Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Natural hazard risk analysis in the framework of water safety plans
Jessica Amadio a, Vasilis Kanakoudisb, Dejan Dimkicc, Branislava Maticd, Primoz Banovece, Ivana Boljatf,
Emanuela Campioneg, Barbara C
encur Curkh, Andrea Durog, Darko Kovaci, Anastasia Papadopoulouj,
Argiris Papakonstantinouk, Jasmina LukacReberskif, MatjažSršal, Stavroula Tsitsiflikand Emanuele Romano a,*
a
Water Research Institute –National Research Council of Italy, Montelibretti (Rome), Italy
b
Civil Engineering Department, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
c
Strategic planning Department, Environmental protection and International Cooperation, Jaroslav Cerni Water Institute, Belgrade, Serbia
d
Educons University, Novi Sad, Serbia
e
Faculty of Civil and Geodetic Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
f
Department of Hydrogeology and Engineering Geology, Croatian Geological Survey, Zagreb, Croatia
g
Civil Protection Department of the Italian Presidency of the Council of Ministers, Rome, Italy
h
Faculty of Natural Sciences and Engineering, Department of Geology, Ljubljana, Slovenia
i
Limited liability company ‘Vodovod I Kanalizacija’Niksic, Niksic, Montenegro
j
Civil Engineering Department, University of Thessaly
k
Municipal Water Supply and Sewerage Company of Larissa, Larissa, Greece
l
Kamnik Municipality, Kamnik, Slovenia
*Corresponding author. E-mail: emanuele.romano@irsa.cnr.it
JA, 0000-0003-1035-0592; ER, 0000-0003-4846-2389
ABSTRACT
The available literature on natural hazard risk analysis focused on the implementation of water safety plans (WSPs) is surprisingly quite poor,
despite the significant increase in the number and severity of disasters and adverse effects on drinking water supply systems generated by
natural hazards. At the same time, WSPs that conveniently account for natural hazards with a comprehensive approach ‘from source to tap’
are still scarce as they typically occur at larger spatial scales and adequate prevention, mitigation and adaptation require efficient inter-insti-
tutional collaborations. The aim of this paper is to highlight the main bottlenecks for water utilities to include natural hazards in the
development of their WSPs. The research adopted a stakeholders-oriented approach, involving a considerable number of water utilities
(168), water sectoral agencies (15) and institutions (68) across the Adriatic-Ionian Region through a stepwise process that generated joint
SWOT analysis, the development of a decision support system (DSS) focused on WSPs procedures and tabletop exercises. The final outcomes
generated strategic documents (REWAS –Adrion Road map for resilient water supply) that highlighted the necessity for efficient cross-sec-
toral and inter-institutional cooperation in the development of well-founded and robust WSPs to address natural hazard risk analysis for water
supply systems (DWSS).
Key words: civil protection mechanism, EU drinking water directive, multihazard risk assessment, water safety plan, water utilities
HIGHLIGHTS
•Development of water safety plans accounting for natural hazards is challenging.
•A detailed SWOT analysis on bottlenecks limiting effective risk analyses for WSPs is here presented.
•Guidelines for tabletop exercises focused on the development of WSPs are proposed.
•Evidence-based suggestions to overcome issues related to natural multihazard risk analysis for WSPs are here presented through specific
strategic documents.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits copying and
redistribution for non-commercial purposes with no derivatives, provided the original work is properly cited (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
© 2024 The Authors Journal of Water and Health Vol 00 No 0, 1 doi: 10.2166/wh.2024.124
Uncorrected Proof
Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/jwh/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/wh.2024.124/1368401/jwh2024124.pdf
by guest
on 21 February 2024
GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT
1. INTRODUCTION
The right to safe and clean drinking water and sanitation is recognized as ‘a human right that is essential for the full enjoy-
ment of life and all human rights’(UN 2010). The European Union defined key standards for drinking water supply with the
EU Drinking Water Directive 2020/2184 (EU 2020) whose main objective is ‘to protect human health from the adverse
effects of the contamination of water intended for human consumption by ensuring that it is wholesome and clean, and to
improve access to water intended for human consumption’. The directive recommends the ‘Water Safety Plans’(WSPs), ‘a
comprehensive risk assessment and risk management approach that encompasses all steps in water supply from catchment
to consumer’(WHO 2009) as the suitable and effective tool for drinking water utilities to provide constantly safe drinkable
water. Although the drinking water supply systems (DWSSs) have (or should have) disaster risk management and contin-
gency management plans, the single-hazard approach is prevailing. Thus, alternatives are single-hazard approaches, which
do not integrate in the best way all relevant information, data and sectors. In addition, there are river basin management
plans, flood risk management plans and drought management plans, but drinking water sources are only a part of water man-
agement. The comprehensive approach of the WSPs adopts a multihazard perspective and requires, as a consequence, the
involvement of different sectors and institutions regional and local administration, civil protection systems, water agencies
and water utilities.
The risks associated with hydroclimatic extreme event hazards and how to improve the resilience of water supply ser-
vices to cope with these weather conditions only recently started to be addressed in the contest of the WSPs. The
Second Edition of the Water Safety Plan manual (WSPM 2023 hereafter) (WHO 2023) specifies that robust water
safety planning must consider the vulnerability of the water supply to current and future impacts from climate variability
and change. More generally, natural hazards (not only related to climate variability and change) should be explicitly con-
sidered in several modules of a WSP to ensure effective risk management through the WSP development process. Indeed,
Journal of Water and Health Vol 00 No 0, 2
Uncorrected Proof
Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/jwh/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/wh.2024.124/1368401/jwh2024124.pdf
by guest
on 21 February 2024
within the general framework of management and emergency planning, an integration and harmonization of the different
operational levels, from the transboundary and national levels to the local ones is mandatory and usually very difficult to
reach (WHO 2017b).
The scientific literature on natural hazard risk analysis specifically dedicated to WSPs development and implementation is
surprisingly quite poor, despite the significant increase in frequency and severity of natural hazards in recent years that
adversely affected DWSSs.
Tsoukalas & Tsitsifli (2018) grouped the main benefits and difficulties related to the implementation of WSPs in Europe,
and stressed limitation factors for successful implementation of WSPs such as the lack of legislation, and inappropriate moni-
toring systems in place; limited experience of its staff; the difficulty in assessing all potential hazards; and the lack of
supporting activities. These limitations appear to exacerbate the difficulties in developing and implementing robust and effec-
tive WSPs especially when considering natural hazards such as droughts, earthquakes and floods, which typically occur at
basin (catchment) scale or even larger.
With respect to floods, a number of specific studies were dedicated to the main impacts on DWSSs (from source to tap):
quality degradation in both groundwater resources (Joannou et al. 2019;Sweya & Wilkinson 2020) and artificial reservoirs
(Chou & Wu 2010); damages to infrastructures (Arrighi et al. 2017) and treatment facilities (Barnes et al. 2012;See et al.
2017). Several studies evaluated earthquake’s impacts on water supply systems (Mishra 2018;Bata et al. 2022;Pagano
et al. 2022). Increasing interest is recently given to approaches that assess the vulnerability of the water distribution network
(i.e., distribution infrastructures), independently from the triggering hazard (Agathokleous et al. 2017;Pagano et al. 2018;
Shuang et al. 2019). Concerning drought, the main issue is how to frame such a hazard in the context of WSPs, given
the multiple triggers (i.e., precipitation deficit along with possible high temperatures) are clearly far beyond the scale of
the DWSSs, really claiming for a comprehensive approach, able to analyse the DWSS as a whole (Diao et al. 2016;
Serio et al. 2021).
Risks related to floods and droughts in the context of the DWSSs are even exacerbated by climate change, as
strongly stressed in WSPM (2023). Although this issue is urgent, there are a small number of experiences that include
climate change in WSPs. The literature review compiled by Rickert et al. (2019) summarizes the global experience on
WSPs including climate change. Considering the period between 2010 and 2018, the review indicated that limited
information has been published on how to integrate climate change aspects into a WSP: a few selected countries
of the WHO regions Africa, Europe, Southeast Asia and the Western Pacific, meanwhile some regions are still neg-
lected and globally more work is required. As the world is experiencing situations with more extreme and complex
calamitous events, with far-reaching and long-term consequences, an integrated approach to disaster management
becomes increasingly important (Amarasinghe et al. 2017;Rodriguez-Alvarez et al. 2022), especially for medium-
term horizons.
The main goal of this paper is to introduce the framework for multihazard risk assessment integration in the WSPs. The
presented research is based on the MUHA project –MUltiHAzard framework for water-related risks management’(INTER-
REG V-B Adriatic-Ionian ADRION 2014–2020 Programme) activities implemented by institutions from Italy, Slovenia,
Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro and Greece. The MUHA project (MUHA 2023) aimed at connecting four hazards (droughts,
floods, earthquakes and accidental pollution) and related risks to the integrated drinking water system management
(water utilities and water agencies) with the civil protection mechanisms on a national, international and EU level in the over-
all framework of the WSPs. This paper focuses on the three natural hazards among those considered in the project (i.e.,
droughts, floods and earthquakes).
The MUHA project stakeholders-oriented approach involved diverse water utilities (168), water sectoral agencies (15)
and public authorities (22 national, 24 regional and 22 local) within the project scope area in all phases of tools and out-
puts development. The main objective of this work is to propose a strategic document that highlights the main issues
related to natural hazard risk analysis in the framework of WSPs and suggests some lines of interventions mainly
aimed at fostering interagency cooperation for resilient water supply management. The main pillars (described in
detail in the Method section) of the work are SWOT analysis, development and testing of the water safety planning pro-
cedures decision support system (WASPP-DSS) tool and identification of the bottlenecks and elements of weakness
in the actual emergency plans through tabletop exercises (TTXs), whose structure has been specifically developed to
this aim.
Journal of Water and Health Vol 00 No 0, 3
Uncorrected Proof
Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/jwh/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/wh.2024.124/1368401/jwh2024124.pdf
by guest
on 21 February 2024
2. METHODS
The overall method adopted to identify the main issues related to natural hazard risk analysis in the framework of WSPs was
conceived to support the implementation of the modules suggested by the WHO to develop the plans (WHO 2009). It
includes four steps:
1. SWOT analysis. A detailed SWOT analysis on the current (2020) status of implementation of the WSPs (section 2.1) was
performed with WUs located in six countries of the ADRION area (Italy, Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro and
Greece) by means of dedicated questionnaires, interviews and workshops.
2. WASPP-DSS tool. The SWOT analysis drove the development of WASPP-DSS, an informative platform, supporting
module 2 (Describe the water supply system) and module 3 (Identify the hazards and assess the risks) of the WHO
manual (WHO 2009). Such a tool (section 2.2) addresses the difficulty in assessing all potential hazards and risks and
the consequent need to provide WUs with standardized supporting tools.
3. Tabletop exercises. Risk analysis (modules 3–4 of the WHO manual) and identification of emergency plans (modules 8–9)
in the framework of WSPs require, especially in case of droughts, floods and earthquakes, the involvement of several insti-
tutions and stakeholders. We identified the ‘tabletop exercise –TTX’as a suitable tool for involving effectively all the actors
in the development of a WSP, proposing a detailed structure to perform and evaluate it (section 2.3, SM4 –Guidelines for
TTXs in the framework of WSPs and SM5 –Action Plan for the development of TTXs for improved WSP reliability). Out-
comes from the TTXs performed in four pilot areas, along with the performed SWOT analysis and the testing phase of the
WASPP-DSS, allowed to get several hints for the development of robust and effective WSPs, pinpointing bottlenecks and
their possible ways out.
4. REWAS-ADRION strategic documents. Feedback from SWOT analysis and TTXs were organized in specific strategic
documents for the development of WSPs addressed to: (a) water utilities; (b) civil protection authorities; and (c) water
authorities. In section 3.4, the priority axes of such strategic documents are presented in detail and further discussed.
The complete documents are attached to this paper as Supplementary Material (SM6, SM7 and SM8).
Considering all the methodological steps mentioned earlier, the number of water utilities involved constitutes a very repre-
sentative percentage in terms of inhabitants supplied: approximately 50% for Italy, 26% for Slovenia, 25% for Serbia, 70% for
Montenegro and 40% for Greece. It is worth stressing that all the outcomes presented in the following were extrapolated from
the feedback received from the stakeholders. In other words, the authors did not add elements (based for example on their
own experience or scientific skills), but organized in a structured way all the information coming from the stakeholders
through questionnaires, workshops, interviews, etc.
2.1. SWOT analysis
A detailed SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) analysis on the current (2020) procedures for the develop-
ment of WSPs at the country and WU level was carried out with the aim of identifying internal and external factors actually
fostering and limiting the implementation of WSPs. Three natural hazards were considered: droughts, floods and earth-
quakes. An online questionnaire form was created and sent to WUs and scientific and professional associations located in
the ADRION area (Italy: 33; Slovenia: 5; Serbia: 4; Montenegro: 5; Greece: 30), allowing to identify the current status of
implementation of WSPs in the area of interest. It is worth stressing that in 2020, the WSP was developed and finalized
by only one WU in the whole area. The received feedback (approximately 25% of the water utilities requested), analysed
by the MUHA team, allowed for identifying and grouping the main bottlenecks faced by the water utilities in starting the
WSP development. Such an analysis was then deepened by means of interviews (either online or face to face, depending
on the stakeholders’availability) addressed to WUs located in specific pilot areas: Ridracoli (Italy), Kamnik (Slovenia),
Region of Istria (Croatia), Golubinka (Croatia), Niksic (Montenegro) and Larissa (Greece). In Figure 1, the map of pilot
sites (six in total) and the related hazards possibly impacting the water supply systems (WSSs) are shown.
Such two-step analysis (questionnaires þdedicated interviews) allowed the MUHA team to identify the internal and exter-
nal factors affecting the preparation of WSPs in real cases. Internal factors include existing resources and capabilities within
the organization that have control over internal factors such as geographical location, financial resources, technical resources
and capabilities, human resources, internal communication, management, and services. External factors include opportu-
nities and threats that are outside of the organization which it may be able to influence –or at least anticipate –but not
fully control such factors as technology innovations and changes, economic trends, government policies and legislation,
Journal of Water and Health Vol 00 No 0, 4
Uncorrected Proof
Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/jwh/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/wh.2024.124/1368401/jwh2024124.pdf
by guest
on 21 February 2024
legal judgments, and social trends. The performed analysis distinguished a ‘national’level from a ‘utility’level because the
internal environment at the country level is the external environment at the utility level. The first level (national level) analysis
aims to highlight the interlinkages between administrative bodies and stakeholders (central government; ministries, regional
and local authorities; and water utilities). The second level (utility level) analysis takes into consideration the day-to-day oper-
ations of the WUs.
Finally, the preliminary results of the SWOT analysis were shared through a dedicated workshop (either online or in
person, depending on the country) held at the national level in each project’s country with the project’s stakeholders (associ-
ation of WUs and WUs; water regulators; health authorities; association of local communities; and similar), to get their
feedbacks, for their responses to be incorporated as key messages for the country.
2.2. WASPP-DSS tool
The SWOT analysis highlighted two issues such as the lack of officially recognized common schemes shared by the WUs, and
the difficulty of small and medium-sized WUs to implement WSPs. Moving from such analysis, the need for specific tools to
support a preliminary but complete screening able to individuate the WSS components prone to specific hazards and to rank
hazards and related risks to deliver initial risk matrices, according to the WHO WSP manual became more than obvious
(WHO 2009). To this goal, a specific platform, named WASPP-DSS, available at http://muha.apps.vokas.si/home after regis-
tration (accessed 22/01/2024), was developed. A short tutorial of the platform can be found at https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v¼bfHxK3aFgsM (accessed 22 January 2024).
The WASPP-DSS (the reader can refer to Barbetta et al. (2022) and Romano et al. (2022) for a detailed description of the
tool) allows for a first analysis aimed at ranking the hazards and related risks impacting a given WSS. Having a shared
scheme of analysis may boost comparison among different WSPs, promoting collaboration among WUs acting in close ter-
ritories or, in some cases, having interconnections.
The tool supports the development of module 2 (Describe the water supply system) and module 3 (Identify the hazards and
assess the risks) of the WSP manual (WHO 2009). It is basically constituted by a ‘catalogue of hazardous events’crossed
through a matrix approach by a ‘catalogue of water supply system components’. The following components are considered:
(1) surface water resources; (2) groundwater resources; (3) artificial recharge; (4) raw water intake; (5) raw water storage and
Figure 1 |Map of pilot sites and related hazards impacting WSSs.
Journal of Water and Health Vol 00 No 0, 5
Uncorrected Proof
Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/jwh/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/wh.2024.124/1368401/jwh2024124.pdf
by guest
on 21 February 2024
transport; (6) treatment; (7) reservoir and pumps; (8) transport and distribution; (9) internal piping; (10) organization and
information; (11) governance and future hazards. Some of these components are in turn split into subcomponents. Each
hazardous event is described in a specific box summarizing the related trigger, consequences, and possible measures. The
user is required to evaluate the probability of occurrence by selecting an estimated return period among some predefined cat-
egories (from weekly to 30 years or more) and the severity of occurrence. The two components are combined to compute a
risk estimation, in turn, categorized as very low, low, medium, high and very high. The outcomes are given in terms of the
number of hazardous events identified and completed, the number of hazardous events per component and hazard category,
the severity of consequences by component and by hazard and the risk category by component and by hazard.
The WASPP-DSS was extensively tested by the 12 WUs listed in Table 1. An online questionnaire form was created and
sent to each water utility to get information on the topics listed below.
•Completeness of the ‘catalogue of components’included in the tool.
•Completeness of the ‘catalogue of hazardous events’included in the tool.
•Assessment of the internal (at the WU level) availability of the data required by the tool.
•Assessment of the external availability of the data required by the tool.
•Assessment of the reliability of the internal/external data acquired to be used as input of the tool.
•Identification of the possible other institutions to be involved in the risk analysis process.
•Robustness of the risk analysis performed, mostly in relation to WSPs.
•Utility of the reporting structure delivered by the tool as output.
The results of the questionnaires allowed to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the WASPP-DSS and to point out
specific issues in the implementation of WSPs that drove the draft of the strategic documents (section 3.4).
2.3. Tabletop exercises
Usually, WUs do not have defined acts, rules and obligations for cross-border water supply in case of emergencies. Especially,
there is no obligation to hold TTXs or practical exercises that simulate hazardous events and, even the ones in place, are cur-
rently lacking in the procedures and are not standardized. In a TTX, an artificial environment that reproduces all or part of
hazardous event scenarios is simulated. The main goal of a TTX is to test decision-making processes that refer to civil protec-
tion plans or existing intervention models.
To bridge the gap among civil protection authorities, water cycle managers and service providers, a methodological
approach based on a literature review (FEMA 2003;Direttiva PCM 2021;EU 2021) for performing TTXs was proposed
by the Italian Civil Protection Department, a project partner. Starting from the proposed method, discussed and agreed
with the entire partnership, a set of guidelines (Table 2) were drafted and subsequently tested in the national pilot areas
(three water utilities and one municipality) with the relevant stakeholders (Table 3). A complete version of Table 2, detailing
Table 1 |Water utilities involved in the testing phase of the WASPP-DSS tool
Country Water utility Supplied inhabitants
Italy Romagna Acque –Società delle Fonti 1,100,000 in
SMAT –Torino 2,200,00 in
VERITAS –Venezia 800,000 in
Slovenia Municipality of Kamnik 15,000 in
Croatia Water utility of Istria for the production and distribution of water 100,000 in
Water supply company Zadar 110,000 in
Montenegro Doo "Vodovod and kanalizacija" Nikšic68,000 in
Serbia Belgrade PU company ‘Water and Sewerage’1,500,000 in
Šabac PU company ‘Water and Sewerage’70,000 in
Regional DWSS ‘Rzav’150,000 in
Public water supply utility Kikinda 50,000 in
Greece Municipal Water Supply and Sewerage Company of Larissa 230,000 in
Journal of Water and Health Vol 00 No 0, 6
Uncorrected Proof
Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/jwh/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/wh.2024.124/1368401/jwh2024124.pdf
by guest
on 21 February 2024
how to plan and perform a TTX can be found in Supplementary Material (SM4 –Guidelines for TTXs in the framework of
WSPs).
After the TTXs were finalized in the pilot sites, each stakeholder participating in the exercise completed the evaluation test.
The goal was to evaluate the performance in the preparation and execution phase of the exercise in order to:
•identify the strengths and weaknesses of the system;
•identify if and what are the margins for improvement,
•indicate where to focus more efforts in case of a real event;
•define some ‘best practices’;
•acquire knowledge on the development of the exercise process thanks to an external point of view.
The evaluation process is summarized below (Figure 2).
The complete evaluation checklist proposals, designed by both the Italian and Greek partners, inspired by guidelines for
conducting civil protection exercises (Esercitazione Neiflex 2018; Document with protocol no. 532/23.1.2020 entitled
Table 2 |Scheme of the proposed guidelines for TTXs in the framework of WSPs
Introduction Planning Management Evaluation
The tabletop exercise Objectives Staff and team procedures and actions Report and evaluation
Event and risk scenarios Team staffing and rules Training programme Lessons learned
The detailed version of the guidelines is available in the Supplementary Material (SM4).
Table 3 |The pilot areas and related stakeholders involved in the tabletop exercises
Pilot Country Hazard
Stakeholders
Categories
Number of participants
involved in TTX
Romagna Acque –Società
delle Fonti, Ridracoli
Italy Drought Civil Protection
Water Utility
Research Institute
Municipality and related public services
Environmental Protection Agencies
Public Health Department
Water Management
35
Doo ‘Vodovod and
kanalizacija’, Nikšic
Montenegro Drought Civil Protection and Rescue Service
Water Utility
Water Institute
Fire Brigade
Citizens
15
Municipality of Kamnik,
Kamnik
Slovenia Floods Civil Protection
Water Utility
Municipality and related public services
University
Water Institute
20
DEYAL, Larissa Greece Earthquake Civil Protection
Water Utility
Municipality and related public services
Region
Police
Fire Department
Electricity Distribution Network Operator Association
of the Radio Amateurs (local volunteering organization)
15–20
Journal of Water and Health Vol 00 No 0, 7
Uncorrected Proof
Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/jwh/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/wh.2024.124/1368401/jwh2024124.pdf
by guest
on 21 February 2024
‘Planning, Conduct, and Evaluation of Civil Protection Exercises), are reported in the Supplementary Material (SM4 –Guide-
lines for tabletop exercises in the framework of WSPs).
The outcomes of the evaluation tests were collected, analysed and discussed among both the TTX participants indepen-
dently for each pilot and then within the project partnership. The conclusions were used to write the action plan for the
development of TTXs for improved WSS reliability (SM5 –action plan for the development of tabletop exercises for improved
WSP reliability).
2.4. REWAS-ADRION strategic documents
Results of this work proposed the so-called REWAS-ADRION, a roadmap for a more resilient water supply focused on natu-
ral hazards, recognizing the specific involvement of each organization (water utilities, civil protection, water agencies). The
goal of the strategic documents is to support water utilities, civil protection organizations and water authorities to identify and
mitigate hazardous events, contributing to water supply resiliency by means of the instrument of WSPs. The strategic vision is
the enhancement of water supply systems resilience to natural hazardous events, by the improvement of the water safety plan-
ning mechanism built on the interagency cooperation concept and in the light of the Revised Drinking Water Directive (EU)
2020/2184 challenges.
The MUHA team analysed the outcomes from the SWOT analysis, from the WASPP-DSS and from the TTXs and prelimi-
nary identified some priority axes of intervention focused on specific targets for robust development and implementation of
WSPs and the related strategic actions (practical actions). Discussion with stakeholders in the framework of dedicated work-
shops held at the national scale led to the final version of the REWAS-ADRION strategic documents summarized in section
3.4 and entirely reported in Supplementary Materials (SM6, SM7 and SM8: Institutional Action Plan for Resilient Water
Supply addressed to water utilities, water authorities and civil protection, respectively).
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.1. SWOT analysis
The tables reporting the outcomes of the SWOT analyses in relation to both the ‘national’and ‘utility’level on droughts, floods
and earthquakes are attached to this paper as Supplementary Material (SM1, SM2 and SM3 for drought, floods and earth-
quake-related risks, respectively). These tables summarize the common issues among ADRION countries, as identified by
the WUs through the questionnaires fulfilled in the first phase of the SWOT analysis. An analysis performed crossing the
three analysed hazards, allowed to identify some common issues related to natural hazards that according to the stakeholders
need to be carefully addressed for the sound development and implementation of WSPs. Results are presented in Figure 3.
The SWOT analysis carried out at both national and utility levels on droughts, floods and earthquakes allowed to identify
the main bottlenecks the WUs have to face for a suitable and robust development and implementation of WSPs.
In the following, we point out the main elements arising from the performed SWOT analysis concerning the first five mod-
ules (described later) for planning a WSP as illustrated in the WSP Manual (WHO 2009). Moreover, some possible solutions
suggested by the stakeholders (thus feasible, according to their experience) are presented.
Figure 2 |Outline of the evaluation process of tabletop exercises.
Journal of Water and Health Vol 00 No 0, 8
Uncorrected Proof
Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/jwh/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/wh.2024.124/1368401/jwh2024124.pdf
by guest
on 21 February 2024
3.1.1. Module 1 –preliminary actions, including assembling the WSP team
Bottleneck: Many elements of weakness cited in the SWOT analysis refer to the lack of data and shared risk analysis pro-
cedures at a scale larger than the scale of the single WU. This need potentially affects all the modules of the WHO
guidelines for a sound WSP development, from natural hazard monitoring to the estimate of impacts and related risks. It
is worth stressing that the SWOT analysis clearly pointed out the lack of specific expertise and technical resources in
small WUs. Not infrequently, in small WUs, there is a lack of a WSS model, and/or modern/automated management, some-
times even a scarcity of basic system data.
Suggested solution: From the start, it is necessary to set up a multidisciplinary team involving: (1) data providers (environ-
mental, meteo-climatic, seismic, etc.), (2) institutions entrusted for planning, management or emergency, (3) external experts
Figure 3 |Summary of common issues among flood, drought and earthquakes, identified with the SWOT analysis.
Journal of Water and Health Vol 00 No 0, 9
Uncorrected Proof
Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/jwh/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/wh.2024.124/1368401/jwh2024124.pdf
by guest
on 21 February 2024
and (4) stakeholders that address the concurrent water uses. It is suggested to constitute different teams in relation to specific
hazards. Moreover, setting up consortia of several WUs acting on neighbour territories can foster the individuation of
common strategies to increase drinking water safety, as well as reduce costs for experts’teams.
3.1.2. Module 2 –describe the water supply system
Bottleneck: The performed SWOT analysis highlighted the necessity to first characterize each WSS by structuring the analysis
in a shared scheme, which is able to represent all the components of the WSP, crossing each component with possible hazar-
dous events and multihazard impacts. It is advisable to implement different approaches for the analysis in relation to the size
of the WU, as listed in the following.
•Small WUs need guided and standardized procedures for the first screening of their own systems.
•Medium and large WUs very often have to deal with complex supply systems for which is necessary to develop different
WSPs related to different ‘subsystems’. The ‘subsystems’should account for the chain of impact of hazardous events con-
sidering their propagation. This significantly multiplies the number of plans to develop, overloading the necessary work
(to both the WUs and the institutions entrusted with the approval steps).
Suggested solution: The need for small WUs of guided and standardized procedures for a first screening of their own sys-
tems has been addressed by developing the tool described in section 2.2 whose results are summarized in section 3.2. The
issue of the high number of plans to be developed by medium and large WUs was not faced in this paper.
3.1.3. Module 3 –identify the hazards and assess the risks
The performed SWOT analysis pointed out several elements of weaknesses related to the identification of the hazards and
assessment of the risks.
•Probability of occurrence estimations
Bottleneck: With reference to drought and flood hazards, the assessment of the ‘probability occurrence’(estimation of
return periods) usually needs a long time series of data to perform statistical analyses. The lack of long time series is one
of the main problems to be faced. This is due either to an actual lack of data or to the fragmentation of data providers
and/or accessibility to the existing databases. Moreover, some of the information necessary for risk analysis is not simply
based on direct observations but relies on models able to simulate physical processes or establish statistically significant
links. Modelling approaches are not usually adopted, especially by the small and medium WUs.
Suggested solution: Concerning the lack of long time series, it is suggested to foster the accessibility and interoperability of
different databases to strongly increase the number of data available to perform sound risk analysis. Concerning the model-
ling activities, as for module 1, it is suggested to set up consortia of several WUs, when the necessary expertise is internally
lacking.
•Impacts’data collection
Bottleneck: Considering natural hazards one of the main bottlenecks for a robust risk analysis is to collect data on the
impacts of such events good and numerous enough to perform a robust statistical analysis able to link hazardous events
and impacts, mostly in case of multihazard and non-linear impacts. The most important limitation is due to the lack of a
shared ‘catalogue of impacts’enabling to feed of a shared database and thus increasing the statistical population of the
impacts. Such kind of need is particularly important when dealing with WSSs, due to several reasons: (a) the entire chain
from water resources to users is prone to several hazards, in some cases overlapping, such as natural hazards, chemical,
and biological; (b) monitoring of hazardous events is entrusted to different actors (WUs, monitoring agencies, regulatory
agencies, public Institutions, civil protection); (c) conversely, monitoring of impacts is usually entrusted to the only water
manager, preventing for an effective sharing of impact data; (d) WSSs are sometimes shared by different countries, forcing
for an effective sharing of data and procedures.
Suggested solution: It is strongly suggested to set up a national, structured ‘catalogue of impacts’of hazardous events on
WSSs that includes: components of the system under study; a catalogue of possible hazardous events; a catalogue of possible
impacts and relationships with triggering hazardous events; catalogue of possible mitigation measures. Catalogues should be
shared and acknowledged by all the actors involved in water management with the aim of significantly increasing the
Journal of Water and Health Vol 00 No 0, 10
Uncorrected Proof
Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/jwh/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/wh.2024.124/1368401/jwh2024124.pdf
by guest
on 21 February 2024
statistical basis necessary to soundly estimate the probability of occurrence of the impacts. Currently, a structured ‘catalogue
of impacts’(at least in the ADRION area considered in this work) is missing both at national and transnational scales.
•Climate change.
Bottleneck: Climate change is strongly threatening the resilience of water supply systems (mainly those that rely on a single
water source) due to the current and future increase of extreme events.
Suggested solution: It is advisable to share among WUs belonging to homogeneous climate areas analyses of the current
modification of the precipitation and temperature regime, as well as to assess the future P and T regimes and related impacts
on the availability of water resources taking advantage of the global and regional climatic models. From the perspective of a
multihazard approach, this climate, hydrological and hydrogeological analyses appear to be mandatory also when consider-
ing hazards not directly related to climate change (such as earthquakes): the overall availability of water resources strongly
impacts the overall risk in case of superposition of different effects along the ‘chain of impacts’that can lead to water
shortages (whatever the trigger).
•Future water needs and consumption.
Bottleneck: The development of an effective WSP claims for a robust estimate not only of the current and future water avail-
ability but also of the current and future water needs and consumption, especially in case of concurrent uses. In the studied
areas, these data and estimates are often provided (when existing) by different institutions and, until now, there is not a cen-
tralized database.
Suggested solution: It is strongly suggested to foster an effective multilevel water governance to set up centralized ‘obser-
vatories’at the scale of the largest watershed basins involving not only drinkable water managers but also water managers for
other uses (irrigation, energy production, etc.).
3.1.4. Module 4 –determine and validate control measures, reassess and prioritize the risks
Bottleneck: Traditionally, information on the impacts of natural hazards such as drought, flood or earthquake on water
resources during past events still relies on ground data. With respect to flood, for example, the extension of the flooded
areas was derived in the past by fragmentary data sources (e.g., pictures, videos, direct testimonies, indications derived
from videos recorded during helicopter flights, etc.), therefore uncertainty can affect the identified area.
Possible solution: Nowadays, the use of high-resolution satellite data can represent a significant improvement (Demirel et al.
2018;Alfieri et al. 2022), especially when integrating with ground data through modelling approaches (big data analysis, digital
twin approaches, etc.). It was recognized by several water utilities that such an approach can be very useful to reassess and prior-
itize the risks, but that usually overcomes the internal skills and competencies of the WUs, especially of the smallest ones.
3.1.5. Module 5 –develop, implement, and maintain an improvement/upgrade plan. Investment required for major
system modification
Bottleneck: The actual status of the WSS infrastructures and their actual vulnerability to natural hazards is often missing.
From the performed SWOT analysis, problems related to infrastructural ageing and old design criteria clearly emerge.
Possible solution: To support the identification of the investments required for major system modifications, it appears to be
necessary to perform robust risk analyses based on the integration of different elements: (a) local estimation of the statistical
characteristics of a specific hazard; (b) evaluation of the impacts on the single component of the WSS accounting for its
specific vulnerability, also in relation to its age; (c) possible impact along the ‘chain of impacts’. Such an analysis should sup-
port the identification of the investments required for major system modifications
3.2. WASPP-DSS
Results from the implementation of the tool WASPP-DSS on the single water supply systems are out of the scope of this
paper. However, a detailed survey performed during the testing phase performed over 12 pilot cases (Table 1) allowed to
identify some strength elements:
•The tool is coherent with the WSP manuals provided by the World Health Organization (WHO 2009,2023).
•It provides a comprehensive list of possible hazardous events, which appears very useful to support the initial screening and
ranking the riskiest events.
Journal of Water and Health Vol 00 No 0, 11
Uncorrected Proof
Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/jwh/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/wh.2024.124/1368401/jwh2024124.pdf
by guest
on 21 February 2024
•The structure of the tool, organized into ‘components’and ‘subcomponents’, allows to perform a comprehensive risk analy-
sis from resource to tap, following the entire chain.
•Having a shared scheme of analysis may boost comparison among different WSPs, promoting collaboration among WUs
acting in close territories or, in some cases, having interconnections.
•The final report and most of all the possibility to visualize the results ‘per component’,‘per hazard’or ‘per level of risk’suit-
ably supports the screening phase.
On the other side, some important limitations have been highlighted by the WUs such as:
•Drinking water chain can be quite complex; the user should evaluate, in the same WSP, multiple drinking water sources
with different treatments, etc. and such a complexity cannot be handled by the WASPP-DSS.
•To perform a robust estimate of the risk matrices one should take into account also two more elements (not accounted in
the current version of the tool): (a) the multihazard dimension, when effects of different hazards overlap; and (b) the propa-
gation of impacts through the whole chain from resource(s) to tap.
•The tool does not allow taking into consideration the spatial dimension of water infrastructures, implying that spatial
relations and related impacts among components (as well as the direction of such impacts) are not explicitly considered.
•The assessment of the occurrence probability of a given hazardous event is usually quite difficult and several WUs mainly
(small and medium ones) do not have data time series long enough to perform such an assessment. This is a typical situation
where the support of monitoring agencies specifically entrusted to collect data necessary to assess the probability of occur-
rence, vulnerability and related risks is mandatory.
•The assessment of the vulnerability of the single components in relation to a given hazard (or superposition of hazards) and
the related probability of occurrence is challenging at the level of WUs; organizing and continuously feeding a national and
transnational registry of impacts of natural hazardous events on WSSs appears to be mandatory.
The limitations highlighted by the WUs in the WASPP-DSS testing phases allowed to better address some of the specific
objectives proposed in the strategic document described in section 3.4 and entirely reported in the Supplementary Materials
(SM6, SM7 and SM8).
3.3. Tabletop exercises
Results obtained from testing the TTXs guidelines (Table 2 and SM4) on performing TTXs showed important considerations.
Regarding the actors involved in the exercise, it was noted that they should focus mainly on:
•Drafting (or improving/updating an existing) written contingency plan.
•Compilation of a directory of the persons in charge of the involved services including their contact details.
•Clarification of roles and responsibilities.
•Creation of a core of selected staff for emergencies.
•Training and education for the staff that will make the initial assessment of the situation in order to report the correct infor-
mation without overestimating or underestimating the consequences of the emergency.
•Coordination/cooperation with third parties (agencies, services).
•Procedures for public communication in emergencies.
The results of testing the guidelines were also useful to give specific hints for the future development of standardized TTXs:
•The set-up of a regional technical table is identified as the key measure for the effective, synergistic, and timely connection
and coordination of all the bodies responsible for the management of water resources, water quality control, water regu-
lation and civil protection activities.
•It is strongly suggested to perform a preparation activity to TTX in order to achieve, albeit in a provisional way, the sharing
of tools, languages and procedures, including innovative ones (for example, the definition of thresholds for the activation of
the operational phases).
•The continuous flow of information and updating of the event and impact scenarios and the link between the procedures
are good practices for effective mitigation measures.
•It is necessary to better connect civil protection and WUs and give feedback regarding important matters in case of hazar-
dous events.
•In the case of the drinking water supply, a database on the availability of spare parts should be set up.
Journal of Water and Health Vol 00 No 0, 12
Uncorrected Proof
Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/jwh/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/wh.2024.124/1368401/jwh2024124.pdf
by guest
on 21 February 2024
•If the entire cross-border management system has been reduced to the level of utility companies, small utilities cannot
handle this task and responsibility.
To deal effectively with emergency events, it is necessary for civil protection operators to be aware of the tasks both in the
phase that precedes a possible emergency and during the emergency itself. For this purpose, it is fundamental to implement
adequate training programmes for the operators to be tested during exercise activities.
The inter-institutional relationship among WUs, civil protection systems and water agencies is highly complex and dyna-
mically evolving and it should involve many other public and private institutions, especially in a very fragmented
institutional framework. Although water management in all countries is based on EU policies and directives, the application
of the guidelines has to be flexible due to differences in size (large, medium, small), spatial scale (regional, local), source
(groundwater, surface water or mix) of the DWSs and institutional framework.
Based on the results of the TTXs, it proposed an action plan (SM5) for the development of TTXs for improved WSP
reliability. The AP, primarily addressed to WUs, is based on an integrated approach ensuring the logical sequence of actions
and link to the strategic vision and includes all necessary elements to ensure the achievement of the strategic goals. The action
plan is developed along three priority axes:
1. Improvement of water safety planning and monitoring procedures oriented to preparedness and emergency responses.
2. Increase of governance structures and interagency cooperation effectiveness, also in a transnational context.
3. Improvement of the necessary measures facilitating the effective function of the water safety planning mechanism.
The results strongly suggested that TTXs are excellent tools useful for fine-tuning and better defining operational plans and
procedures, as well as making the various parties involved in the management of the event interact with each other.
3.4. REWAS-ADRION strategic document
The REWAS-ADRION strategy is developed along five priorities axes and includes seven targets (Figure 4). It was then devel-
oped in specific action plans addressed to water utilities, civil protection and water agencies. Specific and practical objectives,
related to the priority axes and targets of the REWAS-ADRION strategic documents have been indicated in the action plans.
For each objective, activities, instruments, stakeholders to be involved and possible constraints are proposed. The list of the
specific objectives is reported in Table 4.
Figure 4 |Priority axes and targets of the proposed REWAS-ADRION strategic document.
Journal of Water and Health Vol 00 No 0, 13
Uncorrected Proof
Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/jwh/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/wh.2024.124/1368401/jwh2024124.pdf
by guest
on 21 February 2024
It is worth emphasizing that the REWAS-ADRION strategic document is not intended as a ‘comprehensive’document, cov-
ering all the topics to be tackled in developing and implementing WSPs. It is rather a document that points out the main
issues related to natural hazard risk analysis in the framework of WSP and suggests some lines of interventions mainly
aimed at fostering interagency cooperation in the field of resilient water supply. As a matter of fact, all the activities performed
with the stakeholders and here presented, indicated as a fundamental requirement to tackle natural hazards in the context of
WSPs the inter-institutional cooperation both at planning and at operational level.
4. CONCLUSIONS
Despite the large number of methods adopted and the findings of this study, it is possible to point out some main practical
goals to be addressed to enhance the water supply system’s resilience to multi-natural hazardous events in the framework of
WSPs:
•to guarantee the interoperability among different databases, possibly structured on a GIS basis;
•to develop and implement comprehensive models simulating impacts over time (early warning systems and risk analysis
procedures) and shared among all the possible involved stakeholders (mainly in case of co-exploitation);
•to organize and continuously feed a national and transnational registry of impacts of natural hazardous events on WSSs;
•to carry on detailed and comprehensive risk analyses about climate change impacts on DWSSs adopting a multihazard
approach; to this goal, the support of the scientific community is highly recommended.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors warmly acknowledge all the water utilities, water agencies and institutions that supported this work, providing
valuable feedbacks during the research steps, and in particular: Romagna Acque –Società delle Fonti (IT), SMAT –Società
Metropolitana Acque Torino (IT), Gruppo VERITAS –Veneziana Energia Risorse Idriche Territorio Ambiente Servizi (IT),
Table 4 |Summary of the specific practical objectives reported in the Action Plans for Water Utilities, Civil Protection and Water Agencies
(SM6, SM7 and SM8)
Priority
axis Specific objective
Water utility 1 Elimination of the gap of information and the bottlenecks at staff members’level (emergency response
mechanism)
1 Reduction of difficulties in the development and constant implementation of the water safety plan (inter
sectoral cooperation, integration of the water safety plan in water utility’s operation)
1 Recognition of existent procedures and mutual knowledge of the roles and competences of each organization
2 Enhancement of interagency operation among the responders in the area of water utility’s responsibility
(emergency response mechanism)
3 Enhancement of the feasibility of the water safety plan (evaluation/review aspects)
3 Operational capacity building of water service providers & stakeholders, to support the effective
implementation of water safety mechanism procedures
5 Strengthening public awareness on water safety issues
5 Improvement interagency communication and interoperability capacity within water safety mechanism
Water agency 1 Assessing drought conditions, reducing drought risk in advance and developing response options that
minimize economic stress, environmental losses and social hardships during droughts
2 Enhancement of interagency operation among the responders in the area of water utility’s responsibility
(emergency response mechanism)
3 Increase organizational preparedness under crisis situations
4 Identification of institutional actors and stakeholders to overcome the mismatch between hydrological and
administrative boundaries
4 Increase the availability of the information on water supply systems for the purpose of decision-making
process during the emergencies
Civil
protection
1 Recognition of existent procedures and mutual knowledge of the roles and competences of each organization
2 Enhancement of inter-institutional cooperation in the field of water resources management
4 Water System Information improvement
Journal of Water and Health Vol 00 No 0, 14
Uncorrected Proof
Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/jwh/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/wh.2024.124/1368401/jwh2024124.pdf
by guest
on 21 February 2024
HERA S.p.A.-Holding Energia Risorse Ambiente (IT), IREN S.p.A. (IT), ARPAE –Agenzia Prevenzione Ambiente Energia
Emilia Romagna (IT), Utilitalia –Federazione Utilities acqua –ambiente –energia (IT), EDEYA –Hellenic Association of
Municipal Water Supply and Sewerage Companies, Water Utility of Istria for the production and distribution of water
(HR), Limited liability company ‘Vodovod I Kanalizacija’Niksic (ME), Water Directorate of Eastern Macedonia –Thrace
(EL), Directorate of Civil Protection –Region of Thessaly (EL), Municipal Water Supply and Sewerage Company of
Kozani (EL), Ministry of Environment and Energy, General Secretariat for Natural Environment and Water –General Direc-
torate for Water –Directorate of Water Services Planning and Management (EL), Public Water Management Company
‘Sribijavode’Belgrade (RS).
This research has been funded by the INTERREG V-B Adriatic-Ionian ADRION Programme 2014–2020 –Second Call for
Proposal –Priority Axis 2 (project MUHA –Multihazard Framework for Water-related risks management, n. 952).
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
E.R., P.B., B.C.C., and V.K. conceptualized the whole article, developed the methodology, and arranged the software; E.R.,
J.A., V.K., D.D., B.M., P.B., I.B., E.C., B.C.C., A.D., D.K., A.P., A.P. J.L.R., M.S., and S.T. rendered support in data curation,
investigated the work, and validated the data; E.R. and J.A. wrote the original draft and supervised the work; E.R., J.A., V.K.,
D.D., and B.M. wrote the review and edited it; E.R. and J.A. rendered support in project coordination.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
All relevant data are included in the paper or its Supplementary Information.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare there is no conflict.
REFERENCES
Agathokleous, A., Christodoulou, C. & Christodoulou, S. E. 2017 Topological robustness and vulnerability assessment of water distribution
networks.Water Resources Management 31 (12), 4007–4021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-017-1721-7.
Alfieri, L., Avanzi, F., Delogu, F., Gabellani, S., Bruno, G., Campo, L., Libertino, A., Massari, C., Tarpanelli, A., Rains, D., Miralles, D. G.,
Quast, R., Vreugdenhil, M., Wu, H. & Brocca, L. 2022 High-resolution satellite products improve hydrological modeling in northern
Italy.Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 26, 3921–3939. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-3921-2022.
Amarasinghe, P., Liu, A., Egodawatta, P., Barnes, P., McGree, J. & Goonetilleke, A. 2017 Modelling resilience of a water supply system under
climate change and population growth impacts.Water Resources Management 31, 2885–2898. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-017-
1646-1.
Arrighi, C., Tarani, F., Vicario, E. & Castelli, F. 2017 Flood impacts on a water distribution network.Natural Hazards and Earth System
Sciences 17 (12), 2109–2123. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-17-2109-2017.
Barbetta, S., Bonaccorsi, B., Tsitsifli, S., Boljat, I., Argiris, P., Reberski, J. L., Massari, C. & Romano, E. 2022 Assessment of flooding impact on
water supply systems: A comprehensive approach based on DSS.Water Resources Management 36 (14), 5443–5459. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11269-022-03306-x.
Barnes, P., Egodawatta, P. & Goonetilleke, A. 2012 Modelling resilience in a water supply system: Contrasting conditions of drought and
flood. In: 8th Annual Conference of International Institute for Infrastructure, Renewal and Reconstruction: International Conference on
Disaster Management (IIIRR 2012).
Bata, M. T. H., Carriveau, R. & Ting, D. S. K. 2022 Urban water supply systems’resilience under earthquake scenario.Scientific Reports
12 (1), 20555. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-23126-8.
Chou, F. N. F. & Wu, C. 2010 Reducing the impacts of flood-induced reservoir turbidity on a regional water supply system.Advances in Water
Resources 33 (2), 146–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2009.10.011.
Demirel, M. C., Mai, J., Mendiguren, G., Koch, J., Samaniego, L. & Stisen, S. 2018 Combining satellite data and appropriate objective
functions for improved spatial pattern performance of a distributed hydrologic model.Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 22,
1299–1315. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-1299-2018.
Diao, K., Sweetapple, C., Farmani, R., Fu, G., Ward, S. & Butler, D. 2016 Global resilience analysis of water distribution systems.Water
Research 106, 383–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2016.10.011.
Direttiva del Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri 2021 Indirizzi per la predisposizione dei piani di protezione civile ai diversi livelli
territoriali. (21A03935) (GU Serie Generale n.160 del 06-07-2021). Directive of the President of the Council of Ministers. (30.04.2021).
Guidelines for civil protection planning at different territorial levels. Official Gazette of the Italian Republic, n. 160, 6 July (in Italian).
Journal of Water and Health Vol 00 No 0, 15
Uncorrected Proof
Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/jwh/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/wh.2024.124/1368401/jwh2024124.pdf
by guest
on 21 February 2024
EU 2020 Directive 2020/2184 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2020 on the quality of water intended for
human consumption (recast). Official J EU 23.12.2020.435.
EU Grants 2021 Technical Guide for UCPM Full-scale Exercises. V3.0–09.03.2021.
Federal Emergency Management Agency 2003 Unit 5: The Tabletop Exercise. Emergency Management Institute: Exercise Design IS-139.
Joannou, D., Kalawsky, R., Saravi, S., Rivas Casado, M., Fu, G. & Meng, F. 2019 A model-based engineering methodology and architecture for
resilience in systems-of-systems: A case of water supply resilience to flooding.Water 11 (3), 496. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11030496.
Mishra, A. K. 2018 Sustainability and risk assessment of Salyankot water supply project in post-earthquake scenario. International Journal of
Operations Management and Information Technology 8(1), 1–30.
MUHA: MUltiHAzard framework for water related risk management 2023 Layman’s Report. Available from: https://muha.adrioninterreg.
eu/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/WPM_3.4_Layman_report_FINAL-compressed.pdf (accessed 18 September 2023).
Pagano, A., Pluchinotta, I., Giordano, R., Petrangeli, A. B., Fratino, U. & Vurro, M. 2018 Dealing with uncertainty in decision-making for
drinking water supply systems exposed to extreme events.Water Resources Management 32, 2131–2145. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11269-018-1922-8
Pagano, A., Giordano, R. & Portoghese, I. 2022 A pipe ranking method for water distribution network resilience assessment based on graph-
theory metrics aggregated through Bayesian belief networks.Water Resources Management 36 (13), 5091–5106. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11269-022-03293-z
Rickert, B., van den Berg, H., Bekure, K., Girma, S. & de Roda Husman, A. M. 2019 Including aspects of climate change into water safety
planning: Literature review of global experience and case studies from Ethiopian urban supplies.International Journal of Hygiene and
Environmental Health 222 (5), 744–755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2019.05.007.
Rodriguez-Alvarez, M. S., Gutiérrez-López, A., Iribarnegaray, M. A., Weir, M. H. & Seghezzo, L. 2022 Long-term assessment of a water safety
plan (WSP) in Salta, Argentina.Water 14 (19), 2948. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14192948.
Romano, E., Banovec, P., Boljat, I., Campione, E., Curk, B. C
., Dimkic, D., Duro, A., Kanakoudis, V., Kovac, D., LukacRebersk, J., Matic, B.,
Papadopoulou, A., Papakonstantinou, A., Tsitsifli, S., Vavpetic, B. & Sbrilli, A. 2022 The adrion project MUHA–multi-hazard framework
for water related risks management: Linking water utilities and civil protection mechanisms through water safety plans.Environmental
Sciences Proceedings 21 (1), 47. https://doi.org/10.3390/environsciproc2022021047.
See, K. L., Nayan, N. & Rahaman, Z. A. 2017 Flood disaster water supply: A review of issues and challenges in Malaysia.International
Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences 7(10), 525–532. http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v7-i10/3406
Serio, F., Martella, L., Imbriani, G., Idolo, A., Bagordo, F. & De Donno, A. 2021 The water safety plan approach: Application to small
drinking-water systems –case studies in Salento (south Italy).International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18 (8),
4360. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18084360.
Shuang, Q., Liu, H. J. & Porse, E. 2019 Review of the quantitative resilience methods in water distribution networks.Water 11 (6), 1189.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w11061189.
Sweya, L. N. & Wilkinson, S. 2020 A tool for measuring environmental resilience to floods in Tanzania water supply systems.Ecological
Indicators 112, 106165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106165.
Tsoukalas, D. S. & Tsitsifli, S. 2018 A critical evaluation of water safety plans (WSPs) and HACCP implementation in water utilities. In:
Proceedings, Vol. 2 (11). MDPI, p. 600. https://doi.org/10.3390/proceedings2110600.
UN 2010 64/292. The Human Right to Water and Sanitation. United Nation.
WHO 2009 Water Safety Plan Manual: Step-by-Step Risk Management for Drinking-Water Suppliers. World Health Organization, Geneva.
ISBN: 978-92-4-156263-8
WHO 2017a Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality: Fourth Edition Incorporating the First Addendum. World Health Organization, Geneva.
Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.
WHO 2017b Climate-resilient Water Safety Plans: Managing Health Risks Associated with Climate Variability and Change. World Health
Organization, Geneva. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.
WHO 2023 Water Safety Plan Manual: Step-by-Step Risk Management for Drinking-Water Suppliers, 2nd edn. World Health Organization,
Geneva. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO. ISBN: 978-92-4-006769-1.
Yazdani, A. & Jeffrey, P. 2012 Water distribution system vulnerability analysis using weighted and directed network models.Water Resources
Research 48, 6. https://doi.org/10.1029/2012WR011897.
First received 12 May 2023; accepted in revised form 7 February 2024. Available online 20 February 2024
Journal of Water and Health Vol 00 No 0, 16
Uncorrected Proof
Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/jwh/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/wh.2024.124/1368401/jwh2024124.pdf
by guest
on 21 February 2024
