Next Article in Journal
Deriving the Main Cultivation Direction from Open Remote Sensing Data to Determine the Support Practice Measure Contouring
Previous Article in Journal
A Continental-Scale Connectivity Analysis to Predict Current and Future Colonization Trends of Biofuel Plant’s Pests for Sub-Saharan African Countries
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Addressing Social Inequality and Improper Water Distribution in Cities: A Case Study of Karachi, Pakistan

1
Department of Civil Engineering, Capital University of Science and Technology, Islamabad 44000, Pakistan
2
Department of Unmanned Vehicle Engineering, Sejong University, Seoul 05006, Korea
3
Department of Mathematics, Pusan National University, Busan 46241, Korea
4
Department of Electrical Engineering, The Ibadat International University, Islamabad 54590, Pakistan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
S.J. and M.U.A have equally contributed as the first author.
Submission received: 9 November 2021 / Revised: 18 November 2021 / Accepted: 18 November 2021 / Published: 20 November 2021

Abstract

:
Inhabited by almost 20 million people, Karachi, also known as the “city of lights”, houses almost 60 percent of the industries in Pakistan and is considered as the financial and industrial center of the country. The city contributes almost 12–15 percent to the gross domestic product (GDP), showing its significance in Pakistan’s economy. Unfortunately, with the increase in population, the city is facing a serious shortage of water supply. The current allocation of water among the city’s districts is not equitable, which has caused water scarcity and even riots in some areas. Surface water and ground water are the two primary sources of water supply in the city. The water supply provided by Karachi Water and Sewerage Board (KWSB) is approximately 650 million gallons per day (MGD) against a demand of 480–866 million gallons per day (MGD), resulting in a serious shortfall. Keeping a holistic view in mind, this paper focuses specifically on proposing measures to address the gap in proposing concrete solutions to manage Karachi’s increasing water woes. It also proposes a water allocation mechanism and uses Nash bargaining theory to address the inefficient and unequal water distribution. Results indicate that our suggested policies and water allocation mechanism have the potential to simultaneously resolve the supply–demand mismatch and water shortage problems of the city.

1. Introduction

Marginalization and exclusion patterns are present all over the world, with persisting and stark inequalities in water access. Progress made in the sanitation and water sector does not always benefit those people who need these services the most, especially in underdeveloped countries. The international human rights law demands that fundamental human rights principles of equality and non-discrimination must be met in letter and spirit, and should focus on the communities, groups, and individuals who do not fully enjoy their rights [1].
Policy makers, duty bearers, and experts should aim at realizing the rights of all the people, with a particular focus on the excluded and marginalized. Apart from meaningful, active, and free participation for all, the conflict mechanism resolution, access to remedy, and accountability mechanisms should also be in place [2]. These mechanisms should be appropriately implemented at the national level. In addition, a proper monitoring framework should be in place to track their progress [3].
Resilient, livable, and sustainable water-sensitive cities should be for everyone and not only for those who have the resources and capacity to access them [4]. However, nowadays, in modern urban contexts where social, material, economic, and cultural resources are varied between the communities, especially in underdeveloped countries, a question arises: how do we assure this accessibility?
Several studies conducted in underdeveloped and even developed nations have addressed and presented the challenges faced by them regarding inequalities for water supply access and urban water management. For example, various researchers have shown that in under-developed countries such as Zambia, Jordan, Bolivia, Ghana, India, and Uganda [5]; Cameroon [6]; Argentina, Columbia, and Brazil [7]; and even in a developed country such as China [8], the people living in backward areas and communities are more likely to face a shortage in the urban water supply compared to rich areas.
Inequality is aggravated by various socio-technical factors such as poor governance, non-existent or limited societal engagement, and the absence of proper water resource policies. Due to the factors mentioned above, water access in developing and underdeveloped countries is limited, and the input opportunities in the decision-making processes are also limited for the socially marginalized and urban poor groups [5,7].
It may be noted that the link between domestic water use and inequality in the water distribution is not only confined to the dimensions of urban water resources, but extends across various other domains of resource provision. For example, even in the developed countries of Australia, the UK, and the USA, studies show that the disadvantaged and the poor population are more likely to experience deteriorated amenities, fuel poverty, intensified heat exposure, and improper access to welfare and health facilities compared to the advantaged population [5,9,10,11].
Water allocation in cities is undertaken based on the population of the areas. The increase in population causes an imbalance between the available water resources and its consumption [12], and, as a result, the poor and disadvantaged population is likely to experience more water shortages than the advantaged population [10], causing discontent among the stakeholders. Therefore, the most important criterion for water resource allocation is equity [13]. In turn, this indicates that a system should be established that ensures equity in the allocation of water among the stakeholders. When the water demands exceed the available water, many problems occur. Water conflict is one such problem, and the main reason for such a conflict is the unsuitable model used to allocate water resources [14].
Various problems of scarce resource allocation can be solved using game theory and the Nash bargaining method. The Nash bargaining solution can satisfy desired properties such as flexibility, invariance under changes in scale, unanimity, and Pareto optimality. Several authors [15,16,17,18,19,20] used the Nash bargaining solution to manage and allocate scarce resources. In addition, Mehta and Webb. et al [21,22] established that water resources are under immense pressure due to an increase in competing uses, which cause different resource stress dynamics in different regions. The competing uses can be domestic consumption, urban demand, industrial demand, and use in food production processes. The European Commission (2012) also stated that the pressure on freshwater resources is increasing due to the change in population and increasing consumption patterns [23]. It is predicted that the countries such as India and China may face severe water deficits by 2030, and by 2050, there will be a 55 percent increase in the global water demand [21]. Some studies state that water scarcity is primarily due to the bad governance and mismanagement of the water sector, followed by a lack of economic investment and the development of new water resources [24,25]. According to Hussein [26], there is a single dominant discourse of water scarcity composed of two narratives: water insufficiency and water mismanagement. The former is related to water scarcity, whereas the latter refers to improper management and distribution of water resources.
Urban communities, particularly in underdeveloped countries such as Pakistan, are vulnerable to future demand for water, energy, and food [27,28,29]. This vulnerability is further exacerbated by an increase in population and climate change. A solution is therefore needed to address these issues. This is the century of cities, and more than 50 percent of the world’s population lives in cities. This number is expected to reach 68 percent by 2050 [30]. As a result, the demand for food, energy, and water is increasing, leading to concerns about crossing critical thresholds of capacity at all scales. Due to the increase in population, climate change, and deteriorating infrastructures in cities, there is a growing awareness of risks to the sustainability of food, energy, and water (FEW) in cities [31].
Optimization of the water resources can be a feasible solution for equitable water allocation. To solve such complex problems, evolutionary algorithms can be used [32,33,34]. Water allocation in the Sefidrud Basin was undertaken using an optimization model by Roozbahani et al. [35]. Allocation of scarce water in the Central Desert basin, Iran, was done by Habibi Davijani et al. [36]. They used a particle swarm optimization algorithm to minimize the cost function. To prevent water conflict in the Urmia Lake basin, Iran, Bozorg-Haddad et al. [12] applied bankruptcy games optimization to determine allocation policies. These optimization models addressed the supply–demand gap in various areas. Finally, an optimal water resource allocation model was developed by Wang et al. [37] in the Haihe River basin, which addressed the water scarcity issue under climate change conditions.
Karachi, the largest city in Pakistan, is currently facing a serious water shortage. The water supply in the city is inequitable and irregular. Some areas of Karachi are receiving more water than others, whereas some are receiving too little to meet their needs [38]. This improper allocation of water has led to several disputes in the city. In June 2002, two ethno-political parties staged a rally against water shortages, which turned violent after police fired at the protestors, killing two and leaving six injured [39]. The protestors set vehicles on fire and ransacked property. The tension eased later when additional water supplies were brought in from the river Indus, the critical source of water for Karachi and the rest of the province [39]. Recently, on 20th September 2021, Jamaat-i-Islami, a strong political party of Karachi, staged a sit-in and demonstrated outside the offices of the Karachi Water and Sewerage Board (KWSB) in protest over the problem of water shortage in the metropolis [40]. If not adequately addressed, this issue of improper water allocation may lead to serious disputes and violence in the future.
This paper aims to explore the relationship between domestic water provision and inequality in the context of Karachi, the largest city in Pakistan. It also shows the impact the social inequality has on the people living in different areas of Karachi and suggests a Nash bargaining solution for equitable water distribution among the different sectors of the city.

2. Materials and Methods

Water allocation among different competing stakeholders is a typical case of a bankruptcy problem in which the demand of all the stakeholders exceeds the total available water resources. In accordance with the definition above, this problem is formulated as: (N, E, c, x). Here N = [1, 2, 3, …, n] is a finite set of agents. These agents can be administrative units within the city or riparian countries within a transboundary river basin that are competing for limited water resources. E is the limited available water resources reserve, which is not sufficient to satisfy the need of the stakeholders, whereas ci is the total amount of water claimed by the riparian units, and i N . x is the amount of water allocated to the stakeholder. Let us assume that the total amount of water available in the territory of the stakeholder, i is ai; therefore, the total available water resources within the city are E = i = 1 n a i . Conflicts arise among the water users, and the existing distribution mechanisms fail when their total demand exceeds the available water resource reserves. During such a water-scarce situation, optimization techniques are helpful to allocate limited water resources. These techniques help to buffer the conflicts and prevent the collapse of the water supply system. Let us assume that x is the amount of water allocated to the agent I; three conditions of bankruptcy must be met, as detailed by Equations (1)–(3):
i = 1 n x i = E
Equation (1) is called Pareto efficiency and requires that the aggregate value of available water resources should be exactly distributed among the competing agents.
x i c i
Equation (2) is called claim boundedness, and it helps prevent resource overuse, which may cause the tragedy of the commons.
x i 0
Equation (3) ensures non-negativity.

2.1. Asymmetric Nash Bargaining Solution

Building on earlier works [16,17,20,41,42], the Nash bargaining solution concept is proposed for the allocation of water among the six districts of Karachi.
In this study, the asymmetric Nash bargaining theory is combined with the bankruptcy concept and applied to the city of Karachi for the allocation of water among the districts when the supply–demand gap exists. While applying this methodology, the disagreement allocation points (m1, m2, m3,…, mn) and the bargaining weights (wi = w1, w2, w3, …, wn) of the riparian units are also considered to ensure equity and self-enforceability in a closed and bounded space. In addition to having a unique solution, such an optimization solution also satisfies a set of desirable properties. The solution maximizes the area between the Pareto-optimal frontier (x-) and the disagreement point (mi).
The Nash equilibrium point can determine the disagreement points, the minimum benefit of each riparian unit, the maximum and the minimum point, and other methods. In this case, the vector of disagreement points (d1, d2,…di, …, dn) is defined as the benefits of minimum water allocation to the riparian units. This represents the minimum benefits that the riparian units can accept. It is, therefore, necessary that the individual rationality requirements are reflected before the cooperation of the followers so that the maximal and minimal solutions are satisfied. For each riparian unit, the disagreement point formula is defined by Equation (4):
d i = u i ( m i )
In order to solve the problem of minimal water allocation to each riparian unit, the bankruptcy theory can be used when the total available water is less than the total water demands. The minimal water allocation formula for each riparian unit is given by Equation (5):
m i = max ( 0 ,   E k   i c i )
Subject to:
E < C
The minimum water allocation to any riparian unit, especially to those with smaller claims, may become zero if the above method of bankruptcy theory is used for the minimum water allocation. However, each riparian unit will demand a minimum amount of water λi in the process of water resource allocation. Using the above theory of bankruptcy, the minimum water allocation may be less than the minimum water requirement of each riparian unit, λi. Therefore, in order to avoid the case of unreasonable minimum water allocation by bankruptcy theory, we propose Equation (8), which determines the minimum water allocation and considers the minimum requirement for each riparian unit:
I i = max ( λ i ,   E k   i c i )
where λi is the minimum water requirement of each stakeholder or claimant, which is taken as forty percent of the stakeholder’s claim in this study. E is the total amount of water available and c i is the claim of each riparian unit.
For the optimization problem, the respective water claims of the riparian units serve as the upper bound core. According to Harsanyi [43], the optimization problem for the allocation of water under the bankruptcy scenario is given by Equation (8):
M a x i m i z e   N w = ( x 1 ( E i N / { 1 } c i ) ) w 1 ( x 2 ( E i N / { 2 } c i ) ) w 2 ( x 3 ( E i N / { 3 } c i ) ) w 3 ( x n ( E i N   / { n } c i ) ) w n
The above model is constrained by feasibility and individual rationality. The claims and the disagreement points serve as the upper and the lower bounds, respectively. Therefore, the river sharing optimization problem for the districts of Karachi can be formulated as stated in Equation (9):
M a x i m i z e   N w = ( x K C ( E i N / { K C } c i ) ) w K C . ( x K E ( E i N / { K E } c i ) ) w K E . ( x K S ( E i N / { K S } c i ) ) w K S . ( x K W ( E i N / { K W } c i ) ) w K W . ( x K o R ( E i N / { K o R } c i ) ) w K o R .   ( x M L ( E i   N   /   { M L } c i ) ) w M L
In the above equation,
i = 1 n w i = 1
Moreover, in Equation (9),
x K C is the optimized water allocation for Karachi Central District.
IKC is the lower core bound for Karachi Central District.
x K E is the optimized water allocation for Karachi East District.
IKE is the lower core bound for Karachi East District.
x K S is the optimized water allocation for Karachi South District.
IKS is the lower core bound for Karachi South District.
x K W is the optimized water allocation for Karachi West District.
IKW is the lower core bound for Karachi West District.
x K o R is the optimized water allocation for Korangi District.
IKoR is the lower core bound for Korangi District.
x M L is the optimized water allocation for Malir District.
IML is the lower core bound for Malir District.
N w is the weighted Nash objective function which should be maximized.
The following constraints are to be set for this allocation model.
  • The allocation of water to each district should be more than or equal to its lower core bound (Equation (10)):
    x i   m i   ,   i = 1 ,   2 , , n
  • The water allocation to each district should be more than its lower core bound and less than its claim (Equation (11))
    m i x i c i
  • The total water allocation for all the districts should be equal to or less than the total available water (Equation (12)):
    i = 1 n x i     E  

2.2. Water Allocation Using of Nash Bargaining Theory

Determination of bargaining weights
It is very important that the water resources should be efficiently allocated due to the intense competition of water resources. Several authors have showed that the allocation of water should be based on sustainability and equity principles [44,45]. The optimization model in Equation (10) is applied to allocate water among the six districts of Karachi. In this study, two cases of bargaining weights were applied in all the scenarios (these four scenarios have been discussed in detail in the next section). Firstly, all the bargaining weights were assumed to be equal. Secondly, the bargaining weights of the districts were taken according to their population density. It is assumed that higher population density of any district will lead to more complex water supply networks, and hence their leakages will be greater. Therefore, these districts will be given preference in terms of water allocation. According to various reports and interviews conducted by the officials of the Karachi Water and Sanitation Board (KWSB), 15 percent of the water supply is wasted due to technical leakages [38,46]; therefore, it was important to consider the effect of leakages in the water allocation. The population densities of the provinces and their respective bargaining weights are shown in Table 1.

3. Case Study

3.1. Description of the Study Area

Located on the coast of the Arabian Sea, the city of Karachi lies in the extreme south of Pakistan. It has a total area of approximately 3530 square kilometers. As per the latest census of 2017, the population of Karachi is approximately 16 million, making it one of the largest metropolitan cities in the world [33]. Due to the migration of the people from rural to urban areas in search of better livelihoods, the population of Karachi is increasing rapidly. This additional increase in population has put pressure on all the available resources and utilities of the city, including water. As a result, groundwater extraction has also increased [33]. In 2001, the number of households in Karachi was about 2.1 million, which increased to 3.9 million in 2020. Of the 3.9 million households, almost 75 percent lie in the category of low-income and poor groups, while the remaining 25 percent constitute middle- and high-income groups.
As shown in Figure 1, Karachi serves as a major port to the Arabian Sea. It is a major contributor to Pakistan’s economy, comprising approximately 30 percent of its manufacturing sector and 20 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP). The city also has a large informal economy which is not reflected in the GDP estimates [47]. Much of the increase in Karachi’s population is attributed to the mass migration of various ethnic groups and the influx of refugees from conflicts in nearby countries such as Bangladesh and Afghanistan [47].

3.2. Water Sources and Its Availability in Karachi and Current Water Distribution

Primarily, there are two sources of water supply in Karachi: the Indus River, which supplies 645 million gallons per day (MGD), and Hub dam, which supplies 50 MGD. However, the supply of Hub dam depends on the rain. Therefore, its supply fluctuates between 30–75 MGD. As a result, the total water supply to Karachi is almost 690–680 MGD. Of this, 30 MGD are supplied to Port Qasim and Steel Mills; therefore, the city is left with approximately 650 MGD of water [34]. As per the Karachi Water and Sanitation Board (KWSB), the maximum and minimum per capita water demand are 54 gallons per capita per day (GPCD) and 30 gallons per capita per day (GPCD), respectively. Table 2 shows the maximum and minimum water requirements for all the districts of Karachi. These districts are also shown in Figure 1.
In addition to equitable allocation of water using optimization techniques, metering of bulk supply is essential. This will assist in checking the siphoning and ensuring that towns receive their share. Once the water reaches the towns, its distribution can be handled by Tehsil Municipal Administrations (TMAs) and Union Councils (UCs) and be linked to recovery of water taxes within towns. The siphoning and technical leakages within towns can then be handled. Quotas to towns can be revised considering the current population and its needs, unlike the present quota.
As per February 2008, in a report published by the Karachi Water and Sewerage Board (KWSB) [48], it had a water quota of 417.65 MGD, for the water supply to the towns, the Cantonment, and DHA areas. However, the actual supply reaching the towns was only about 293 MGD. Seven towns—Orangi, Gadap, Baldia, Jamshed, Site, North Karachi, and Gulshan—were receiving 30–57 per cent of their quota and others were receiving about 60–100 per cent. Cantonment was receiving 100 per cent, whereas DHA was receiving 133 per cent, as shown in Table 3. These values clearly show that water allocation among the towns is not equitable. This improper water allocation continues today.

3.3. Current Domestic Water Requirements for Karachi City and Water Deficit

Karachi’s main urban water management organization is the Karachi water and sewerage board (KWSB), but its services are not up to the mark [49]. Due to inequitable and irregular water supply, the performance of the KWSB is often questioned [46]. Water is supplied to Karachi through a bulk conveyance system comprising a complex network of canals, conduits, siphons, multi-stage pumping, and filtration. The present supply to Karachi from Indus and Hub sources is approximately 650 million gallons per day (MGD) or 2925 mL/day. The maximum and minimum per capita water demands are 54 and 30 GPCD, respectively; for a population of 16.4 million this equates to 866 and 480 MGD, respectively, as shown in Table 2. In addition, 100 MGD additional water is required after each interval of 5 years to bridge the demand and supply gap [38,46]. The gap between the actual supply and the availability is siphoned from the bulk distribution and sold through tanker supplies.
In addition to water shortage, there is another serious problem of water losses during transmission. As per a report published by the WWF [50], the water supply system of Karachi is almost 40 to 45 years old, and an estimated 35 percent of the water (amounting to 227.5 MGD) is lost during transmission. As a result, the water availability decreases to 422.5 MDG. Only 60 percent of the houses are connected to a water supply network and water is available for between 2 and 4 h each day, to as low as 2 h for each two-day period. This mostly occurs in low-income areas. In order to fulfil the demand supply gap, the already deprived population is forced to buy water from unregulated water hydrants.

3.4. Proposed Scenarios

In order to eliminate injustice in the water allocation, this study proposed the following four scenarios. Equitable allocation of water for all these scenarios is performed using the Nash bargaining solution. These scenarios area are also shown in Table 4.

3.4.1. Scenario-1: Total Water Availability = 650 MGD and Water Requirement @ 54 GPCD

In this scenario, it is assumed that the total water availability is 650 MGD, whereas the total water requirement of all the 6 towns @ 54 GPCD amounts to 866 MGD. The total shortfall, therefore, is 226 MGD.

3.4.2. Scenario-2: Total Water Availability = 650 MGD and Water Requirement @ 30 GPCD

In this scenario, it is assumed that the total water availability is 650 MGD, whereas the total water requirement of all the 6 towns @ 30 GPCD amounts to 480 MGD. Therefore, in this case, there is no shortfall.

3.4.3. Scenario-3: Total Water Availability = 422.5 MGD and Water Requirement @ 54 GPCD

In this scenario, it is assumed that the total water availability is 422.4 MGD, considering the line losses. The total water requirement of all the 6 towns @ 54 GPCD amounts to 866 MGD. The total shortfall, therefore, is 443 MGD.

3.4.4. Scenario-4: Total Water Availability = 422.5 MGD and Water Requirement @ 30 GPCD

In this scenario, it is once again assumed that the total water availability is 422.4 MGD, considering the line losses. The total water requirement of all the 6 towns @ 30 GPCD amounts to 480 MGD. The total shortfall, therefore, is 57.5 MGD.
From the above scenarios, it can be seen that, with the exception of scenario 2, shortfall exists in all scenarios. The next target is to reallocate the water in these scenarios (scenarios 1, 3, and 4) to ensure equitable water among the districts of Karachi. The minimum water requirements (disagreement points) for all the districts are also shown in Table 5.

4. Results and Discussion

Table 6 shows the allocation of water among the six districts of Karachi by applying the Nash bargaining theory under three different scenarios, using homogenous and heterogenous weights. In the first scenario, the total water availability is 650 MDG, whereas the water requirements for all the districts amounts to 866 MDG. The water shortage, therefore, is 226 MDG. The bargaining weights of the districts are taken according to their population density. It is assumed that higher population density of any district will lead to more complex water supply networks, and hence more leakages. Therefore, those districts having greater population density are given preference in terms of water allocation. Figure 2 shows the results of scenario 1 under homogenous and heterogenous weights. Similar results for scenarios 3 and 4 are depicted in Figure 3 and Figure 4, respectively.
It can be seen from Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4 that the allocation of water using the Nash bargaining solution under homogeneous weights yields different results than the water allocation under heterogenous weights. Allocation of water under heterogenous weights is more appropriate for districts having greater population density. Similarly, water allocation is reduced for the districts having lower population density. For example, in scenario 3, Karachi Central receives 48 percent of its water demand under homogenous weights, whereas its allocation is increased to 59 percent under heterogenous weights. This is due to the fact that the population density of Karachi Central is highest among the six districts of Karachi; therefore, its allocation is increased under heterogenous weights. Similarly, for the same scenario, the allocation of water for Malir district is reduced from 53% under homogenous weights to 34% under heterogenous weight. This is due to the fact that Malir district has the lowest population density among all the districts of Karachi and hence its allocation is reduced under heterogenous weights.
These three different scenarios, under the homogenous and heterogenous weights, are used as example scenarios. These scenarios open the possibilities for discussion among the district administrations of Karachi and the KWSB about the consequences and implications for individual districts, in addition to the other water-scarce cities of the world. Other factors can also be applied using different bargaining weights, and issues of equity and sustainability may be discussed with facts. Questions such as the payment of water tariffs can also be examined in resolving the supply–demand gap.

5. Conclusions

A city with a population approaching 20 million, Karachi is facing numerous challenges due to its rapid urbanization and population growth. Water scarcity is one of these challenges. Located in the arid climate region, the scarcity of water is considered a serious problem of the city as the pattern of rainfall in this region is highly erratic. Decision makers should holistically address the water sector by considering the important factors such as population growth, rapid urbanization, and climate change. Best practices and regulations should be implemented at the local government level for the better management of water resources, which are already becoming scarce. New development in the periphery of the city must be consistent with the available water resources; otherwise, the future residents of the city will face a serious challenge related to water supply. The Nash bargaining solution under homogenous (equal) weights, in this study, does not consider other factors such as water use efficiency and non-payment of water tariff. Therefore, in order to expand the scope of the conversation, one may explore other scenarios, including the effects of changing population, growing population, and water tariffs. We hope this proposed framework for water allocation will find more innovative applications for other populated cities experiencing water shortages across the world.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.J. and M.U.A.; formal analysis, S.J., I.H. and M.U.A.; funding acquisition, S.K.; investigation, I.H., M.M.I. and A.Z.; methodology, S.J. and M.M.I.; project administration, S.K. and A.Z.; validation, I.H.; writing—original draft, S.J. and M.U.A.; writing—review and editing, S.K., I.H. and A.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) Grant funded by the Korean Government (MSIP) (NRF-2017R1A5A1015722).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. WHO/UNICEF. Progress on Drinking Water and Sanitation; 2012 update (MDG Assessment Report); Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation: New York, NY, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  2. Kempin Reuter, T. Human rights and the city: Including marginalized communities in urban development and smart cities. J. Hum. Rights 2019, 18, 382–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Bertule, M.; Glennie, P.; Koefoed Bjørnsen, P.; James Lloyd, G.; Kjellen, M.; Dalton, J.; Rieu-Clarke, A.; Romano, O.; Tropp, H.; Newton, J.; et al. Monitoring water resources governance progress globally: Experiences from monitoring SDG indicator 6.5.1 on integrated water resources management implementation. Water 2018, 10, 1744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Satur, P.A. Social Inequality and Water Sensitive Cities in Australia. Ph.D. Dissertation, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  5. Franceys, R.; Gerlach, E. Regulating Water and Sanitation for the Poor: Economic Regulation for Public and Private Partnerships; Routledge: London, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  6. Fonjong, L.; Fokum, V. Water Crisis and Options for Effective Water Provision in Urban and Peri-Urban Areas in Cameroon. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2017, 30, 488–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Castro, J. Socio-technical solutions for the provision of safe water and sanitation services in vulnerable communities: A synthesis. Waterlat-Gobacit Netw. Work. Pap. 2016, 2, 7–39. [Google Scholar]
  8. Tan, Y.; Liu, X. Water shortage and inequality in arid Minqin oasis of northwest China: Adaptive policies and farmers’ perceptions. Local Environ. 2017, 22, 934–951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Darrel Jenerette, G.; Harlan, S.L.; Stefanov, W.L.; Martin, C.A. Ecosystem services and urban heat riskscape moderation: Water, green spaces, and social inequality in Phoenix, USA. Ecol. Appl. 2011, 21, 2637–2651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Greene, C.S.; Robinson, P.J.; Millward, A.A. Canopy of advantage: Who benefits most from city trees? J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 208, 24–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Sovacool, B.K. Fuel poverty, affordability, and energy justice in England: Policy insights from the Warm Front Program. Energy 2015, 93, 361–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Bozorg-Haddad, O.; Athari, E.; Fallah-Mehdipour, E.; Loáiciga, H.A. Real-time water allocation policies calculated with bankruptcy games and genetic programing. Water Sci. Technol. Water Supply 2018, 18, 430–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Van Der Zaag, P.; Seyam, I.M.; Savenije, H.H.G. Towards measurable criteria for the equitable sharing of international water resources. Water Policy 2002, 4, 19–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Yu, S.; Lu, H. An integrated model of water resources optimization allocation based on projection pursuit model—Grey wolf optimization method in a transboundary river basin. J. Hydrol. 2018, 559, 156–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Iranshahi, M.; Marofi, S.; Nasiri-Gheidari, O. Application of the Asymmetric Nash Bargaining Method to Optimal Allocation of Shared Water Resources under Water Bankruptcy Condition. J. Water Sustain. Develop. 2021, 7, 21–30. [Google Scholar]
  16. Sgobbi, A. A Stochastic Multiple Players Multi-Issues Bargaining Model for the Piave River Basin. Strateg. Behav. Environ. 2011, 1, 119–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Degefu, D.M.; He, W. Allocating Water under Bankruptcy Scenario. Water Resour. Manag. 2016, 30, 3949–3964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Degefu, D.M.; He, W.; Yuan, L.; Min, A.; Zhang, Q. Bankruptcy to Surplus: Sharing Transboundary River Basin’s Water under Scarcity. Water Resour. Manag. 2018, 32, 2735–2751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Degefu, D.M.; He, W.; Yuan, L.; Zhao, J.H. Water Allocation in Transboundary River Basins under Water Scarcity: A Cooperative Bargaining Approach. Water Resour. Manag. 2016, 30, 4451–4466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Qin, J.; Fu, X.; Peng, S.; Xu, Y.; Huang, J.; Huang, S. Asymmetric Bargaining Model for Water Resource Allocation over Transboundary Rivers. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Mehta, L. Taking the scare out of scarcity: The case of water 1. In Global Resource Scarcity; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2017; pp. 1–210. [Google Scholar]
  22. Webb, P.; Flynn, D.J.; Kelly, N.M.; Thomas, S.M.; Benton, T.G. Water for Food Systems and Nutrition. Food Syst. Summit Brief. 2021, 1–22. [Google Scholar]
  23. Antonelli, M.; Siciliano, G.; Turvani, M.E.; Rulli, M.C. Global investments in agricultural land and the role of the EU: Drivers, scope and potential impacts. Land Use Policy 2015, 47, 98–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Hussein, H. Lifting the veil: Unpacking the discourse of water scarcity in Jordan. Environ. Sci. Policy 2018, 89, 385–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Hussein, H. Yarmouk, Jordan, and Disi basins: Examining the impact of the discourse of water scarcity in Jordan on transboundary water governance. Mediterr. Polit. 2019, 24, 269–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Hussein, H. An Analysis of the Discourse of Water Scarcity and Hydropolitical Dynamics in the Case of Jordan. Ph.D. Thesis, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  27. Grigg, N.; Foran, T.; Darbas, T.; Kirby, M.; Colloff, M.J.; Ahmad, M.U.; Podger, G. The water-food-energy nexus in Pakistan: A biophysical and socio-economic challenge. Proc. Int. Assoc. Hydrol. Sci. 2018, 376, 9–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Wong, K.V. Energy–Water–Food Nexus and Recommendations for Security. J. Energy Resour. Technol. 2015, 137, 2014–2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Artioli, F.; Acuto, M.; McArthur, J. The water-energy-food nexus: An integration agenda and implications for urban governance. Polit. Geogr. 2017, 61, 215–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. UN. World Urbanization Prospects 2018. Available online: www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/2018-revision-of-worldurbanization-prospects.html (accessed on 1 August 2021).
  31. White, D.D.; Wutich, A.Y.; Larson, K.L.; Lant, T. Water management decision makers’ evaluations of uncertainty in a decision support system: The case of WaterSim in the Decision Theater. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2015, 58, 616–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Fallah-Mehdipour, E.; Haddad, O.B.; Mariño, M.A. Extraction of Optimal Operation Rules in an Aquifer-Dam System: Genetic Programming Approach. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 2013, 139, 872–879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Solgi, M.; Bozorg-Haddad, O.; Loáiciga, H.A. The Enhanced Honey-Bee Mating Optimization Algorithm for Water Resources Optimization. Water Resour. Manag. 2017, 31, 885–901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Farhadian, M.; Haddad, O.B.; Seifollahi-Aghmiuni, S.; Loáiciga, H.A. Assimilative Capacity and Flow Dilution for Water Quality Protection in Rivers. J. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste 2015, 19, 04014027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Roozbahani, R.; Schreider, S.; Abbasi, B. Optimal water allocation through a multi-objective compromise between environmental, social, and economic preferences. Environ. Model. Softw. 2015, 64, 18–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Habibi Davijani, M.; Banihabib, M.E.; Nadjafzadeh Anvar, A.; Hashemi, S.R. Optimization model for the allocation of water resources based on the maximization of employment in the agriculture and industry sectors. J. Hydrol. 2016, 533, 430–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Wang, X.J.; Zhang, J.Y.; Shahid, S.; Guan, E.H.; Wu, Y.X.; Gao, J.; He, R.M. Adaptation to climate change impacts on water demand. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang. 2016, 21, 81–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Engel, K.; Jokiel, D.; Kraljevic, A.; Geiger, M.; Smith, K. Big Cities. Big Water. Big Challenges. Water in an Urbanizing World; World Wildlife Fund: Koberich, Germany, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  39. The New Humanitarian. Karachi Water Shortage. 2002. Available online: https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/news/2002/01/16/karachi-water-shortage (accessed on 1 September 2021).
  40. Hassan, S. JI stages protest sit-in at KWSB office over water shortage in Karachi. Dawn. 9 November 2021. Available online: https://epaper.dawn.com/DetailImage.php?StoryImage=09_09_2021_113_004 (accessed on 1 October 2021).
  41. Safari, N.; Zarghami, M.; Szidarovszky, F. Nash bargaining and leader-follower models in water allocation: Application to the Zarrinehrud River basin, Iran. Appl. Math. Model. 2014, 38, 1959–1968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Houba, H. Asymmetric Nash Solutions in the River Sharing Problem. 2013. Available online: https://ideas.repec.org/p/tin/wpaper/20130051.html (accessed on 1 September 2021).
  43. Harsanyi, J.C. A simplified bargaining model for the n-person cooperative game. In Papers in Game Theory; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1982; pp. 44–70. [Google Scholar]
  44. Dinar, A.; Rosegrant, M.W.; Meinzen-Dick, R.S. Water Allocation Mechanisms: Principles and Examples (No. 1779); World Bank Publications: New York, NY, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  45. Roa-García, M.C. Equity, efficiency and sustainability in water allocation in the andes: Trade-offs in a full world. Water Altern. 2014, 7, 298–319. [Google Scholar]
  46. Irfan, M.; Kazmi, S.J.H.; Arsalan, M.H. Sustainable harnessing of the surface water resources for Karachi: A geographic review. Arab. J. Geosci. 2018, 11, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Fazal, O.; Hotez, P.J. Ntds in the age of urbanization, climate change, and conflict: Karachi, Pakistan as a case study. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2020, 14, e0008791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Rahman, P. Water Supply in Karachi: Situation/Issues, Priority Issues, and Solutions; Orangi Pilot Project-Research and Training Institute: Karachi, Pakistan, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  49. Ihsanullah. Evaluation and Prospects of Scientific Management of Water Resources in Karachi City: A GIS Perspective. 2009. Available online: https://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search.do?recordID=AV2012059913 (accessed on 1 October 2021).
  50. WWF. Situational Analysis of Water Resources in Karachi; WWF: Karachi, Pakistan, 2019; pp. 1–59. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Districts of Karachi.
Figure 1. Districts of Karachi.
Land 10 01278 g001
Figure 2. Water allocation under homogenous and heterogenous weights (scenario 1).
Figure 2. Water allocation under homogenous and heterogenous weights (scenario 1).
Land 10 01278 g002
Figure 3. Water allocation under homogenous and heterogenous weights (scenario 3).
Figure 3. Water allocation under homogenous and heterogenous weights (scenario 3).
Land 10 01278 g003
Figure 4. Water allocation under homogenous and heterogenous weights (scenario 4).
Figure 4. Water allocation under homogenous and heterogenous weights (scenario 4).
Land 10 01278 g004
Table 1. Population densities and bargaining weights of all districts of Karachi.
Table 1. Population densities and bargaining weights of all districts of Karachi.
DistrictPopulation DensityBargaining Weight
Karachi Central43,0640.40
Karachi East20,6860.19
Karachi South14,5020.14
Karachi West42060.04
Korangi23,8660.22
Malir8910.01
Table 2. Population and water requirements for various districts.
Table 2. Population and water requirements for various districts.
Name of DivisionStatusPopulation
as per
Latest Census
Water Requirement
@ 54 GPCD
(In MGD)
Water Requirement
@ 30 GPCD
(In MGD)
Karachi CentralDistrict2,971,38216189
Karachi East District2,875,31515586
Karachi South District1,769,2309653
Karachi WestDistrict3,907,065211117
KorangiDistrict2,577,55613977
MalirDistrict1,924,34610458
TotalDivision16,024,894866480
Table 3. Water supply in various towns of Karachi as per KWSB report 2007 [48].
Table 3. Water supply in various towns of Karachi as per KWSB report 2007 [48].
Sr. NoTownWater Requirement
(Million Gallon per Day)
(MGD)
Actual Received
(MGD)% Quota
1Lyari141285
2Saddar323093
3Kemari10880
4Jamshed301446
5Gulshan352057
6Shah Faisal12975
7Malir201260
8Landhi1620125
9Korangi242187
10Bin Qasim1414100
11Gulberg221777
12North Nazimabad201470
13Liaqatabad1818100
14North Karachi352057
15Orangi401230
16Baldia20840
17Site181055
18Gadap8337
19Cantonment2222100
20DHA69133
Total416293
Table 4. Water availability, requirements and deficits under different scenarios.
Table 4. Water availability, requirements and deficits under different scenarios.
Reference ScenariosWater Availability
(MGD)
Water Requirements
(MGD)
Shortfall (Total)
(MGD)
Scenario-1650 MGDKarachi Central (KC)
Karachi East (KE)
Karachi South (KS)
Karachi West (KW)
Korangi (KoR)
Malir (ML)
Total
= 161
= 155
= 96
= 211
= 139
= 104
= 866
226
Scenario-2650 MGDKarachi Central (KC)
Karachi East (KE)
Karachi South (KS)
Karachi West (KW)
Korangi (KoR)
Malir (ML)
Total
= 89
= 86
= 53
= 117
= 77
= 58
= 480
No Shortfall
Scenario-3422.5 MGDKarachi Central (KC)
Karachi East (KE)
Karachi South (KS)
Karachi West (KW)
Korangi (KoR)
Malir (ML)
Total
= 161
= 155
= 96
= 211
= 139
= 104
= 866
443.5
Scenario-4422.5 MDG Karachi Central (KC)
Karachi East (KE)
Karachi South (KS)
Karachi West (KW)
Korangi (KoR)
Malir (ML)
Total
= 89
= 86
= 53
= 117
= 77
= 58
= 480
57.5
Table 5. Minimum water requirements for all districts.
Table 5. Minimum water requirements for all districts.
Total Water Availability: 650 MG
Total Water Availability after Losses: 422.5 MGD
Name of DivisionWater Requirement @ 54 GPCD
(In MGD)
Water Requirement @ 30 GPCD
(In MGD)
Minimum Water Requirement for 54 GPCD
(40 % of Claim)
Minimum Water Requirement for 30 GPCD
(40 % of Claim)
Karachi Central161896436
Karachi East 155866234
Karachi South 96533815
Karachi West2111178434
Korangi139775622
Malir104584217
Total866480
Table 6. Results for all scenarios using homogenous and heterogenous weights.
Table 6. Results for all scenarios using homogenous and heterogenous weights.
ScenariosDistrictAllocation
(Using Equal Weights)
Allocation
(Using
Bargaining Weights)
Allocation as
Percentage
of the claim
(Using Equal Weights)
Allocation as
Percentage
of the Claim
(Using Bargaining Weights)
Scenario 1Karachi Central11516171%100%
Karachi East 11313673%88%
Karachi South 899093%94%
Karachi West1359964%47%
Korangi10713877%99%
Malir932789%26%
Scenario 3Karachi Central779548%59%
Karachi East 757548%48%
Karachi South 514953%51%
Karachi West979446%45%
Korangi697450%53%
Malir553553%34%
Scenario 4Karachi Central8016150%100%
Karachi East 786250%40%
Karachi South 594361%45%
Karachi West786237%29%
Korangi665047%36%
Malir614559%43%
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Janjua, S.; Hassan, I.; Ali, M.U.; Ibrahim, M.M.; Zafar, A.; Kim, S. Addressing Social Inequality and Improper Water Distribution in Cities: A Case Study of Karachi, Pakistan. Land 2021, 10, 1278. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/land10111278

AMA Style

Janjua S, Hassan I, Ali MU, Ibrahim MM, Zafar A, Kim S. Addressing Social Inequality and Improper Water Distribution in Cities: A Case Study of Karachi, Pakistan. Land. 2021; 10(11):1278. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/land10111278

Chicago/Turabian Style

Janjua, Shahmir, Ishtiaq Hassan, Muhammad Umair Ali, Malik Muhammad Ibrahim, Amad Zafar, and Sangil Kim. 2021. "Addressing Social Inequality and Improper Water Distribution in Cities: A Case Study of Karachi, Pakistan" Land 10, no. 11: 1278. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/land10111278

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop