.25 0.139 1.5 25 5 282
1500 0.06 277.8 5.56 0.278 1.5 30 9 283
2500 0.043 416.7 6.25 0.278 1.5 30 6 284
4000 0.043 416.7 6.25 0.278 1.5 30 9 285
4000 0.06 277.8 5.56 0.278 1.5 30 12 286
2500 0.04 416.7 5.56 0.278 1.5 30 8 287
3500 0.04 416.7 5.56 0.278 1.5 30 8 288
2500 0.043 277.8 5.56 0.139 1.5 25 8 289
2500 0.064 277.8 6.25 0.278 1.5 30 8 290
2500 0.031 416.7 6.25 0.139 1.5 25 5 291
2500 0.014 833.3 5.56 0.139 1.5 25 4 292
2500 0.033 277.8 5.56 0.139 1 25 8 293
2500 0.022 416.7 5.56 0.139 1 25 6 294
1000 0.046 277.8 6.25 0.139 1.5 25 5 295
1000 0.012 833.3 6.25 0.139 1 25 6 296
4000 0.043 416.7 6.25 0.278 1.5 30 8 297
4000 0.026 694.4 6.25 0.278 1.5 30 9 298
1500 0.064 277.8 6.25 0.278 1.5 30 7 299
2500 0.046 416.7 6.25 0.139 2.5 25 4 300
1500 0.035 277.8 6.25 0.139 1 25 7 301
139
The value
of Debts
they have
(NIS) Affordability
Index monthly
income ($)
price of
m3 of
Drinking
water ($)
price of
m3 of
piped
water
($)
monthly
consumption
from
drinking
water(m3)
monthly
consumption
from piped
water(m3) N
# of
member
of
household Household
3500 0.043 277.8 5.56 0.139 1.5 25 7 302
1000 0.046 277.8 6.25 0.139 1.5 25 5 303
1000 0.086 277.8 6.25 0.278 2.5 30 8 304
1000 0.086 277.8 6.25 0.278 2.5 30 7 305
1000 0.06 277.8 5.56 0.278 1.5 30 6 306
1000 0.064 277.8 6.25 0.278 1.5 30 7 307
1000 0.023 416.7 6.25 0.139 1 25 5 308
1000 0.035 277.8 6.25 0.139 1 25 2 309
1500 0.035 277.8 6.25 0.139 1 25 6 310
1500 0.073 277.8 5.56 0.139 3 25 5 311
1500 0.035 416.7 6.25 0.278 1 30 8 312
3500 0.058 277.8 7.64 0.278 1 30 10 313
3500 0.046 277.8 6.25 0.139 1.5 25 6 314
1500 0.04 416.7 5.56 0.278 1.5 30 8 315
2500 0.069 277.8 6.25 0.139 2.5 25 7 316
1000 0.022 416.7 5.56 0.139 1 25 2 317
1000 0.022 416.7 6.25 0.139 1 20 2 318
2500 0.031 694.4 6.25 0.139 3 20 2 319
1000 0.014 694.4 6.25 0.139 1 25 2 320
1500 0.09 277.8 5.56 0.278 3 30 7 321
1000 0.033 416.7 5.56 0.278 1 30 6 322
1000 0.035 277.8 6.25 0.139 1 25 8 323
1000 0.023 416.7 6.25 0.139 1 25 5 324
1000 0.066 277.8 6.25 0.139 2.5 20 3 325
1000 0.033 277.8 6.25 0.139 1 20 1 326
4000 0.035 277.8 6.25 0.139 1 25 4 327
4000 0.022 416.7 6.25 0.139 1 20 2 328
2500 0.025 416.7 7.64 0.139 1 20 3 329
1500 0.046 416.7 6.25 0.139 2.5 25 7 330
4000 0.043 277.8 8.33 0.139 1 25 2 331
1500 0.04 416.7 5.56 0.278 1.5 30 7 332
1000 0.012 833.3 6.25 0.139 1 25 7 333
1500 0.018 833.3 6.25 0.278 1 30 2 334
3500 0.011 833.3 5.56 0.139 1 25 9 335
4000 0.04 277.8 5.56 0.139 1.5 20 1 336
4000 0.064 277.8 6.25 0.278 1.5 30 10 337
1000 0.023 416.7 6.25 0.139 1 25 4 338
1000 0.03 277.8 5.56 0.139 1 20 3 339
1000 0.033 277.8 6.25 0.139 1 20 3 340
140
The value
of Debts
they have
(NIS) Affordability
Index monthly
income ($)
price of
m3 of
Drinking
water ($)
price of
m3 of
piped
water
($)
monthly
consumption
from
drinking
water(m3)
monthly
consumption
from piped
water(m3) N
# of
member
of
household Household
1000 0.053 277.8 6.25 0.278 1 30 9 341
3500 0.064 277.8 6.25 0.278 1.5 30 2 342
4000 0.086 277.8 6.25 0.278 2.5 30 6 343
4000 0.035 277.8 6.25 0.139 1 25 5 344
1000 0.017 694.4 5.56 0.139 1.5 25 5 345
1000 0.035 277.8 6.25 0.139 1 25 5 346
1000 0.035 416.7 6.25 0.278 1 30 8 347
1000 0.048 416.7 5.56 0.139 3 25 5 348
2500 0.027 416.7 7.64 0.139 1 25 6 349
1500 0.038 416.7 7.64 0.278 1 30 2 350
1000 0.058 277.8 7.64 0.278 1 30 7 351
1000 0.043 277.8 8.33 0.139 1 25 4 352
2500 0.011 833.3 5.56 0.139 1 25 8 353
1500 0.073 277.8 5.56 0.139 3 25 10 354
1500 0.033 416.7 5.56 0.278 1 30 9 355
1000 0.053 416.7 5.56 0.278 2.5 30 18 356
4000 0.035 416.7 6.25 0.278 1 30 5 357
1000 0.023 833.3 6.25 0.139 2.5 25 5 358
1000 0.013 694.4 5.56 0.139 1 25 2 359
1500 0.024 694.4 5.56 0.278 1.5 30 6 360
1500 0.033 416.7 5.56 0.278 1 30 6 361
3500 0.022 416.7 5.56 0.139 1 25 6 362
1000 0.024 833.3 5.56 0.139 3 25 4 363
2500 0.033 416.7 5.56 0.278 1 30 7 364
1000 0.012 833.3 6.25 0.139 1 25 6 365
1000 0.014 694.4 6.25 0.139 1 25 5 366
1500 0.013 694.4 6.25 0.139 1 20 3 367
1500 0.064 277.8 6.25 0.278 1.5 30 9 368
4000 0.012 833.3 6.25 0.139 1 25 7 369
1500 0.035 277.8 6.25 0.139 1 25 6 370
1000 0.035 277.8 6.25 0.139 1 25 3 371
1500 0.064 277.8 6.25 0.278 1.5 30 7 372
4000 0.026 694.4 6.25 0.278 1.5 30 8 373
1500 0.064 277.8 6.25 0.278 1.5 30 5 374
1000 0.023 416.7 6.25 0.139 1 25 9 375
1000 0.046 416.7 6.25 0.139 2.5 25 6 376
1500 0.053 277.8 6.25 0.278 1 30 8 377
1000 0.053 277.8 6.25 0.278 1 30 4 378
1000 0.035 277.8 6.25 0.139 1 25 3 379
141
1500 0.028 416.7 5.56 0.139 1.5 25 5 380
Table (5.29): Relationship between share of Water Bills from Income and other
Factors
Household
Affordability
Index You pay for water
because it's affordable
The value of
Debts they have
(NIS)
1 0.0267 Yes 3500
2 0.034 Yes 2500
3 0.038 Yes 1000
4 0.054 Yes 3500
5 0.043 No 4000
6 0.063 Yes 3500
7 0.036 Yes 3500
8 0.040 Yes 4000
9 0.036 Yes 2500
10 0.036 Yes 3500
11 0.023 Yes 2500
12 0.027 Yes 1500
13 0.016 Yes 2500
14 0.054 Yes 3500
15 0.046 Yes 2500
16 0.036 Yes 2500
17 0.029 No 1500
18 0.071 No 1500
19 0.036 Yes 2500
20 0.029 No 2500
21 0.046 Yes 1500
22 0.046 Yes 1500
23 0.029 Yes 1000
24 0.027 Yes 1500
25 0.049 Yes 1500
26 0.019 Yes 3500
27 0.040 Yes 4000
28 0.016 Yes 1000
29 0.043 Yes 3500
30 0.040 No 4000
31 0.029 Yes 2500
32 0.058 Yes 3500
33 0.058 Yes 4000
34 0.028 Yes 3500
142
Household
Affordability
Index You pay for water
because it's affordable
The value of
Debts they have
(NIS)
35 0.024 Yes 3500
36 0.016 Yes 1000
37 0.027 Yes 2500
38 0.025 Yes 3500
39 0.015 Yes 2500
40 0.027 Yes 3500
41 0.023 Yes 1000
42 0.060 Yes 4000
43 0.016 Yes 1000
44 0.027 Yes 2500
45 0.038 Yes 3500
46 0.016 Yes 1000
47 0.019 Yes 1000
48 0.015 Yes 2500
49 0.024 Yes 4000
50 0.032 Yes 2500
51 0.043 No 1500
52 0.015 Yes 2500
53 0.028 Yes 1000
54 0.044 No 1500
55 0.022 No 4000
56 0.029 Yes 1000
57 0.019 No 4000
58 0.095 No 4000
59 0.040 Yes 4000
60 0.066 No 4000
61 0.067 No 1000
62 0.032 Yes 1500
63 0.046 No 2500
64 0.028 Yes 4000
65 0.028 Yes 4000
66 0.044 No 4000
67 0.046 No 1000
68 0.038 No 4000
69 0.063 No 4000
70 0.034 No 4000
71 0.043 Yes 1000
72 0.038 Yes 2500
73 0.026 Yes 1500
74 0.054 No 4000
143
Household
Affordability
Index You pay for water
because it's affordable
The value of
Debts they have
(NIS)
75 0.046 No 4000
76 0.018 No 4000
77 0.064 No 4000
78 0.038 No 4000
79 0.033 No 4000
80 0.031 No 4000
81 0.012 No 1000
82 0.040 No 4000
83 0.020 Yes 4000
84 0.071 No 3500
85 0.031 Yes 2500
86 0.031 No 4000
87 0.064 No 3500
88 0.031 No 3500
89 0.021 Yes 3500
90 0.025 Yes 4000
91 0.033 Yes 1000
92 0.066 No 4000
93 0.042 No 4000
94 0.035 No 4000
95 0.066 No 4000
96 0.066 No 4000
97 0.058 No 2500
98 0.040 No 1000
99 0.064 No 1500
100 0.020 No 1000
101 0.043 No 2500
102 0.043 No 1000
103 0.031 Yes 1000
104 0.031 No 1500
105 0.029 No 4000
106 0.031 No 2500
107 0.035 No 4000
108 0.043 No 2500
109 0.043 No 1500
110 0.028 No 1000
111 0.054 No 1000
112 0.026 Yes 1500
113 0.035 No 3500
114 0.031 No 1500
144
Household
Affordability
Index You pay for water
because it's affordable
The value of
Debts they have
(NIS)
115 0.064 No 4000
116 0.043 No 1500
117 0.086 No 3500
118 0.105 Yes 1000
119 0.014 Yes 4000
120 0.035 No 4000
121 0.043 No 2500
122 0.035 No 3500
123 0.053 No 2500
124 0.046 No 1500
125 0.021 Yes 1000
126 0.026 Yes 1500
127 0.019 No 4000
128 0.031 No 2500
129 0.021 No 1000
130 0.043 No 2500
131 0.044 No 1000
132 0.060 No 2500
133 0.058 No 1000
134 0.046 No 4000
135 0.026 Yes 1000
136 0.058 No 1500
137 0.026 Yes 3500
138 0.064 No 1500
139 0.035 No 1500
140 0.031 No 2500
141 0.031 No 1500
142 0.054 No 1000
143 0.014 Yes 1000
144 0.021 No 1000
145 0.043 No 4000
146 0.015 Yes 1000
147 0.058 No 2500
148 0.031 No 4000
149 0.026 No 1000
150 0.029 No 1000
151 0.033 No 2500
152 0.031 No 1000
153 0.026 No 1500
154 0.064 No 3500
145
Household
Affordability
Index You pay for water
because it's affordable
The value of
Debts they have
(NIS)
155 0.043 Yes 2500
156 0.035 No 1500
157 0.046 No 3500
158 0.064 No 2500
159 0.026 Yes 2500
160 0.028 No 4000
161 0.090 No 4000
162 0.027 No 1000
163 0.028 No 4000
164 0.058 Yes 2500
165 0.031 Yes 1500
166 0.064 No 1500
167 0.075 No 3500
168 0.054 Yes 1500
169 0.031 Yes 2500
170 0.033 No 4000
171 0.039 No 4000
172 0.039 No 3500
173 0.033 No 4000
174 0.080 No 4000
175 0.080 No 4000
176 0.040 Yes 4000
177 0.040 No 4000
178 0.067 No 4000
179 0.017 No 4000
180 0.066 No 4000
181 0.039 No 4000
182 0.039 No 4000
183 0.058 No 4000
184 0.027 No 4000
185 0.027 Yes 4000
186 0.045 No 4000
187 0.027 Yes 4000
188 0.039 No 3500
189 0.035 No 3500
190 0.042 No 4000
191 0.033 No 4000
192 0.054 No 4000
193 0.028 No 4000
194 0.027 Yes 2500
146
Household
Affordability
Index You pay for water
because it's affordable
The value of
Debts they have
(NIS)
195 0.026 Yes 4000
196 0.033 No 4000
197 0.033 No 4000
198 0.028 No 4000
199 0.043 No 4000
200 0.064 No 2500
201 0.015 Yes 1000
202 0.043 No 3500
203 0.058 Yes 1000
204 0.040 No 4000
205 0.033 No 3500
206 0.028 Yes 1500
207 0.046 No 2500
208 0.031 Yes 1000
209 0.064 No 2500
210 0.031 No 2500
211 0.025 Yes 1000
212 0.043 No 4000
213 0.035 No 1500
214 0.043 No 2500
215 0.059 No 1500
216 0.046 No 2500
217 0.064 No 4000
218 0.043 No 1500
219 0.022 Yes 3500
220 0.024 Yes 2500
221 0.043 No 3500
222 0.040 No 2500
223 0.019 No 1500
224 0.050 No 4000
225 0.024 Yes 1500
226 0.019 No 2500
227 0.043 Yes 1500
228 0.040 No 4000
229 0.020 No 1000
230 0.040 No 1000
231 0.060 No 4000
232 0.060 No 4000
233 0.060 No 2500
234 0.064 Yes 1500
147
Household
Affordability
Index You pay for water
because it's affordable
The value of
Debts they have
(NIS)
235 0.035 No 2500
236 0.046 No 2500
237 0.019 No 4000
238 0.064 No 3500
239 0.060 No 4000
240 0.033 No 1500
241 0.035 No 3500
242 0.064 No 2500
243 0.033 Yes 2500
244 0.043 No 3500
245 0.028 No 2500
246 0.031 No 2500
247 0.024 Yes 3500
248 0.031 No 2500
249 0.019 No 4000
250 0.043 No 2500
251 0.046 No 2500
252 0.043 Yes 2500
253 0.023 Yes 4000
254 0.040 No 1000
255 0.035 No 2500
256 0.050 No 2500
257 0.028 No 3500
258 0.060 No 3500
259 0.040 No 2500
260 0.020 Yes 1000
261 0.086 Yes 4000
262 0.028 No 3500
263 0.033 No 3500
264 0.046 No 3500
265 0.026 No 4000
266 0.043 No 2500
267 0.011 Yes 1000
268 0.046 No 4000
269 0.031 No 4000
270 0.080 No 3500
271 0.021 No 1000
272 0.020 No 3500
273 0.046 No 4000
274 0.040 No 3500
148
Household
Affordability
Index You pay for water
because it's affordable
The value of
Debts they have
(NIS)
275 0.022 Yes 4000
276 0.043 No 4000
277 0.060 No 2500
278 0.020 No 3500
279 0.020 No 3500
280 0.030 No 2500
281 0.022 No 2500
282 0.019 No 3500
283 0.060 No 1500
284 0.043 No 2500
285 0.043 No 4000
286 0.060 No 4000
287 0.040 No 2500
288 0.040 No 3500
289 0.043 No 2500
290 0.064 No 2500
291 0.031 No 2500
292 0.014 No 2500
293 0.033 No 2500
294 0.022 Yes 2500
295 0.046 No 1000
296 0.011 Yes 1000
297 0.043 No 4000
298 0.026 No 4000
299 0.064 Yes 1500
300 0.046 No 2500
301 0.035 No 1500
302 0.043 No 3500
303 0.046 Yes 1000
304 0.086 Yes 1000
305 0.086 Yes 1000
306 0.060 Yes 1000
307 0.064 Yes 1000
308 0.023 No 1000
309 0.035 Yes 1000
310 0.035 Yes 1500
311 0.073 Yes 1500
312 0.035 Yes 1500
313 0.058 Yes 3500
314 0.046 No 3500
149
Household
Affordability
Index You pay for water
because it's affordable
The value of
Debts they have
(NIS)
315 0.040 Yes 1500
316 0.069 Yes 2500
317 0.022 No 1000
318 0.022 Yes 1000
319 0.031 No 2500
320 0.014 Yes 1000
321 0.090 Yes 1500
322 0.033 No 1000
323 0.035 Yes 1000
324 0.023 Yes 1000
325 0.066 Yes 1000
326 0.033 Yes 1000
327 0.035 No 4000
328 0.022 No 4000
329 0.025 No 2500
330 0.046 No 1500
331 0.043 Yes 4000
332 0.040 No 1500
333 0.012 Yes 1000
334 0.018 Yes 1500
335 0.011 No 3500
336 0.040 Yes 4000
337 0.064 Yes 4000
338 0.023 Yes 1000
339 0.030 Yes 1000
340 0.033 Yes 1000
341 0.053 No 1000
342 0.064 Yes 3500
343 0.086 No 4000
344 0.035 No 4000
345 0.017 Yes 1000
346 0.035 Yes 1000
347 0.035 Yes 1000
348 0.048 Yes 1000
349 0.027 No 2500
350 0.038 Yes 1500
351 0.058 Yes 1000
352 0.043 Yes 1000
353 0.011 Yes 2500
354 0.073 Yes 1500
150
Household
Affordability
Index You pay for water
because it's affordable
The value of
Debts they have
(NIS)
355 0.033 Yes 1500
356 0.053 Yes 1000
357 0.035 Yes 4000
358 0.023 Yes 1000
359 0.013 Yes 1000
360 0.024 Yes 1500
361 0.033 Yes 1500
362 0.022 Yes 3500
363 0.024 Yes 1000
364 0.033 Yes 2500
365 0.012 Yes 1000
366 0.014 Yes 1000
367 0.013 Yes 1500
368 0.064 No 1500
369 0.012 Yes 4000
370 0.035 Yes 1500
371 0.035 No 1000
372 0.064 No 1500
373 0.026 Yes 4000
374 0.064 No 1500
375 0.023 Yes 1000
376 0.046 Yes 1000
377 0.053 Yes 1500
378 0.053 No 1000
379 0.035 Yes 1000
380 0.028 No 1500
151
Appendix 2
Water Affordability
In the year of 2013
- The number of populations in this year is 189,510 persons (Wafa news, 2016)
- The quantity of water consumption in this year is 5,577,725
m3(CMWU,2017a).
- The average cost of m3 of water that coming from public desalination plant is
0.278 $(we assume that 1 dollar =3.6 NIS) which mean that 0.000285 $ /liter and the
cost of m3 of water that coming from private desalination plant for drinks is 6.2 $/m3
which mean that 0.0062 $ as mentioned in the result of questionnaire above.
- Per capita water in that year was 81 liters per day as follows:
Daily water consumption in 2013 = (yearly water
consumption(m3)*1000)/(12*30)
= (5,577,725*1000)/365
= 15,281,438.3 liter
Per capita water in 2013= Daily water consumption/ number of populations
in2013
= 15,281,438.3/ 189,510
= 81 liters
- Monthly cost of water for household in year of 2013 was 9.0855$ as follow:
The individual of the household needs 6 liter/d of water for drinks and cooking
and the rest from water for domestic use which coming from public desalination plants
and wells.
The daily cost of water= ((quantity if water for drinks*cost of liter) + (water
quantity of domestic use* cost of liter)) * number of individuals for one household
= ((6 * 0.0062) + (81*0.000278)) *6
= 0.3583$
So, The monthly cost of water= 0.3583*30
= 10.749$
- Avg Monthly income for households is 456 $ (BCBS,2017).
So,
Wi =𝐹ᵢ+𝑃ᵢ∗𝐶ᵢ−𝐴ᵢ
𝐼ᵢ, ᵢ€{1, …,I}
= (0+(((81*6*0.000278) +(6*6*0.0062)) *30)-0)/456
= ((0.1351+0.2232) *30)/456
= 2.35%
152
So, the percentage of water cost from household income in 2013 was about 2.35%.
In the year of 2014
- The number of populations in this year is 196,355 persons (Wafa news, 2016)
- The quantity of water consumption in this year is 5,256,142 m3(CMWU
report,2017a).
- The average cost of m3 of water that coming from public desalination plant is
0.278 $(we assume that 1 dollar =3.6 NIS) which mean that 0.000285 $ /liter and the
cost of m3 of water that coming from private desalination plant for drinks is 6.2$/m3
which mean that 0.0062 $ as mentioned in the result of questionnaire above.
- Per capita water in that year was 74 liters per day as follows:
Daily water consumption in 2014 = (yearly water consumption(m3) *1000)/365
= (5,256,142 *1000)/365
= 14,400,389.04 liter
Per capita water in 2014= Daily water consumption/ number of populations
in2014
= 14,400,389.04 / 196,355
= 74 liters
- Monthly cost of water for household in year of 2014 was = 10.3989$ as follow:
The individual of the household needs 6 liter/d of water for drinks and cooking
and the rest from water for domestic use which coming from public desalination plants
and wells.
The daily cost of water= ((quantity if water for drinks*cost of liter) + (water
quantity of domestic use* cost of liter)) * number of individuals for one household
= ((6 * 0.0062) + (74*0.000278)) *6
= 0.3466$
So, The monthly cost of water= 0.3466*30
= 10.3989 $
- Avg Monthly income for households is 461.66$ (BCBS,2017).
So,
Wi =𝐹ᵢ+𝑃ᵢ∗𝐶ᵢ−𝐴ᵢ
𝐼ᵢ, ᵢ€{1, …,I}
= (0+(((74*6*0.000278) +(6*6*0.0062)) *30)-0)/461.66
= ((0.1234+0.2232) *30)/461.66
= 2.25%
So, the percentage of water cost from household income in 2014 was about 2.25%,
In the year of 2015
153
- The number of populations in this year is 203,370 persons (Wafa news, 2016)
- The quantity of water consumption in this year is 5,276,214 m3(CMWU
report,2017a).
- The average cost of m3 of water that coming from public desalination plant is
0.278 $(we assume that 1 dollar =3.6 NIS) which mean that 0.000285 $ /liter and the
cost of m3 of water that coming from private desalination plant for drinks is 6.2 $/m3
which mean that 0.0062 $ as mentioned in the result of questionnaire above.
- Per capita water in that year was 72 liters per day as follows:
Daily water consumption in 2015 = (yearly water consumption(m3) *1000)/365
= (5,276,214 *1000)/365
= 14,455,380.82 liter
Per capita water in 2015= Daily water consumption/ number of populations in
2015
= 14,656,150 / 203,370
= 72 liters
- Monthly cost of water for household in year of 2015 was 8.701$ as follow:
The individual of the household needs 6 liter/d of water for drinks and cooking
and the rest from water for domestic use which coming from public desalination plants
and wells.
The daily cost of water= ((quantity if water for drinks*cost of liter) + (water
quantity of domestic use* cost of liter)) * number of individuals for one household
= ((6 * 0.0062) + (72*0.000278)) *6
= 0.3433$
So, The monthly cost of water= 0.3433*30
= 10.2989 $
- Avg Monthly income for households is 447 $ (BCBS,2017).
So,
Wi =𝐹ᵢ+𝑃ᵢ∗𝐶ᵢ−𝐴ᵢ
𝐼ᵢ, ᵢ€{1, …,I}
= (0+(((72*6*0.000278) +(6*6*0.0062)) *30)-0)/ 447
= ((0.1200+0.2232) *30) /447
= 2.3%
So, the percentage of water cost from household income in 2015was about 2.3%,
In the year of 2016
- The number of populations in this year is 210,540 persons (Wafa news, 2016)
154
- The quantity of water consumption in this year is 5,575,882 m3 (CMWU
report,2017a).
- The average cost of m3 of water that coming from public desalination plant is
0.278 $(we assume that 1 dollar =3.6 NIS) because the consumption is between 20 to
30 m3 which mean that 0.000285 $ /liter and the cost of m3 of water that coming from
private desalination plant for drinks is 6.2 $/m3 which mean that 0.0062 $ as
mentioned in the result of questionnaire above.
- Per capita water in that year was 73 liters per day as follows:
Daily water consumption in 2016 = (yearly water consumption(m3) *1000)/365
= (5,575,882 *1000)/365
= 15,276,389.04 liter
Per capita water in 2016= Daily water consumption/ number of populations
in2016
= 15,276,389.04 / 210,540
= 73 liters
- Monthly cost of water for household in year of 2016 was 8.701$ as follow:
The individual of the household needs 6 liter/d of water for drinks and cooking
and the rest from water for domestic use which coming from public desalination plants
and wells.
The daily cost of water= ((quantity if water for drinks*cost of liter) + (water
quantity of domestic use* cost of liter)) * number of individuals for one household
= ((6 * 0.0062) + (73*0.000278)) *6
= 0.3449$
So, the monthly cost of water= 0.3449*30
= 10.3489 $
- Avg Monthly income for households is 445 $ (BCBS,2017).
So,
Wi =𝐹ᵢ+𝑃ᵢ∗𝐶ᵢ−𝐴ᵢ
𝐼ᵢ, ᵢ€{1, …,I}
= (0+(((73*6*0.000278) +(6*6*0.0062)) *30)-0)/ 445
= ((0.1218+0.2232) *30)/445
= 2.32%
So, the percentage of water cost from household income in 2016 was about 2.32%,
155
Appendix 3
A Scenario about the Pricing of Water that the Citizens could afford during the
past years
In this section, a scenario was presented about the price of water that the citizen
could afford during the past years, where the acceptable percentage of the affordability
of water (2.8%) was fixed to reach to the maximum price that the citizen can afford
without any effect on the affordability index as follows:
In the year of 2010
- The number of populations in this year is 169,928 persons (Wafa news, 2016).
- The quantity of water consumption in this year is 4,175,949 m3(CMWU
report,2017a).
- Per capita water in that year was 68 liters per day as follows:
Daily water consumption in 2010 = (yearly water consumption(m3) *1000)/365
= (4,175,949*1000)/365
= 11,440,956 liters
Per capita water in 2010= Daily water consumption/ number of populations in 2010
= 11,440,956 / 169,928
= 68 liters
The average number of household members in Rafah city was 6.5 members which
mean 6 members (PCBS,2007)
The average cost of m3 of drinking water that coming from private desalination
plant for drinks is 6.2 $/m3(we take this value from the questionnaire results, where
the average cost of m3 that paid by households is 6.2$/m3) which mean that 0.0062 $
/liter (CMWU,2017c).
Avg Monthly income for households in this year is 421 $ (BCBS,2017).
156
So,
Wi =𝐹ᵢ+𝑃ᵢ∗𝐶ᵢ−𝐴ᵢ
𝐼ᵢ, ᵢ ∈ {1, …,I}
0.028 = (0+(((68*6*x) +(6*6*0.0062)) *30)-0)/421
0.028 = ((408x+0.2232) *30)/421
So, X= 0.00042 $/L
X= 0.42 $/m3
X= the price of cubic meter of water that coming from water piped (Public desalination
plants and wells).
As explained above, in the year of 2010, the households were could bear the
cost of water until the price of 0.42 $/m3 of water, so that the share of water was
from the total income 2.8%. But in that year, the average price that households
paid per cubic meter was about 0.278$, which was less than from the value that
the citizen could afford it.
In the year of 2011
- The number of populations in this year is 176,373 persons (Wafa news, 2016).
- The quantity of water consumption in this year is 4,175,949 m3(CMWU
report,2017a).
- Per capita water in that year was 75 liters per day as follows:
Daily water consumption in 2011 = (yearly water consumption(m3) *1000)/365
= (4,793,558*1000)/365
= 13,133,035 liters
Per capita water in 2011= Daily water consumption/ number of populations in 2011
157
= 13,133,035 / 176,373
= 75 liters
- The average number of household members in Rafah city was 6.5 members
which mean 6 members (PCBS,2007)
The average cost of m3 of drinking water that coming from private desalination
plant for drinks is 6.2 $/m3(we take this value from the questionnaire results, where
the average cost of m3 that paid by households is 6.2$/m3) which mean that 0.0062 $
/liter (CMWU,2017c).
Avg Monthly income for households is 445$ (BCBS,2017).
So,
Wi =𝐹ᵢ+𝑃ᵢ∗𝐶ᵢ−𝐴ᵢ
𝐼ᵢ, ᵢ ∈ {1, …,I}
0.028 = (0+(((75*6*x) +(6*6*0.0062)) *30)-0)/445
0.028 = ((450x+0.2232) *30)/445
So, X= 0.00043 $/L
X= 0.43 $/m3
X= the price of cubic meter of water that coming from water piped (Public desalination
plants and wells).
So, in those year, the households were could bear the cost of water until the
price of 0.43 $/m3 of water, so that the share of water was from the total income 2.8%.
In the year of 2012
- The number of populations in this year is 182,846 persons (Wafa news, 2016).
158
- The quantity of water consumption in this year is 4,802,534 m3(CMWU
report,2017a).
- Per capita water in that year was 72 liters per day as follows:
Daily water consumption in 2011 = (yearly water consumption(m3) *1000)/365
= (4,802,534*1000)/365
= 13,157,627 liters
Per capita water in 2011= Daily water consumption/ number of populations in 2011
= 13,157,627 / 182,867
= 72 liters
- The average number of household members in Rafah city was 6.5 members
which mean 6 members (PCBS,2007)
The average cost of m3 of drinking water that coming from private desalination
plant for drinks is 6.2 $/m3(we take this value from the questionnaire results, where
the average cost of m3 that paid by households is 6.2$/m3) which mean that 0.0062 $
/liter (CMWU,2017c).
Avg Monthly income for households is 464.4$ (BCBS,2017).
So,
Wi =𝐹ᵢ+𝑃ᵢ∗𝐶ᵢ−𝐴ᵢ
𝐼ᵢ, ᵢ ∈ {1, …,I}
0.028 = (0+(((72*6*x) +(6*6*0.0062)) *30)-0)/464.4
0.028 = ((432x+0.2232) *30)/464.4
So, X= 0.00049 $/L
X= 0.49 $/m3
X= the price of cubic meter of water that coming from water piped (Public desalination
plants and wells).
159
So, in those year, the households were could bear the cost of water until the
price of 0.49 $/m3 of water, so that the share of water was from the total income 2.8%.
In the year of 2013
- The number of populations in this year is 189,510 persons (Wafa news, 2016).
- The quantity of water consumption in this year is 5,577,725 m3(CMWU
report,2017a).
- Per capita water in that year was 81 liters per day as follows:
Daily water consumption in 2013 = (yearly water consumption(m3) *1000)/
(12*30)
= (5,577,725*1000)/365
= 15,281,438.3 liter
Per capita water in 2013= Daily water consumption/ number of populations in
2013
= 15,281,438.3/ 189,510
= 81 liters
- The average number of household members in Rafah city was 6.5 members
which mean 6 members (PCBS,2007)
The average cost of m3 of drinking water that coming from private desalination
plant for drinks is 6.2 $/m3(we take this value from the questionnaire results, where
the average cost of m3 that paid by households is 6.2$/m3) which mean that 0.0062 $
/liter (CMWU,2017c).
- Avg Monthly income for households is 456 $ (BCBS,2017).
So,
Wi =𝐹ᵢ+𝑃ᵢ∗𝐶ᵢ−𝐴ᵢ
𝐼ᵢ, ᵢ ∈ {1, …,I}
0.028 = (0+(((81*6*x) +(6*6*0.0062)) *30)-0)/456
0.028 = ((486x+0.2232) *30)/456
So, X= 0.00042 $/L
160
X= 0.42 $/m3
X= the price of cubic meter of water that coming from water piped (Public desalination
plants and wells).
So, in those year, the households were could bear the cost of water until the
price of 0.42 $/m3 of water, so that the share of water was from the total income 2.8%.
In the year of 2014
- The number of populations in this year is 196,355 persons (Wafa news, 2016).
- The quantity of water consumption in this year is 5,256,142 m3(CMWU
report,2017a).
- Per capita water in that year was 74 liters per day as follows:
Daily water consumption in 2014 = (yearly water consumption(m3) *1000)/365
= (5,256,142 *1000)/365
= 14,400,389.04 liter
Per capita water in 2014= Daily water consumption/ number of populations
in2014
= 14,400,389.04 / 196,355
= 74 liters
- The average number of household members in Rafah city was 6.5 members
which mean 6 members (PCBS,2007)
The average cost of m3 of drinking water that coming from private desalination
plant for drinks is 6.2 $/m3(we take this value from the questionnaire results, where
the average cost of m3 that paid by households is 6.2$/m3) which mean that 0.0062 $
/liter (CMWU,2017c).
- Avg Monthly income for households is 461.66 $ (BCBS,2017).
So,
161
Wi =𝐹ᵢ+𝑃ᵢ∗𝐶ᵢ−𝐴ᵢ
𝐼ᵢ, ᵢ ∈ {1, …,I}
0.028 = (0+(((74*6*x) +(6*6*0.0062)) *30)-0)/461.66
0.028 = ((444x+0.2232) *30)/461.66
So, X= 0.00047 $/L
X= 0.47 $/m3
X= the price of cubic meter of water that coming from water piped (Public desalination
plants and wells).
So, in those year, the households were could bear the cost of water until the
price of 0.47 $/m3 of water, so that the share of water was from the total income 2.8%.
In the year of 2015
- The number of populations in this year is 203,370 persons (Wafa news, 2016).
- The quantity of water consumption in this year is 5,276,214 m3(CMWU
report,2017a).
- Per capita water in that year was 72 liters per day as follows:
Daily water consumption in 2015 = (yearly water consumption(m3) *1000)/365
= (5,276,214 *1000)/365
= 14,455,380.82 liter
Per capita water in 2015= Daily water consumption/ number of populations in
2015
= 14,656,150 / 203,370
= 72 liters
- The average number of household members in Rafah city was 6.5 members
which mean 6 members (PCBS,2007)
The average cost of m3 of drinking water that coming from private desalination
plant for drinks is 6.2 $/m3(we take this value from the questionnaire results, where
the average cost of m3 that paid by households is 6.2$/m3) which mean that 0.0062 $
/liter (CMWU,2017c).
- Avg Monthly income for households is 447$ (BCBS,2017).
162
So,
Wi =𝐹ᵢ+𝑃ᵢ∗𝐶ᵢ−𝐴ᵢ
𝐼ᵢ, ᵢ ∈ {1, …,I}
0.028 = (0+(((72*6*x) +(6*6*0.0062)) *30)-0)/447
0.028 = ((432x+0.2232) *30)/447
So, X= 0.00045 $/L
X= 0.45 $/m3
X= the price of cubic meter of water that coming from water piped (Public desalination
plants and wells).
So, in those year, the households were could bear the cost of water until the
price of 0.45 $/m3 of water, so that the share of water was from the total income 2.8%.
In the year of 2016
- The number of populations in this year is 210,540 persons (Wafa news, 2016).
- The quantity of water consumption in this year is 5,575,882 m3(CMWU
report,2017a).
- Per capita water in that year was 73 liters per day as follows:
Daily water consumption in 2016 = (yearly water consumption(m3) *1000)/365
= (5,575,882 *1000)/365
= 15,276,389.04 liter
Per capita water in 2016= Daily water consumption/ number of populations
in2016
= 15,276,389.04 / 210,540
= 73 liters
- The average number of household members in Rafah city was 6.5 members
which mean 6 members (PCBS,2007)
The average cost of m3 of drinking water that coming from private desalination
plant for drinks is 6.2 $/m3(we take this value from the questionnaire results, where
the average cost of m3 that paid by households is 6.2$/m3) which mean that 0.0062 $
/liter (CMWU,2017c).
163
- Avg Monthly income for households is 445 $ (BCBS,2017).
So,
Wi =𝐹ᵢ+𝑃ᵢ∗𝐶ᵢ−𝐴ᵢ
𝐼ᵢ, ᵢ ∈ {1, …,I}
0.028 = (0+(((73*6*x) +(6*6*0.0062)) *30)-0)/445
0.028 = ((438x+0.2232) *30)/445
So, X= 0.00044 $/L
X= 0.44 $/m3
X= the price of cubic meter of water that coming from water piped (Public desalination
plants and wells).
So, in those year, the households were could bear the cost of water until the
price of 0.44 $/m3 of water, so that the share of water was from the total income 2.8%.
Table (20): Maximum Price that Households can bear it during the past years
Years
Number of
Populations
Avg Monthly
Income ($)
Avg
Consumption
(m3 /Years)
Maximum
Price that
Households
can bear it
($/m3)
2010 169,928 421 4,175,949
0.42
2011 176,373 445 4,793,558
0.43
2012 182,846 464.4 4,802,534
0.49
2013 196,355 455.8 5,577,725
0.42
2014 196,355 461.67 5,256,142
0.47
2015 203,370 446.94 5,276,214
0.45
2016 210,540 445 5,575,882
0.44
164
Appendix 4
Figure (1): Quantities of water in Sheoot brackish desalination plants in the
year from 2011 to 2017
Figure (2): Quantities of water in Al-salam brackish desalination plants in the
year from 2011 to 2017
-5000
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
`
Month
Al-Sheoot Brackish 2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
M3
Month
Al-Salam Brackish
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
165
Figure (3): Quantities of water in seawater desalination plants in the year of
2015,2016 and 2017
-1000
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
M3
Month2017
166
Appendix 5
Questionnaire
Location: ……………………………. Date: …………………………………
The next few questions are about you and your household's oriented
Section One: General, Social and Income Information's 1. Age of the respondent a. Less than 30 years
b. From 30 to less than 40 years
c. From 40 to less than 50 years
d. 50 years or more
2. Sex of the respondent
a. Female
b. Male
3. Educational level of the respondent: a. B.Sc. or more b. Diploma c. Secondary d. Primary or less
4. Are you the head of the household?
a. Yes
b. No
5. How many people live in your housing unit?
No. of Female --------
No. of Male ----------
6.Do you know how much you pay for cubic meter of water ?
a. Yes
b. No
c. Does not matter
7. Do you think that Rafah city suffers from a problem concerning water?
a. Yes
b. No
167
7.a If the answer is "Yes", what is the level of the problem ?
a. Complicated Problem
b. Moderate Problem
c. Uncomplicated Problem
d. No problem
8. Breadwinner of the family
a. Father
b. Mother
c. Both
d. Others, specify ……………..
9. The sector in which the breadwinner works:
a. Private
b. Public
c. NGO's
d. Others, specify ……………..
10. Number of workers in the family, including parents:
a. None b. One c. Two d. More than two
11. What is the type of work ?
a. Permanent
b. Temporary
c. If "b", the time period for -----------
12. Is there another source of income?
a. Yes
b. No
13. If the answer is "Yes", what is the source ?
--------------------
14. Would you please tell me your total household's income per month? (If the
respondent cannot tell the household’s income please ask breadwinner his own
income)
a. Less than 1000 shekels
b. From 1000 to less than 2000 shekels
c. From 2000 to less than 3000 shekels
d. more than 3000 shekels
The next few questions are about your water use conditions including quantity, reliability cost of water and the associated problems
168
Section Two: Existing water use practices and problems
15. What is the main source of Tap water?
b. Water from the municipality by water networks
c. Wells
d. Other (specify) ……………
16. What is the main source of drinking water?
a. Private desalination plants
b. Water from the municipality by water networks
c. Good Quality Wells
d. Other, (specify) …………...
e. "a" and "b"
17. How much does your household consume water that come from piped water
per month?
a. Less than 10 m3
b. From 10 m3 to less than 20 m3
c. From 20 m3 to Less than 30 m3
d. 30 m3 or more, Specify ………………
18. How much does your household consume water that purchased from
desalination plant per month?
a. Less than 1 m3
b. From 1 m3 to less than 2 m3
c. From 2 m3 to Less than 3 m3
d. 3 m3 or more, Specify ………………
19. How much do you spend for piped water per month?
a. Less than 30 shekel
b. From 30 to less than 40 shekels
c. From 40 to less than 50 shekels
d. 50 shekel or more, specify …………….
20. How much do you spend for water that purchased from desalination plant
per month?
a. Less than 20 shekels
b. From 20 to less than 30 shekels
c. From 30 to less than 40 shekels
d. 40 shekels or more, specify …………….
21. Through the value of the monthly water invoice, what do you think about
the cost of water that coming from the water network(piped water)?
a. Expensive
b. Reasonable
169
c. Cheap
22. How much is the price of a cubic meter of water that you buy from private
desalination plants ?
a. Less than 20 shekels
b. From 20 to less than 25 shekel
c. From 25 to less than 30 shekel
d. 30 shekels or more, specify ……………..
23. What do you think about the cost of water that you purchase from private
desalination plants ?
a. Expensive
b. Reasonable
c. Cheap
24. When piped water is not available, from where do you get water, which
other sources do you use?
a. From my backup tank
b. From wells
c. Consume less
d. Private desalination plants
e. Other, specify ………………..
25. What is the reason to use this source?
a. Access to the existing pipe system is difficult
b. The source is reliable
c. The source is cheaper
d. Shorter distance than other sources
e. Other, specify…………………
26. Do you pay for the water from other sources?
a. Yes b. No
27. If the answer is "Yes", how many time do you collect water from this source
per month?
a. Less than 3 times
b. From 3 to less than 6 times
c. From 6 to less than 9 times
d. 9 times or more, specify ……………
27.a How much do you pay for one Time?
------------------ Shekels
27.b Are you satisfied with this source of water?
a. Yes b. No
27.c If the answer is "No", what is the reason?
170
a. Poor quality
b. Low quantity
c. Unreliable
d. High charge
e. Far from home
f. Other, specify……………….
28. Do you have debts to water provider?
a. Less than1,000 NIS
b. Between 1,000 to less than 2,000 NIS
c. Between 2,000 to less than 3,000 NIS
d. Between 3,000 to less than 4,000 NIS
e. More than 4,000 NIS
29.There are many accumulated debts on the customers of water services, from
your point of view, what is the actual reason for these non-payment debts. Is it?
a. The value of invoice is higher than my income
b. The invoices are not received on time
c. Expect to receive exemptions
d. There are a lot of accumulated debts
e. Others encourage non-payment
f. Unwillingness to pay
g. Several invoices received at the same time
h. Absence of law forcing payment of water
i. The municipality does not claim payment
j. Impose delay fines on past debts
30. Do you think that the public desalination plants that supply Rafah city with
a quantity of water can address the water problem in the city? a. Yes
b. No
Section Three: Ability to Pay extra cost for desalinated water by households
31. Does current water quantities cover your needs from water?
a. Yes b. No
32. If the answer is "No", are you ready to buy the quantity of water you need if
the municipality provided to you?
a. Yes b. No
33. You pay the value of the monthly invoice because it is affordable?
a. Yes b. No
34. You pay the invoice regardless of its value constantly?
a. Yes b. No
171
35. You pay the invoice when you have the required money
a. Yes b. No
36. Do you know about the water tariff system that is going on in this city?
a. Yes b. No
37. What is the way that you suggest to be adopted by Water Authority and
expect it will give better results in committed to paying water invoices?
a. Discount on imposed interests on debts
b. Discount on debts
c. Debt rescheduling (Installment only)
d. Debt rescheduling and discount interests
e. Reduced pricing
38. Do you agree to provide desalinated water through the water tap for a
selected day or more per week with increase the value of water monthly invoice
slightly?
a. Yes b. No
38.a If the answer is "Yes", can you afford the value of water invoice if the price
of cubic meter of water on those selected day becomes 3 NIS?
a. Yes b. No
38.b How many days do you want to bring a drinking water by water piped
during the week?
a. less than 2 days
b. From 2 to less than 4 days
c. From 4 to less than 6 days
d. 6 days or more