An-Najah National University Faculty of Graduate Studies
Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) to Identify the Setting Priorities of the Sanitation Sector in the West Bank
By Baraa Yaseen Jararaa
Supervisor Prof. Marwan Haddad
This Thesis is Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Water and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Graduate Studies, An-Najah National University, Nablus, Palestine. 2013
III Acknowledgment I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor Dr. Prof.
Marwan Haddad for his helpful efforts, fruitful guidance, and continual encouragement throughout the entire research. Special thanks go also to my friends for the help in preparing the proposal of this study and guidance during its preparation.
I would like to thanks to Palestinian Water Authority (PWA) and Austrian project for funding my master study and helping me in providing the data. Special thanks go to Eng. Adel Yasin, Dr. Subhi Samhan, and Eng. Hazem Kitana.
Special thanks to my parents for help, encouragements, and patience. My wife I love you so much, thank you for your understanding and love during my study. Finally, I am very grateful to all those who helped and encouraged me to make this research possible.
IV االقرار أنا الموقع أدناه مقدم الرسالة التي تحمل العنوان :
Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) to Identify the Setting Priorities of the Sanitation Sector in the West Bank
أقر بأن ما اشتممت عميو ىذه الرسالة إنما ىي نتاج جيدي الخاص، باستثناء ما تمت اإلشارة إليو حيثما ورد، وأن ىذه الرسالة ككل، أو أي جزء منيا لم يقدم لنيل أية درجة أو لقب عممي أو بحثي لدى أية مؤسسة تعميمية أو بحثية أخرى .
Declaration The work provided in this thesis, unless otherwise referenced, is the researcher's own work, and has not been submitted elsewhere for any other degree or qualification.
اسى انطانب : : Student's Name
انتوقيغ: : Signature
انتاريخ: :Date
V Table of Contents No Content Page Acknowledgment III Declaration IV Table of Contents V List of Tables X List of Figures XII Acronyms XIII Abstract XIV Chapter 1. Introduction 1 1.1 Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) 1 1.2 Sanitation Sector in general 2 1.3 Research Question 4 1.4 Objectives of the Research 4 1.5 Methodology 5 Chapter 2. Literature review 11 2.1 Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) 11 2.1.1 Introduction 11 2.1.2 Multicriteria Solving Methodologies 15 2.1.3 Regulatory Uses of MCDA 15 2.1.3.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 16 2.1.3.2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 18 2.1.3.3 U.S. Department of Energy 20 2.1.3.4 European Union 22 2.1.4 MCDA Applications for Environmental Management 23 and Related Uses 2.1.4.1 Application to general environmental management 24 2.1.4.2 Application to Stakeholder Involvement 32 2.1.4.3 Application to Management of Contaminated Lands 35 2.2 Sanitation Sector in Palestinian Territories 36 2.2.1 Introduction 36 2.2.2 Regulatory Framework 38 2.2.2.1 Water Law No. 3, 2002 40 2.2.2.2 Joint Water Committee 41 2.2.2.3 Environment Law No. (7) of 1999 42 2.2.2.4 National Water Plan 43 2.2.3 Waste Water Management Plan report (PWA 44 Wastewater Policies) 2.2.3.1 Wastewater Collection Policies 44 2.2.3.2 Industrial Wastewater Policies 46 2.2.3.3 Wastewater Treatment Policies 47 VI 2.2.3.4 Awareness and Stakeholders participation 49 2.2.3.5 Tariff Policy 49 2.2.3.6 Legal and Administration Policy 51 Chapter 3. Current situation of institutional 52 wastewater management agencies in palestine 3.1 National Water Council 53 3.2 The Palestinian Water Authority 55 3.3 Other Government Institutions 56 3.4 Local Committees, Municipalities, and Village Councils 58 3.5 Local NGO’s and International Organizations 58 Chapter 4. Situation of sanitation in palestine and 60 future plans 4.1 Situation of Wastewater in the Urban Area (1996-2012) 61 4.2 Situation of Wastewater in the Refugee Camps (1996- 62 2012) 4.3 Situation of Wastewater in Rural (1996-2012) 64 4.4 Situation of Wastewater in Rural (1996-2012) 67 4.5 Deficiencies and Problems 71 4.6 Driving Forces for WW Management 75 4.7 Opportunities 76 4.8 Existing and Future Plans: 76 4.8.1 To Stop Flowing Wastewater Toward the Green LINE 76 to be Treated and Reused in Palestine 4.8.2 Criteria for WWT Selection 77 4.8.3 Look into the Future Sustainable Planning of WWTP 77 4.8.4 Centralized WWTP (>15000 m3/day or 200,000 78 PE) 4.8.5 Look into the Future Sustainable Operation Small 79 WWTP 4.8.6 Main Cities and Urban Areas 79 4.8.7 Priorities for Selecting Wastewater Projects (Main 80 Cities &Urban Areas) 4.8.8 Semi Urban (Population 5000-10000) and Rural Areas 80 (Population 2000-5000) 4.8.9 Priorities for Selecting Wastewater Projects (Semi 80 Urban and Rural Areas) 4.8.10 Rural Areas and Small Communities (De-Centralized 81 (Local WWTP))
4.8.11 Reuse & Recycling 82 4.8.12 PWA with Cooperation and Coordination with all 82 VII Stakeholders and Beneficiaries will do Strongly and Effectively Chapter 5. Criteria identification 83 5.1 Criteria Used in Some Countries 83 5.1.1 Egypt 83 5.1.2 Iraq 85 5.1.3 Libya 86 5.1.4 South Africa 87 5.2 Stakeholder Consultation 88 5.2.1 Consultation with Palestinian Ministries 88 5.2.1.1 Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) 89 5.2.1.2 Palestinian Water Authority (PWA) 91 5.2.1.3 Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities (MoTA) 92 5.2.1.4 Environmental Quality Authority (EQA) 92 5.2.1.5 Ministry of Local Governments (MoLG) 93 5.2.1.6 Ministry of Labor (MoL) 94 5.2.2 Consultation with Universities 94 5.2.3 Consultation with NGOs 95 5.2.4 Consultation with Private sector 96 5.2.4.1 Universal Group for Engineering & Consulting (UG) 97 5.2.4.2 Center for Engineering and Planning (CEP) 98 5.2.5 Consultation with Municipalities 99 5.2.5.1 Nablus Municipality 99 5.2.5.2 Ramallah Municipality 100 5.3 Citizens Questionnaire 102 5.3.1 Sample Size 102 5.3.2 Analysis of the Questionnaire 106 5.3.2.1 First Topic: Water Situation 107 5.3.2.2 Second Topic: Current status of sanitation and citizens' 107 satisfaction 5.3.2.3 Third Topic: Impact of wastewater on citizens 108 5.3.2.4 Fourth Topic: Economic and social aspects 109 5.3.2.5 Fifth Topic: citizens' awareness, and awareness 110 campaigns 5.3.2.6 Sixth Topic: Institutional issues 110 5.3.2.7 Seventh Topic: Decision-making 111 5.4 EQA Terms of Reference (TOR) 112 5.5 Selected Criteria Used in the Sanitation Projects (donors 113 criteria) 5.5.1 Wastewater Projects for USAID Funding 113 5.5.1.1 Assessment of Potential West Bank Water Projects for 114 VIII USAID Funding 5.5.1.1.1 Identification of Potential Projects 114 5.5.1.1.2 Establishment of project selection criteria 115 5.5.1.1.3 Evaluation of Shortlisted Projects 116 5.5.1.1.4 Recommended Criteria for Prioritizing Projects 118 5.5.1.2 Site selection report 121 5.5.1.2.1 Criteria 1: Civil Administration Permitting 123 5.5.1.2.2 Criteria 2: Operational Simplicity 125 5.5.1.2.3 Criteria 3: Environmental and Health Impacts 127 5.5.1.2.4 Criteria 4: Municipal Readiness 129 5.5.2 Wastewater Projects for European Union (EU) Funding 131 5.5.3 Wastewater Projects for German Bank for 133 Reconstruction (KFW) Funding 5.5.3.1 Multi-Criteria Screening of Options 134 5.5.3.2 Environmental Issues 134 5.5.3.2.1 Socio-Economic Impact 134 5.5.3.2.2 Institutional Criteria 134 5.5.4 Wastewater Projects for Ministry of Foreign Affairs 135 (MFA) Republic of Finland Funding 5.5.4.1 Selection Criteria and Screening 135 5.5.5 Wastewater Projects for Local Finance Investment 136 Projects 5.5.5.1 Suitability of Land 136 5.5.5.2 Political Constraints 136 5.5.5.3 Potential Aquifer Impacts 137 5.5.5.4 Proximity of Reuse Sites 138 5.5.5.5 Proximity to Existing and/or Planned Utilities 138 5.5.5.6 Flood Plain Elevation 138 5.5.5.7 Proximity to Landfill 139 5.5.5.8 Nuisance to Surrounding Urban Areas 139 5.5.5.9 Population Served 139 5.6 Criteria Identification 139 Chapter 6. Mcda tools development 141 6.1 Normalize the Weights of Criteria 141 6.2 Carries a Value Rating for Each Criteria 144 6.2.1 Demography 144 6.2.2 Water Consumption / Wastewater Production 144 6.2.3 Reusing Wastewater 145 6.2.4 Environmental Factor 146 6.2.5 Operation Body 148 6.2.6 Risk for Industrial Waste 149 IX 6.2.7 Socio-Economic Factor 149 6.2.8 Geographical Factor (topography, catchment) 150 6.2.9 Political Issues 151 Chapter 7. Priorities settings 152 7.1 Identify Communities 152 7.2 Application of MCDA Tools 163 7.2.1 Carries a Value Rating for Each Criteria 163 7.2.1.1 Demography 163 7.2.1.2 Water Consumption / Wastewater Production 164 7.2.1.3 Reusing Wastewater 166 7.2.1.4 Environmental Factor 167 7.2.1.5 Operation Body 170 7.2.1.6 Risk for Industrial Waste 171 7.2.1.7 Socio-Economic Factor 174 7.2.1.8 Geographical Factor (topography, catchment) 179 7.2.1.9 Political Issues 181 7.2.2 Evaluation Measure for Each Community 182 7.3 Setting Priorities 187 7.4 Sensitivity and Certainty Analysis 188 7.4.1 Program Implementation (Case Study) 189 Chapter 8. Conclusions and recommendations 192 8.1 Conclusions 192 8.2 Recommendations 193 References 195 Annex 213 ة اٌٍّشن
X List of Tables No. Table Page 1.1 Calculate normalize weights to each attributes 6 1.2 Calculate evaluation measure 9 2.1 Applications of decision support tools in environmental 28 management 4.1 Wastewater status in WB-Main Cities (WW 61 Departments in PWA, 2012) 4.2 Existing WW Treatment Plants -urban area (WW 62 Departments in PWA, 2012) 4.3 Wastewater status in WB -Refugee Camps (WW 63 Departments in PWA, 2012) 4.4 Existing Small Scale Treatment Plant-Sample 65 4.5 Existing On-site (Household level) Treatment plants 65 4.6 On-going WW Projects (WW Departments in PWA, 67 2012) 4.7 Proposed and Ongoing WW Treatment Plants (urban 68 area) (WW Departments in PWA, 2013) 5.1 Number of families in the selected communities 104 5.2 Number of samples for each community 105 5.3 Numerical Scoring Description for Criteria 1 ‐ Ease of 125 Civil Administration Approval 5.4 Numerical Scoring Description for Subcriteria 2A – 127 Operational Simplicity – Gravity Collection 5.5 Numerical Scoring Description for Subcriteria 2B – 127 Operational Simplicity – Wastewater Generation 5.6 Numerical Scoring Description for Criteria 3 – 128 Environmental and Health Impacts 5.7 Numerical Scoring Description for Criteria 3 – 131 Municipal Readiness 6.1 Calculate normalize weights to each criteria 143 6.2 Municipal ranking on the basis of performance for the 148 municipal development program (MDP) in MDLF 7.1 Communities that are expected to have a population of 155 more than 10,000 people in 2030 7.2 Demography score of each community 163 7.3 Water consumption score of each community 164 7.4 Wastewater reuse score of each community 166 7.5 Environmental factor score of each community 168 7.6 Operation body score of each community 170 7.7 Risk for Industrial Waste score of each community 172 XI 7.8 Socio-economic factor score of each community 175 7.9 Geographical factor score of each community 179 7.10 political issues score of each community 171 7.11 Calculate evaluation measure for each community 183 7.12 Setting priorities for communities 187 7.13 Setting priorities for the top ten communities according 190 to four various alternatives
XII List of Figures No. Figure Page 1.1 Methodological approach to characterizing and 8 quantifying uncertainty 1.2 Flowchart for research methodology 10 3.1 Water Sector Framework 52 3.2 Main stakeholders in water and sanitation sect 53 3.3 National Water Council framework 54 4.1 Existing and future WWTP Projects (WW Departments 68 in PWA, 2012) 5.1 Censorship of wastewater disposal 108 5.2 The impact of wastewater on citizens directly 108 5.3 Illustrates the problems faced by citizens because of 109 wastewater 5.4 Attention to the wastewater sector by government 111 institutions and civil society organizations (NGO's) 5.5 Management of the sanitation sector 112 5.6 Provides wastewater disposal services 112 6.1 Value agricultural land 145 6.2 Hydrogeological vulnerability of groundwater to 147 pollution in the West Bank 7.1 Program Structure (Excel Program) 188
XIII Acronyms ANERA America Near East Refugee Aid ARIJ Applied Research Institute Jerusalem CARE Christian Action Research and Education CEOHS Centre for Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences at Bethlehem University EQA Environmental Quality Authority EU European Union GTZ German Agency for Technical Co-operation JICA Japanese International Cooperation Agency JWU Jerusalem Water Undertaking KFW German Bank for Reconstruction MCDA Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis MFA Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Republic of Finland MoA Ministry of Agriculture MoL Ministry of Labor MoLG Ministry of Local Governments MoTA Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities MOU Memorandum of Understanding PARC Palestinian Agricultural Relief Committee PCBS Palestinian Central Bureau for Statistics PHG Palestinian Hydrology Group PWA Palestinian Water Authority SCF Save the Children Federation UNDP United Nations Development Program UNRW United Nations Relief and Works Agency for the Palestinian A Refugees in the Near East USAID US Agency for International Development) WB World Bank WBG West Bank and Gaza Strip WESI Water and Environmental Studies Institute at An-Najah National University WSERU Water and Soil Environmental Research Unit at Bethlehem University IEWS Institute of Environmental and Water Studies at Bir-Zeit University WW Waste Water WWTP Waste Water Treatment Plant
XIV Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) to Identify the Setting Priorities of the Sanitation Sector in West Bank By Baraa Yaseen Jararaa Supervisor Prof. Marwan Haddad
Abstract During the last two decades, millions of dollars have been invested in the sanitation sector in the Palestinian lands. Nonetheless, the sanitation sector is considered one of the sectors that have been neglected over the past decades as only 28% to 32% of the populations are provided with sewage systems. Such networks serve some of the main cities, camps and villages while most of the populations get rid of wastewater via cesspits. Many researches and studies have been conducted over the sanitation sector in Palestine, and many plans and strategies have been developed in this field over the past years. However, none of such researches and strategies managed to set the priorities of the areas in need to solve the problem of wastewater disposal. This research aims at identifying and setting the priorities of the areas in need to solve the problem of wastewater disposal by using Multiple
Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) approach in an attempt to start projects in such areas. The research has shown that the current way they are selecting target areas to sanitation projects are either based on the policies of the donor or on a non-scientific method. So they do not take all the right criteria to make the right decision. XV
The research has shown that the criteria which significantly affect the decision-making process in the sanitation sectors are: the demography, water consumption - wastewater production, reusing wastewater, environmental factor, the operation body, the risks of the industrial waste, the socio-economic factor, the geographical factor and political issues. The research discussed the evaluative mechanism of such criteria, and a mathematical relationship was found between the different criteria which facilitate identifying setting the priorities of areas. The number of communities whose population is expected to reach up to 10 thousand in 2013 is 97 communities. There are 33 communities served with sewage systems or in the design or implementation stages with funds specified for these communities. On the other hand, there are 64 communities that disposed of wastewater via cesspits. According to the PWA water sector plan for 2010-2030, the number of population of all communities shall have reached 10 thousand, all connected and served with a sewage system. The Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) approach, developed through this research and which is recommended to be put into use in 2010 and end by 2030 in accordance with the water sector plan, was applied to 64 communities which consider cesspits as a means of getting rid of wastewater. The 64 communities were ordered by priority. The study has put forward a number of recommendations such as that the Palestinian Water Authority set a long-term plan and a five-year plan to serve 20 communities ordered by priority and that donating bodies abide with this plan. 1 Chapter .1 Introductions
1.1 Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) or Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) is a discipline aimed at supporting decision makers faced with making numerous and sometimes conflicting evaluations. MCDA aims at highlighting these conflicts and deriving a way to come to a compromise in a transparent process. Multi-criteria decision analysis has been recognized as an important tool in environmental decision-making for formalizing and addressing the problem of competing decision objectives (Janssen 1992, Lahdelma et al. 2000,
Linkov et al. 2006, Regan et al. 2007, Yatsalo et al. 2007). The decision-maker’s preferences over options depend on how well they perform according to a number of objectives or ―criteria‖ {C1…CM} that have been identified by relevant stakeholders to be the (only) issues on which a decision between options should be made. Unlike methods that assume the availability of measurements, measurements in MCDA are derived or interpreted subjectively as indicators of the strength of various preferences. Preferences differ from decision maker to other, so the outcome depends on who is making the decision and what their goals and preferences are. Here, we use MCDA method that depend on rankings of options for each criterion, and also weightings for the criteria. We chose the method because it has been employed widely in environmental and other decision-making
2 contexts (Janssen 1992, Lahdelma et al. 2000, Linkov et al. 2006, Regan et al. 2007, Yatsalo et al. 2007). Our chief concern is to highlight the impact that scoring scales and other assumptions in the process have on decision outcomes, and to suggest some resolutions for the identified problems.
1.2 Sanitation Sector in general The Sanitation problem is one of the problems facing communities and environment and thus affects the lives of humans, plants, and animals not only in Palestine but in all over the world. Therefore we need clear comprehensive and sustainable criteria for its development. There have been substantial developments in (waste) water management and treatment technology worldwide during the past decades (Gijzen, 2001). In spite of that, in 1997 three billion people on earth lacked adequate sanitation. In Africa alone, 80 million people are at risk of cholera, and 16 million cases of typhoid infections each year are a result of lack of clean drinking water and adequate sanitation (WHO, 1996). According to the Kyoto summit in 2003, two billion people will not have access to safe drinking water supplies in the year 2015. The Mediterranean countries are among the most affected region in the world. Wastewater has been identified as the main land-based point source pollutant causing contamination of the (coastal) marine environment (UNEP/GPA, 2000). The increase in population and therefore in sewage production poses a great challenge to developing and introducing sustainable sewage collection and treatment. The efforts in providing these essential services, especially for poorer regions of the world, are hindered by the
3 shortcomings of the current concept of urban water management and financial limitations.
Water is a scarce and precious resource in the Middle East. The Mediterranean countries are among the regions of water stress in the world (Water stress < 1700 m3/cap. year). Comparing the average international per capita minimum need according to the WHO (2006) standards (150 l/c/d) with the actual Palestinian water consumption (82 l/c/d); the deficit in water supply reached up to 41 million cubic meters (mcm) annually. Population growth, rising living standards and urbanization increase the pressure on the resource, leading to increasing costs of water supply.
Palestine is a typical example where scarce water resources are being massively contaminated by excessive use of both fertilizer and manure in agriculture and by uncontrolled discharge of municipal sewage into the environment. This might seriously endanger future potable water supplies of the population at large. In Palestine, the only substantial water resource available is groundwater. Presently, the application of wastewater treatment is limited due to high costs and the technological complexity of conventional systems. Seepage of domestic wastewater from on-site cesspits, inadequately performing off-site sewage treatment plants, together with the excessive use of fertilizer in agriculture has resulted in a dramatic increase of nitrate levels in aquifers. In the West Bank, signs of nitrate pollution in some agricultural wells and freshwater springs were reported every others, by Alawneh and Al-Sa`ed (1997).
4
Palestine suffers from both water scarcity and water pollution; water supply is dependent upon annual precipitation, which replenishes the aquifers, natural springs and streams in Palestinian territories. Ground water and rainwater collected in cisterns is exposed to severe pollution especially from untreated wastewater. In Palestine, domestic and industrial wastewaters are collected mainly in cesspits or, to a much lesser extent, in sewerage networks. In some villages and refugee camps, black wastewater is collected in cesspits (PCBS, 2007).
1.3 Research Question The following are the research questions:
1. What are the criteria that affect the decision-making in the sanitation sector in Palestine? And how to harmonize these criteria? 2. What are the locations of most need to solve the problem of sewage in West Bank?
1.4 Objectives of the Research This research aims to: Overview and assess the sanitation sector investments, progress,
deficiencies, problems, existing and future plans.
Identify the criteria that affect the decision-making in the sanitation sector and how to harmonize these criteria. Develop a relationship to setting priorities of the sanitation sector according to the various criteria obtained by MCDA.
Identify the areas which most need to solve the problem of sewage in the West Bank.
5
1.5 Methodology The research methodology goes through five phases. Figure 1.2 shows the relation between the phases. These phases are:
Phase 1: Data collection A. Review the present strategy of the PWA, MEnA and the PA environmental laws. B. Review the available documents, papers, reports, strategy of some
countries and studies on the sanitation sector. C. Identify the involved stakeholders in the sanitation sector such as institutions; organizations; ministries; universities and municipalities. D. Review the methods for determining the priorities in sanitation sector
in the ministries and relevant institutions. E. Review the selected criteria used in the sanitation projects. F. Review the performed projects in the sanitation sector (Investments). G. Address the current status of sanitation in the West Bank (sewage
systems, pumps, treatment plants, cesspits).
Phase 2: Criteria Identification A. Identify the criteria established by the laws and strategy in Palestine. B. Identify the criteria used in some countries.
C. Stakeholder Consultation such as institutions; organizations; ministries; universities and municipalities. D. Questionnaire for citizens. E. EIA Terms of Reference (TOR) of sanitation projects.
F. Determine the criteria followed by donors in the projects.
6
Phase 3: MCDA tools development A. Realistic evaluations should take into account multiple attributes in
decision making, so, in reality we have different attributes (criteria) that differ in importance. The ―difference in importance‖ makes it essential to give a weight for each attribute. This is done through consultation with stakeholders in the sanitation sector.
B. Normalize the weights by: Give a score for each attribute’s weight, compute the summation of all the scores, and divide the score of each attribute by the total score. See Table 1.1 and equation below:
Table 1.1 Calculate normalize weights to each attributes Attributes Weights Normalize weight 1 W1 W1/∑W 2 W2 W2/∑W 3 W3 W3/∑W ...... m Wm Wm/∑W
C. Each alternative carries a value rating for each attribute. The rating of
each alternative for each attribute indicates how well the alternative will perform as each attribute is considered. The rating will be determined by reference to the books, references and scientific papers and by reference to the owners of specialty in these attribute.
7
D. Managing uncertainty: The methodology for managing uncertainty developed for characterizing and quantifying uncertainty in the
decision-making process is showing in Figure 1.1 as can be seen from this figure, the decision-making process starts by defining the set of options of interest (i.e. potential, alternative solutions) for the analysed problem. At the same time, a set of criteria that will be used to
evaluate these optional solutions is identified too. This preliminary analysis is carried out by liaising with stakeholders and supported by the MCDA analyst. The objective is to identify/formulate planning decisions that could be potentially used to solve the problem analysed
and, at the same time, to define the quality standards that should be met by the implemented decision. This is an iterative process which eventually results in a list of optional solutions to be considered and the multiple criteria that will be used to evaluate and compare them.
8
Figure 1.1: Methodological approach to characterizing and quantifying uncertainty
Phase 4: Priorities settings A. Identify communities. We will take the towns that have population over 10 thousand people. In accordance with the directives of the PWA to resolve sanitation problems in the towns and villages with the population over 10 thousand people by 2030.
B. Compile information on each community through PCBS, PWA, EQA, various ministries, municipalities, and village councils. C. GIS application, expected the availability of the following maps: basins map, geological map, rainfall map, soil map, springs map, topography map, land use map, catchment area map, built up areas map, drainage systems map and satellite image.
9
D. Application of MCDA tools to each community. E. Evaluation measure for each community. See in the Table below:
Table 1.2: Calculate evaluation measure Attri Score for each Evaluation measure for each Normalize bute alternative (community) alternative (community) weight s 1 2 3 n 1 2 3 n 1 W1 S11 S21 S31 W1*Sn1 W1*S11 W1*S21 W1*S31 W1*Sn1 2 W2 S12 S22 S32 W2*Sn2 W2*S12 W2*S22 W2*S32 W2*Sn2 3 W3 S13 S23 S33 W3*Sn3 W3*S13 W3*S23 W3*S33 W3*Sn3 ...... Wm Wm Wm Wm m Wm S1m S2m S3m Snm *S1m *S2m *S3m *Snm
F. Setting priorities for each community based on evaluation measure.
Phase 5: Results and thesis writing It will begin from the first phase and continuous through all phases and include thesis drafting and finalizing the thesis.
10
Figure 1.2: Flowchart for research methodology
11 Chapter 2 Literature review
2.1 Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) 2.1.1 Introduction Multiple criteria problems in general have received different approaches throughout history and different authors have been using multiple approaches and several methods for more than half a century. In that period, multiple criteria analysis has received ―different names‖ such as Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM), Multi-Criteria Evaluation (MCE), Multi-Attribute Utility (MAU), and Multi-Objective Programming
(MOP). Terms to describe similar decision analysis methods in the literature vary. For example Doumpos (2002) uses the term ―multicriteria decision aid‖ (MCDA) and Dodgson et al, use a broader term ―multicriteria analysis‖ (MCA) which includes multicriteria decision analysis . For purposes of this thesis, the term ―multiple criteria decision analysis‖ (MCDA) will be used for the sake of consistency. Environmental managers of developing countries are faced with an additional problem. The situation they often face is one of a limited budget to implement all of their projects. They can perform cost effectiveness analyses to determine the best alternative and they can perform cost-benefit analyses to demonstrate that the project benefits outweigh the costs, but the issue they often encounter is that they have more justifiable projects than they have budget. The tools that these managers need are those that help them to determine which of
12 these justifiable projects are the most important. In other words, ―Which projects provide the most benefit to the successful management of their mission?‖ To make this determination, they need a tool to prioritize their projects in a manner, consistent with established criteria, that is satisfactory to all stakeholders (including ultimately the public and donor countries, which are typically the source of funding for such projects). Often the method that environmental managers resort to is one of ad hoc decision making. Disadvantages of this method are that such decisions are not transparent to other stakeholders and may appear unfair. With no structured basis for the decision process, it becomes less reliable and more difficult to defend to others. Often times experienced mangers set the right priorities based on ad hoc decision making, but cannot back up their decision satisfactorily to all stakeholders. According to Satterstrom Linkov, ―A systematic method of combining quantitative and qualitative inputs from scientific studies of risk, cost and cost-benefit analyses, and stakeholder views has yet to be fully developed for environmental decision making‖ (Linkov, et. al., 2006). More integrative decision analysis processes such as multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) may serve environmental managers better than the other tools. MCDA is an ―umbrella term to describe a collection of formal approaches which seek to take explicit account of multiple criteria in helping individuals or groups explore decisions that matter‖ (Belton and Stuart,
2002). MCDA facilitates understanding of the problem and uses the priorities and values of the decision makers to take the most appropriate
13 course of action. MCDA does not relieve the decision maker from the requirement to make a difficult decision; rather, it provides a structure within which decision makers and stakeholders express their values and priorities to each other, resulting in a better understanding of the problem, potential solutions, and areas in which different stakeholders agree. Many times a course of action results from the process that was not originally considered that reflects a compromise of the stakeholders. The MCDA process in general includes problem identification, problem structuring, model building, and implementation of the model to inform and challenge thinking, followed by determination of a course of action. MCDA ―… integrates common sense with empirical, quantitative, normative, descriptive, and value-judgment-based analysis‖ (Haimes, 2005). MCDA is supported by data management procedures, modeling methodologies, optimization and simulation techniques, and decision making approaches for the ultimate purpose of improving the decision making process (Haimes, 2005). According to Dodgson (2000), the main role of MCDA techniques is to ―deal with the difficulties that human decision-makers have been shown to have in handling large amounts of complex information in a consistent way. . . . [MCDA involves breaking a] problem into more manageable pieces to allow [for easier analysis] and then of reassembling the pieces to present a coherent overall picture to [aid in thinking and decision making.] As a set of techniques, MCDA provides different ways of disaggregating a complex problem, of measuring the
14 extent to which options achieve objectives, of weighting the objectives, and of reassembling the pieces‖ (Dodgson et al., 2000).
A common technique in MCDA models is the use a preference matrix that displays how each alternative under consideration compares to others in terms of the different selection criteria established for the evaluation. In simple applications, the analysis of the performance matrix directly may be all that is needed to determine the best solution. According to Dodgson (2000), in these situations one of the first steps is to determine ―if any of the [alternatives] are dominated by others. Dominance occurs when one option performs at least as well as another for all criteria and is better than the other for at least one criterion‖ (Dodgson et al., 2000). An analysis for dominance can be used to eliminate alternatives from consideration or to review the criteria used to determine if all applicable criteria has been included in the analysis.
In most MCDA applications, numerical analysis is conducted on the performance matrix to determine the preferred alternative. The analysis typically involves scoring in which a numerical score is assigned to each alternative based on strength of preference scale for each criterion.
Weighting is also commonly used to define the relative value or importance of each criterion. Models using this approach are referred to as compensatory techniques since low scores on some criteria can be offset by high scores on others. ―The most common way to combine scores on criteria, and relevant weights between criteria, is to calculate a simple weighted average of scores. Use of such weighted averages depends on the
15 assumption of mutual independence of preferences. This means that the judged strength of preference for an option on one criterion will be independent of its judged strength of preference on another‖ (Dodgson et al., 2000).
2.1.2 Multicriteria Solving Methodologies According to Saaty (1996), there are four major approaches or methodologies of multicriteria. First, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) that is a utility and value theory of economics based on the use of lottery comparisons. The second approach is probabilistic, based on Bayesian Theory.
Third, Outranking Method based on ordinal comparison of concordance and discordance. And fourth, Goal programming that is basically a modified version of Linear Programming.
2.1.3 Regulatory Uses of MCDA Decision process implementation is often based on the results of physical modelling and engineering optimization schemes. Even though federal agencies are required to consider social and political factors, the typical decision analysis process does not provide specifically for explicit consideration of such issues. Comparatively little effort is applied to engaging and understanding stakeholder perspectives (including the general public as well as potentially responsible parties and natural resource trustees) or to provide for potential learning among stakeholders. A result of this weakness in current and common decision models is that the process
16 tends to quickly become adversarial whereby there is little incentive to understand multiple perspectives or to share information. However, a review of regulatory and guidance documents reveals several programs in the United States where regulatory agencies involved in environmental issues are beginning to implement formal decision-analytic tools (such as MCDA) in their decision-making process.
2.1.3.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Historically, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has used essentially a single-measure approach to civil works, planning decisions through its Principles and Guidelines (P&G) framework (USACE 1983).
The USACE has primarily used net national economic development (NED) benefits as the single measure to choose among different alternatives. The P&G method makes use of a complex analysis of each alternative to determine the benefits and costs in terms of dollars and other non dollar measures (e.g., environmental quality and safety); the alternative with the highest net NED benefit (i.e., with no environmental degradation) is usually selected. The USACE uses a variety of mechanistic and deterministic fate and transport models to provide information in quantifying the various economic development and ecological restoration accounting requirements as dictated by P&G procedures. The level of complexity and scope addressed by these models is determined at the project level by a planning team. Issues such as uncertainty and risk are also addressed through formulation at the individual project management level.
17
While the P&G method is not specifically required for planning efforts related to military installation operation and maintenance, regulatory actions or operational or maintenance dredging, it presents a general decision approach that influences many USACE decisions. The USACE planning approach is essentially a mono criterion approach where a decision is based on a comparison of alternatives using 1 or 2 factors. Cost- benefit analysis, for example, is a mono criterion approach. The P&G approach has its challenges in that knowledge of the costs, benefits, impacts, and interactions is rarely precisely known. This single-number approach is limiting and may not always lead to an alternative or decision process satisfactory to stakeholders. In response to a USACE request for a review of P&G planning procedures, the National Research Council (NRC 1999) provided recommendations for streamlining planning processes, revising P&G guidelines, analyzing cost- sharing requirements, and estimating the effects of risk and uncertainty integration in the planning process. As an integration mechanism, the NRC (1999) recommended that further decision analysis tools be implemented to aid in the comparison and quantification of environmental benefits from restoration, flood damage reduction, and navigation projects. In addition, new USACE initiatives, such as the Environmental Operating Principles within USACE civil works planning, dictate that projects adhere to a concept of environmental sustainability that is defined as ―a synergistic process, whereby environmental and economic considerations are effectively balanced through the life of project planning, design,
18 construction, operation and maintenance to improve the quality of life for present and future generations‖ (USACE 2003a, p. 5).
In addition, revised planning procedures have been proposed to formulate more sustainable options through ―combined‖ economic development and ecosystem restoration plans (USACE 2003b). While still adhering to the overall P&G methodology, USACE (2003b) advises project delivery teams to formulate acceptable, combined economic development and ecosystem restoration alternatives using MCDA and trade-off methods (Males 2002). Despite the existence of new guidance and revisions on the application of MCDA techniques to environmental projects, there remains a need for a systematic strategy to implement these methods within specific USACE mission areas (e.g., navigation and restoration) as well as linkage with existing risk analysis and adaptive management procedures.
2.1.3.2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Stahl et al. (2002) and Stahl (2003) reviewed the decision analysis process in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and observed that although USEPA has a mandate to make decisions in the public interest pertaining to the protection of human health and welfare, there are barriers in current USEPA decision processes that may discourage stakeholder participation, integration of perspectives, learning about new alternatives, and consensus building. Similar to the USACE, the USEPA uses a variety of modeling tools to support its current decision-making processes. The majority of these tools are quantitative multimedia systems that assess
19 benefits and risks associated with each proposed alternative with the objective of selecting the best option (Stahl 2003).
Several USEPA guidance documents introduce decision-analytic tools and recommend their use. Multicriteria integrated resource assessment (MIRA) has been proposed as an alternative framework to existing decision analysis approaches at USEPA (Stahl et al. 2002; USEPA 2002; Stahl 2003). MIRA is a process that directs stakeholders to organize scientific data, establishes links between the results produced by the research community, and organizes applications in the regulatory community. MIRA utilizes AHP- based trade-off analysis to determine the relative importance of decision criteria. Multi-attribute product evaluation is inherent in the nature of life-cycle assessment, which has rapidly emerged as a tool to analyze and assess the environmental impacts associated with a product, process, or service
(Miettinen and Hamalainen 1997; Seppala et al. 2002). Further, the USEPA has developed the ―Framework for Responsible Environmental Decision- Making‖ to assist the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics in their development of guidelines for promoting the use of environmentally preferable products and services (USEPA 2000). The ―Framework for Responsible Environmental Decision-Making‖ decision-making method provides a foundation for linking life cycle indicator results with technical and economic factors for decision makers when quantifying the environmental performance of competing products.
20
2.1.3.3 U.S. Department of Energy Similar to the USACE and USEPA, the U.S. Department of Energy
(USDOE) uses a variety of multimedia models to support its decision- making process. A recent review (Corporate Project 7 Team 2003) concluded that even though there are a significant number of guidance documents, systems, and processes in use within the USDOE to determine, manage, and communicate risk, there is a great need for comparative risk assessment tools, risk management decision trees, and risk communication tools that would allow site managers to reach agreement with their regulators and other stakeholders while achieving mutual understanding of the relationship between risk parameters, regulatory constraints, and cleanup. Several USDOE models have been developed specifically for dealing with radiologically contaminated sites and sites with dual (chemical and radiological) contamination. Several of the current models are deterministic, although probabilistic multimedia models have also been developed and used (USDOE 2003). Several USDOE guidance documents introduce decision-analytical tools and recommend their use. Technical guidance developed for a wide range of USDOE decision needs (Baker et al. 2001) segregate the decision process into 8 sequential steps: defining the problem, determining the requirements, establishing the goals of the project, identifying alternative methods and products, defining the criteria of concern, selecting an appropriate decision-making tool for the particular situation, evaluating the alternatives against the criteria, and, finally, validating solution(s) against
21 the problem statement. Guidance also focuses on how to select a decision- making tool from among 5 recommended evaluation methods. These methods include pros-and-cons analysis, Kepner-Tregoe (K-T) decision analysis, AHP, MAUT, and cost-benefit analysis. The USDOE has developed a standard paradigm for selecting or developing a risk-based prioritization (RBP) system (USDOE 1998). The paradigm describes the issues that should be considered when comparing, selecting, or implementing RBP systems. It also identifies characteristics that should be used in evaluating the quality of a RBP system and its associated results. The USDOE (1998) recommends the use of MAUT as an RBP model because it is a flexible, quantitative decision analysis technique and management tool for clearly documenting the advantages and disadvantages of policy choices in a structured framework. The MAUT merits special consideration because it provides sound ways to combine quantitatively dissimilar measures of costs, risks, and benefits, along with decision-maker preferences, into high-level, aggregated measures that can be used to evaluate alternatives. The MAUT allows full aggregation of performance measures into 1 single measure of value that can be used for ranking alternatives. However, USDOE (1998) cautions that the results of MAUT analysis should not normally be used as the principal basis for decision making because decision making will generally require accounting for factors that cannot be readily quantified (e.g., equity). Furthermore,
USDOE (1998) guidance states that no technique can eliminate the need to
22 rely heavily on sound knowledge, data, and judgments or the need for a critical appraisal of results.
The USDOE has used a multi-attribute model as the core of its Environmental Restoration Priority System for prioritizing restoration projects developed in the late 1980s (Jenni et al. 1995). Although the Environmental Restoration Priority System was designed to operate with any specified set of values and tradeoffs, its use was limited to values that were elicited from USDOE managers, including those based on risk analysis. The USDOE has not applied the Environmental Restoration Priority System because of stakeholder opposition, although similar decision support systems have since been adopted for use at various USDOE sites (CRESP 1999). The USDOE has attempted to use simple weighting to aid program planning and budget formulation processes (CRESP 1999).
2.1.3.4 European Union A detailed review of the regulatory background and use of decision- analytic tools in the European Union (EU) was recently conducted within the EU-sponsored Contaminated Land Rehabilitation Network for
Environmental Technologies project (Bardos et al. 2002). The review found that environmental risk assessment, cost-benefit analysis, life cycle assessment, and MCDA were the principal analytical tools used to support environmental decision making for contaminated land management in 16
EU countries (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden,
23
Switzerland, and the UK). Similar to the United States, quantitative methods such as risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis are presently the dominant decision support approaches, while MCDA and explicit tradeoffs are used less frequently. Pereira and Quintana (2002) reviewed the evolution of decision support systems for environmental applications developed by the EU Joint
Research Center. The concept of environmental decision support has evolved from highly technocratic systems aimed at improving understanding of technical issues by individual decision makers to a platform for helping all parties involved in a decision process engage in meaningful debate. Applications developed in the group include water resources management, sitting of waste disposal plants, hazardous substance transportation, urban transportation, management, and groundwater management.
2.1.4 MCDA Applications for Environmental Management and Related Uses The MCDA applications are relevant to environmental management, stakeholder involvement, and the management of contaminated lands.
Recent publications present more comprehensive reviews of studies relevant to management of terrestrial sites (Linkov et al. 2004) and contaminated sediments (Linkov et al. 2005). The use of MCDA is more strongly evident within the broad areas of environmental management and stakeholder involvement. Fewer efforts have been made to apply MCDA to the management of contaminated lands and risk analysis. It should be noted
24 that MCDA has also been applied in many other related policy development areas, such as manufacturing and services; medical, military, and public policy (Keefer et al. 2002a, 2002b); climate change (Bell et al. 2003); industrial facility sitting (Larichev and Olson 2001); energy policy (Hobbs and Meier 2000; Keefer et al. 2002a, 2002b); agricultural resource management (Hayashi 2000); and life-cycle assessment (Seppala et al.
2002).
2.1.4.1 Application to general environmental management The MCDA methods have been extensively applied to a range of environmental management challenge. Each of the examples identified in the course of this review were classified into 1 of 5 application areas: (1) prioritization of site/areas for industrial/military activity, (2) environmental/remedial technology selection, (3) environmental impact assessment, (4) stakeholder involvement, and (5) natural resource planning.
Prioritization of sites/areas for industrial/military activity— Management of contaminated sites often requires site zoning for remediation, restoration, or other uses. Even though applications of
MCDA methods for contaminated site zoning could not be found in
this review, the MCDA methods described in (Kiker 2009) (e.g., multi-attribute value theory (MAUT/MAVT), analytical hierarchy process (AHP), and outranking) have been used, in conjunction with geographic information system, for selection of site boundaries and
the identification of geographical areas for related uses (e.g., industrial or military).
25
Mendoza et al. (2002) used AHP for allocating areas for military training exercises at Ford Hood, Texas, USA. Keisler and Sundell
(1997) and Sharifi et al. (2003) proposed a framework that integrates MAUT and spatial analysis to determine national park boundaries. Joerin and Musy (2000) developed a generic method to integrate multiple considerations, such as impacts, air quality, noise,
accessibility, climate, utility networks (e.g., water, electricity), and aesthetics related to land management. Vaillancourt and Waaub (2002) used outranking and a geographic information system framework to select a site for a new waste management facility in
Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Environmental/remedial technology selection— the selection of a feasible remedial action is usually the final stage of a contaminated site investigation (e.g., as required under the U.S. Superfund
program). This review identified several instances in which MCDA methods were used to select the best technology or remedial method. For example, a MAUT-based method was applied to compare
current and alternative water control plans in the Missouri River,
USA (Prato 2003). A related problem of regulating water flow in a river–lake system was addressed by Hamalainen et al. (2001) from the perspectives of group decision theory and stakeholder consensus building. Wakeman (2003) used the simple multiattribute rating
technique (SMART) (Edwards 1977) to decide which action alternative to implement in handling the contaminated river sediment
26
at Milltown Dam, Montana, USA. Factors considered by Edwards (1977) included availability of materials and services, ability to
construct, and reliability. One of the most advanced applications of MCDA techniques in this area was implemented for nuclear accident emergency management as a part of the EU-RODOS project, which used a MAUT analysis for strategy selection for population
protection after a nuclear accident (Ehrhardt and Shershakov 1996). Environmental impact assessment—Environmental impact assessments (EIA) are routinely conducted for all major projects in the United States with the potential to affect the environment. The
assessment of site contamination is often an integral part of EIA. Janssen (2001) reviewed 21 EIAs conducted in the Netherlands in the period 1992–2000. Most of the EIAs reviewed by Janssen (2001) used weighted summation methods, although a few projects used
either the AHP or a MAUT-based approach. Marttunen and Hamalainen (1995) reviewed MAUT/SMART and the AHP methods used for decision analysis in EIAs for the
assessment of environmental impacts of a water development project
in Finland. SMART was chosen over AHP because the AHP procedure proved to be too time consuming for stakeholders (Marttunen and Hamalainen 1995). Ramanathan (2001) recommended the use of AHP for considering multiple criteria and
multiple stakeholders in EIA as well as to assess the socioeconomic impact of a proposed liquefied petroleum gas recovery plant in an
27
industrial area in India. Rogers and Bruen (1998) used Elimination Et Choix Traduisant la Realite (ELECTRE) III (outranking)
methodology in evaluating thresholds for noise impacts from a highway project in Ireland. Al-Rashdan et al. (1999) used Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluations (PROMETHEE) (outranking) methodology to rank environmental
impact assessments related to wastewater projects in Jordan; the methodology was found to be very useful in solving problems with conflicting criteria. Natural resource management—the management of natural
resources has involved the application of MCDA. Steiguer et al. (2003) developed an annotated bibliography that includes 124 examples of the application of MCDA to projects ranging from theoretical studies to real-world forest and natural resource
management situations. Steiguer et al. (2003) indicate that MCDA constitutes a newer and, perhaps, more acceptable method for quantifying and evaluating public preferences. Nevertheless, few
studies included empirical testing of MCDA utility or its feasibility
and, in most of the studies, researchers have used hypothetical data or, at best, simplified decision situations; few studies were designed to implement an MCDA-generated management strategy. The AHP approach within MCDA has received the most attention in
natural resource management applications (Steiguer et al. 2003). The application of AHP in natural resource planning is summarized in
28
Schmoldt et al. (2001) with Table 2.1 listing some representative publications. Schmoldt et al. (1994) and Schmoldt and Peterson
(2001b) used AHP to address different aspects of natural park management, including developing inventory and monitoring programs, as well as strategic management plans. Pavlikakis and Tsihrintzis (2003) evaluated the utility of MAUT and AHP in
selecting a technically suitable and socially acceptable management plan for a national park in eastern Macedonia and Thrace in Greece.
Table 2.1: Applications of decision support tools in environmental management Applicat Method Decision context Funding agency Citation ion area Land condition U.S. Army assessment for Engineering Mendoza et al. AHP+ GIS allocation of Research and (2002) military training Development areas Center International Prioritiza Institute for Selection of Geo-information tion of Sharifi et al. AHP+ GIS boundaries for Science and sites/area (2002) s for national park Earth industrial Observation, /military The Netherlands activity Natural Sciences Waste and Engineering Vaillancourt PROMETH management Research and Waaub EE activities in Council of (2002) Canada Canada ELECTRE + Land Swiss National Joerin and GIS management: Foundation for Musy (2000)
29 Applicat Method Decision context Funding agency Citation ion area develop a land Research suitability map (FNRS) for housing in Switzerland Siddiqui et al. AHP + GIS Landfill sitting (1996) MAUT + Selection of park Keisler and USDOE GIS boundaries Sundell (1997) Choosing a U.S. Army remedial action Wakeman SMART Corps of alternative at (2003) Engineers Superfund site Selection of University of management MAUT Missouri— Prato (2003) alternative Columbia, USA Environ Missouri River mental/re Regulation of medial MAUT + water flow in a Academy of Hamalainen et technolo AHP lake–river Finland al. (2001) gy system selection Offsite emergency Ehrhardt and management European Shershakov following a MAUT Commission, (1996); nuclear accident Ukraine Hamalainen et (such as the al. (2000) Chernobyl accident)
Review of Environ MCDA use for Vrije University, Review Janssen (2001) mental EIAs in The Netherlands impact Netherlands assessme Socioeconomic Indira Gandhi Ramanathan nt AHP impact Institute of (2001)
30 assessment for a Development construction Research, India project in India Dublin Institute Highway of Technology; environmental Rogers and ELECTRE University appraisal in Bruen (1998) College Dublin, Ireland Ireland Environmental Finnish impact Environmental AHP and assessment of 2 Marttunen and Agency; MAUT/SM water Hamalainen Helsinki ART development (1995) University of projects on a Technology Finnish river Staffordshire PROMETH Prioritization of Al-Rashdan et University, EE EIAs in Jordan al. (1999) United Kingdom
Schmoldt et al. (1994); Peterson et al. Natural park USDA Forest AHP (1994); management Services Schmoldt and Peterson (2001b) Management of Natural small forest in USDA Forest Rauscher et al. AHP resource North Carolina, Services (2000) manage USA ment National Science Management of and Engineering spruce budworm Levy et al. MAUT Research in Canadian (2000) Council of forests Canada AHP, Forestry Finnish Kangas et al. MAUT, and planning in Academy of (2001) outranking Finland Sciences;
31 Finnish Forest Research Institute Improvement of Finnish Forest Store and MAUT habitat suitability Research Kangas (2001) measurements Institute Environmental vulnerability Tran et al. AHP assessment for USEPA/USDOE (2002) mid-Atlantic region U.K. Management of Department of Brown et al. Weighting marine protected International (2001) areas in Tobago Development Fisheries management: select among Fisheries and McDaniels MAUT alternative Ocean, Canada (1995) commercial fishery opening days AHP, Fisheries Mardle and MAUT, and management Pascoe (1999) outranking
A PROMETHEE = Preference Ranking Organization Method for
Enrichment Evaluations; ELECTRE = Elimination Et Choix Traduisant la
Realite; AHP = analytical hierarchy process; GIS = geographic information system; MAUT = multi-attribute utility theory; MCDA = multicriteria decision analysis; EIA = environmental impact assessment; USDA = U.S. Department of Agriculture; USDOE = U.S. Department of Energy;
SMART = simple multi-attribute rating technique.
32
Methods of MCDA have been extensively applied to a wide range of projects in forest management; AHP was applied for a project-scale forest management problem by Rauscher et al. (2000), and MAUT analysis was applied to identify policy alternatives to manage a budworm outbreak in a local site in Canada (Levy et al. 2000). Kangas et al. (2001) tested the application of several MAUT and outranking methods for large-scale forest policy planning in Finland. Store and Kangas (2001) used MAUT-based methods to conduct a habitat suitability evaluation over large forested areas. Finally, Tran et al. (2002) used AHP to assess the environmental vulnerability of forests across the mid-Atlantic region in the United States.
The MCDA has also been applied to manage aquatic resources. Simon and Pascoe (1999) reviewed applications of MCDA in fisheries management. Brown et al. (2001) used weighting-based trade-off analysis to select a management option for Buccoo Reef Marine Park in Tobago; criteria evaluated included ecological, social, and economic factors. McDaniels (1995) used a MAUT approach to select among alternative commercial fishery openings involving conflicting long-term objectives for salmon management.
2.1.4.2 Application to Stakeholder Involvement Most of the examples presented here attempt to represent the value judgments of a single decision maker and incorporate these value judgments into the overall decision-making process. Stakeholder values are often considered as 1 attribute, along with others, such as costs or risk reduction. The MCDA can also be used as a framework that permits
33 stakeholders to structure their views about the pros and cons of different environmental and remedial management options. Applications of MCDA for group decision making in other areas have been reviewed by Bose et al. (1997) and Matsatsinis and Samaras (2001). Arvai and Gregory (2003) was the only study identified that addressed the application of decision-analytic tools to include stakeholder involvement at contaminated sites. Arvai and Gregory (2003) compared 2 approaches for involving stakeholders in identifying radioactive waste cleanup priorities at USDOE sites, (1) a traditional approach that involved communication of scientific information that is currently in use in many USDOE, USEPA, and other U.S. federal programs and (2) a values-oriented communication approach that helped stakeholders make difficult trade-offs across technical and social concerns. The 2nd approach has strong affinity to the MAUT- based trade-offs discussed earlier in this paper. Arvai and Gregory (2003) concluded that the incorporation of value-based trade-offs information leads stakeholders to making more informed choices. Several studies propose the use of MCDA tools for consensus building and advocate the utility of this application or illustrate the value-oriented approaches that are based on MAUT. In general, applications may include individual surveys and workshops designed to elicit value judgment and construct decision alternatives. Specific applications include water resource management (McDaniels et al. 1999; Gregory et al. 2001), mining
(Gregory and Keeny 1994), wilderness preservation (McDaniels and Roessler 1998), and estuary management (Gregory and Wellman 2001).
34
The McDaniels et al. (1999) study concludes that value-based approaches result in a higher level of comfort for participants and are useful in developing consensus-based management decisions. The MAUT-based applications appear to be used in stakeholder value elicitation for regional forest planning (Ananda and Herath 2003), air quality valuation (Kwak et al. 2001), and agricultural applications (Gomez-Limon et al. 2003). In addition, Schmoldt and Peterson (2001a) advocated the use of AHP as a decision support tool in workshop settings for forest resource management. The examples presented previously used MCDA to facilitate consensus building. An alternative application of MCDA is in the organization of diverse interests instead of seeking consensus-based middle ground. Gregory and Failing (2002) argue that a clear expression of difference facilitates development and acceptance of management plans. Another approach to ranking risk involves soliciting the views of participants both as individuals and in a group setting (Morgan et al. 2000; Florig et al. 2001). In this manner, decision makers can obtain information on the rankings of options that involve multiple objectives by weighing the attributes identified by individuals and groups developed from the 2 methods. Mental modeling (Morgan et al. 2002) may be a promising tool for assessing individual judgments. It involves individual, 1-on-1 interviews, leading participants through a jointly determined agenda of topics. The method allows free expression and encourages elaboration on topics in order to reveal individual perspectives at considerable depth. When
35 effectively done, analysts can identify what people believe and why they believe it. They are also able to compare analyses over time and provide insights into why beliefs change. Environmental applications of mental modeling include management of the Illinois River basin in eastern Oklahoma, USA, (Focht et al. 1999; Whitaker and Focht 2001) and in energy policy development (Gregory et al. 2003).
2.1.4.3 Application to Management of Contaminated Lands Most applications of MCDA have been conducted by USDOE to develop decision models to evaluate specific criteria for the selection of remediation technologies. Grelk (1997), Grelk et al. (1998), and Parnell et al. (2001) have developed a decision analysis value model that is based on the process required by the legislation in the United States supporting the Superfund program. The USDOE has also sponsored a series of studies designed to develop decision models used to perform analysis of remedial alternatives for a mixed-waste subsurface disposal site at Idaho National Environmental Engineering Laboratory, USA. Ralston et al. (1996) developed a generic model that incorporates life cycle cost and technological risk assessment for landfill waste site remediation. Timmerman et al. (1996) proposed the use of MAUT by USDOE for selecting technology judged to pose the lowest level of failure or development risks. Deschaine et al. (1998) used a MCDA simulation model based on AHP to select the most promising remediation projects from a 114 radiological site remediation portfolio at the USDOE Savannah River Site. Accorsi et al. (1999a, 1999b), Bonano et al. (2000), and Apostolakis (2001) developed a methodology that uses
36
AHP, influence diagrams, MAUT, and risk assessment techniques to integrate the results of advanced impact evaluation techniques with stakeholder preferences.
2.2 Sanitation Sector in Palestinian Territories 2.2.1 Introduction In 1999 the Palestinian Environmental Strategy was adopted. Its time span was until 2010. The strategy has paid special attention to the sanitation sector. However, a year later of the strategy adoption, the political situation was deteriorated and the consequences were damaging the Palestinian environmental plans and the environment as well. As a result, the sustainable projects changed to be emergency projects that deal with the moment situation. Although efforts have been undertaken to establish a regional Strategy for wastewater collection, treatment and disposal, these concepts have not been followed up on a more precise level. Such studies have been presented municipality-wise without coordinating efforts on a regional level. In 1997, UNDP has sponsored a Conceptual Strategy for the sewage disposal in the West bank Region. As a result in 1998 the Regional Plan for
West Bank Governorates Water and Wastewater has been elaborated. The preliminary objective of this master plan was to define the existing types of sewerage facilities and their locations; to make recommendations for the phasing of the required works and to identify the institutional set- ups needed to ensure efficient operation and maintenance and financial viability of the system, with particular attention to the option of
37 transforming the Jerusalem Water Undertaking (JWU) into a regional water and sewerage service provider.
The conceptual plan has been prepared as an integral part of necessary measures to remedy and improve these unsatisfactory conditions included: Physical planning for implementation of sewerage systems Institutional plan to comparatively evaluate potentially applicable
institutional types, and to determine the most visible and efficient institutional arrangement. Financial and economical plans to comparatively evaluate potentially applicable utility organizational models, and to determine the most
feasible and economically efficient model. The Palestinian census in 2007 has revealed that only 28% of the West Bank communities are connected to a sanitation system. In addition, only 8% of the collected wastewater is being treated. The wastewater mostly disposed through cesspits or flow in the wadies, and though, there are serious risks of percolation of contaminants to the groundwater which is the main source of fresh water in the West Bank.
The uncontrolled discharge of the untreated raw wastewater to the subsurface poses potential risks to human health and contributed to the degradation of the environment. This ongoing practice has been responsible for contaminating and adversely impacting the scare water resources, particularly springs and shallow water bearing units.
During the past years, the Palestinian Water Policy and Strategy, and other legislative regulations were not effectively enforced reflected by actual
38 facts and figures, few of them are mentioned above. Thus the Palestinian Water Authority (PWA) recognizes that in terms of providing sustainable
Wastewater treatment facilities, it is facing a continuous battle in keeping pace with the impacts of disengagement, unilateral actions of the Israeli government and unfair Israeli Water Law. As the responsibility of regulation, formulation, promotion and monitoring of sanitation services are vested with the PA Government, Town and Village Councils and Local Authorities, all this calls for an urgent development of a unified Palestinian Wastewater Policy. Nowadays, there is an increasing interest in rehabilitating and developing the sanitation sector in the Palestinian territories.
2.2.2 Regulatory Framework Historically, the current water legal framework has been impacted by several administrative and political regimes. Between 1952 and 1967
Jordanian water legislations were enacted within the West Bank while the British system found application in the Gaza Strip, which was under the Egyptian administration. Stemmed within the Israeli Water Law of 1959, an Israeli Military Order No. 2 of 1967 affirmed that all water resources in the occupied Palestinian Territories as state owned by Israel. However, in the Oslo II Accord Israel recognizes Palestinian water rights in the West Bank and these are to be transferred once agreed in the final status negotiations. Currently, the Article 40, the water treaty signed by the Israeli and Palestinian sides governs the wastewater management within the West Bank and Gaza strip. Also, the memorandum of Understanding (MoU,
39
2003), inserted updates and further rules and guidelines pertaining to establishment of wastewater treatment facilities and reuse schemes.
The Palestinian Water Authority (PWA) was established in April 1995 by the Palestinian Authority (PA) through Decree no. 90/1995. The PWA derives its authority from By-law No. 2 of 1996 and Water Law No. 3 of 2002. The Water Law established the National Water Council (NWC) consisting of representatives of the most important stakeholders in the water sector. The Palestinian National Authority (PNA) has formulated both a Water Policy and a Water Strategy to tackle the increased water scarcity and to manage, protect and conserve the limited water resources available. The strategy entailed major high politics as the Palestinian water rights and low politics like promotion of national water regulations, build institutional capacity, improve data, increase capital investment in water and wastewater sectors, enforce pollution control, and promote public participation. In addition, the Environmental Quality Authority (EQA; formerly Ministry of Environmental Affairs, MEnA) developed a Palestinian Environment Strategy (PES), where the overexploitation of water resources and the degradation of water quality were identified as the issues of highest priority. Also, an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) policy was endorsed by the Legislative Council, where new wastewater treatment facilities shall obtain an official permit for establishment through an environmental impact assessment study.
The key regulatory documents regarding wastewater treatment and reuse in the West Bank and Gaza are the Water Law No. (3) of year 2002; the
40
Agreements with Israel, particularly the MOU of December 2003; and the Environmental Law No. (7) of 1999.
2.2.2.1 Water Law No. 3, 2002 Water Law No. (3) of year 2002 which stresses the overall need to secure sustainable development of water resources in a equitable way, makes the following key provisions with regards to the disposal, treatment and reuse of wastewater: Property: All water resources are considered public property (article 3); Regulation: A license must be obtained to set up or operate a facility
for water or wastewater (article 4) in order to ensure that effluent discharges met standards that will not pollute existing resources; Finance: A unified water tariff system should be set (article 20) in a fair and equitable manner in order to promote the best use of water
resources; Institutions: The Water Authority has the juridical personality and full responsibility for managing the water resources and wastewater
in WBG; Water utilities will be established to provide water and
wastewater services (article 25); Regional utilities and water users associations shall set the prices of water for different usage, in accordance with the approved tariff system (article 26); Protection of the Environment : Special guidelines for the
Environmental Impact Assessment for any activity related to water resources should be prepared (article 29); Anyone who causes
41
pollution in any water resource or its supply system must remove the pollution to that source or system at his own expense (article 32).
2.2.2.2 Joint Water Committee There are two agreements with Israel with relevance to waste water treatment and re-use: The Memorandum of Understanding on Guidelines and Technical
Criteria for Sewerage Projects, signed 31st December 2003, Israeli – Palestinian Joint Water Committee; and The Palestinian-Israeli Interim Agreement On The West Bank & The Gaza Strip, Washington, D.C., September 28, 1995; Annex III,
Protocol Concerning Civil Affairs, ARTICLE 40: Water and Sewerage. The MOU is the most recent document that governs treatment and reuse standards and will consequently drive the treatment technology and reuse strategies that will be used in WBG. The MOU sets out agreements for the collection systems, wastewater treatment, sludge treatment, effluent reuse and disposal, sludge reuse and disposal and cooperation between the two sides. The MOU’s very high standards will make implementation costly and very difficult even though a phased implementation approach to meeting requirements has been agreed. The implications and requirements of the MOU of December 2003 signed by the Israeli and Palestinian Joint Water Committee include the following elements:
42
All sewerage projects must be complete systems – i.e. collection systems from source, conveyance to treatment plant, treatment plant,
a plan for reuse or safe disposal, conveyance to point of reuse or discharge, and safe reuse or disposal of sludge; Treatment plants must be modular to allow for future expansion: In the first phase secondary treatment must be achieved; In the second
expansion phase tertiary treatment must be achieved; Agricultural reuse is to be the primary focus for reuse. This must include sufficient seasonal effluent storage; Other forms of reuse must gain mutual agreement from both parties;
Industrial wastewater must be treated separately in a pre-treatment facility; and Alternatives for the location of treatment plants must be presented to both parties and the selection will be agreed in the Joint Water
Committee.
2.2.2.3 Environment Law No. (7) of 1999 The environmental law No. (7) of 1999 provides for the protection of water resources related to treatment and reuse. The implications of the
Environment Law and effluent standards include: The requirement to set standards and norms for collecting, treating, reusing and disposing wastewater and storm water in a sound manner which comply with the preservation of the environment and public
health;
43
The requirement that any solid, liquid or other substance conforms to the conditions and standards that the competent agencies determine.
2.2.2.4 National Water Plan It is stated in the principles of water resources management in this plan that we should utilize all technically and economically viable alternative sources including wastewater re-use, brackish water and rainwater harvesting wherever, and to the extent, practical to supplement overall supply including artificial recharge to the groundwater aquifers by infiltration. It is stated also in this plan that farmers and relevant institutions should plan for maximum use of wastewater re-use in future including provision for necessary storage, health precautions and crop patterns. The use of treated wastewater and lower quality water must form a critical component of future agricultural strategy. The long term target is that only minimal fresh water will be provided for soil flushing and high value crops.
Other low quality water and conservation practices, including brackish water, storm water harvesting, blending of water and conjunctive use of saline and non-saline water, utilized to optimal economic and practical effect in accordance with specific targets such as utilizing of 40 million cubic meter per year in the West Bank and 63 in Gaza of treated effluent.
2.2.3 Waste Water Management Plan report (PWA Wastewater Policies) These section is explain the main point contained in the Waste Water
Management Plan report was prepared to PWA by Technical Directorate
44
Research And Development Department in august 2003 which is the last report in this field.
Management of wastewater, storm water and reuse should be administered through regional utilities for large systems wherever possible, and through other appropriate structures for smaller and remote areas, integrated with other sectors in national plans, and should result in a safe, healthy, and protected environment. All staff must be trained according to regulations, by donor organisation for the first phase and based on Palestinian organisations on long term basis. As a part of all new major developments focus must be given to the development of a Palestinian wastewater industry. Hence representatives for consultants, manufacturers, agents, universities and the relevant authorities must be included in the projects from the earliest preparation stage.
According to the report some policies that have to follow the Palestinian Water Authority:
2.2.3.1 Wastewater Collection Policies For all projects, all elements must be included, as least taken into consideration. The relevant elements of collection systems, like storm water harvesting, industrial connection, rainwater collection and upgrading of poor quality network must be addressed in any wastewater treatment plant development. PWA must make sure these elements are discussed and addressed in any big development project. If this is not done, the ambition levels described in the policy and the stated goals will not be reached.
45
The starting point is to establish clear regulations, specifications and standards for the wastewater handling, and to make sure that collection constructions fully comply. The collection system for wastewater from domestic use within a defined drainage area should be collected and managed separately from storm water, and every wastewater source within this area should be connected to the system. Sewerage system design should be based on gravity wherever appropriate and must include solutions for existing or potential flooding problems. Storm water should be collected and used as a supplementary water source.
Where direct use of storm water is not feasible, effective recharge projects should be planned and implemented. More rainwater must be collected directly into cistern and water tanks. The preliminary goal for year 2010 is to triple the existing collection volume in
Palestine compared to year 2000. Infiltration rates must be increased in areas where they are low today. These areas should within year 2010, recharge 3 % more of the precipitation than today (preliminary goal until more information is collected that makes it possible to establish goals with better basics). Flooding problems connected to storm water runoff must be identified in detail within the year 2001, and all major ones, solved within the year 2010.
Building codes of practice must encourage collection of precipitation and reuse in an optimum way according to the water quality.
46
For every project that involves construction of new sewerage systems or rehabilitation of existing system, storm water must be considered in order to separate systems, include storm water solutions in the plan and construction in accordance with policy and goals. Areas with low infiltration rates must be identified and studies planned which aims to increase the rates.
Within mid 2003 the goals must be quantified for short and long terms and divided into areas. The sewerage system, including pumping stations, storage systems, overflows, etc. should have a minimum negative impact on the environment. As long as the performances of the major treatment plants are uncertain, septic tanks, cess- pits and local other acceptable local treatment can be kept, as a pre-treatment or not connected. The detailed solutions will be decided in dialogue between PWA and the plant owners.
2.2.3.2 Industrial Wastewater Policies For all relevant development projects, industrial connections and treatment must be addressed. PWA must, through a permit process make sure this element is taken care of. Ministry of Industry must be involved according to agreed procedures. All industries should be regulated through discharge permits from PWA and comply with other PNA regulations (municipal by-laws, Ministry of
Environmental Affairs, Ministry of Local Governance, etc). The discharge permits should include assurances that industrial effluents must have an
47 acceptable quality and flow before being discharged into water bodies or domestic wastewater systems, and should not be discharged with contents of heavy metals or micro pollutants above given limits. In approving and issuing a discharge permit, emphasis should be given to minimising the impacts from industrial effluents through internal measures such as recycling, clean industrial processes and pre-treatment by using the best available technology (taking economy into consideration).
2.2.3.3 Wastewater Treatment Policies PWA must make sure its policy and goals are implemented through the development. Through discussions with donor countries and beneficiaries this must be assured. Ministry of Agriculture must be involved in the process from the beginning in order to achieve successful reuse. All treatment and/or reuse systems will be regulated through permits from PWA. The permit should ensure that the system design
Is planned and implemented according to approved regulations, specifications, standards, and guidelines Allow treatment of calculated loads and meet stated effluent quality
for the designed period
Solves identified and potential environmental and health problems Smaller treatment plants must be of types or classes accepted by PWA regulations and operated accordingly. The standard treatment demands for bigger plants are described in documents from Palestinian Standard Institution. Low cost technology is encouraged wherever it is most feasible.
48
All wastewater treatment processes should be chosen and designed to consume as little energy as feasible and potential energy in wastewater and sludge must be utilised whenever appropriate. In addition, independent alternative energy sources should be installed, if appropriate (e.g., solar systems, battery, heating exchange pumps, etc.). Farmers should be involved in energy recovery projects thereby benefiting from wastewater sludge utilisation. PWA emphasises that sludge and treated wastewater are valuable resources that must be utilised in an optimal way. In this regard agriculture is given priority for reuse and 65% of treated wastewater should be utilised in this sector. Organising reuse of treated wastewater involves many stakeholders, and should be co-ordinated on a national level and carried out on the appropriate local level. The Wastewater Reuse Technical coordination committee (between PWA and MoA) will the focal point for regulation of reuse activities. Public participation in wastewater reuse should be ensured and carried out according to international practice for involvement.
For the optimal use of the treated effluent, incentives need to be established and implemented in order to encourage and promote the use of treated wastewater in different sectors, including industry.
2.2.3.4 Awareness and Stakeholders participation PWA must ensure that needed awareness and stakeholder involvement, through the Department of Consumer Affairs. This must be addressed at an
49 early stage of any process. It is very important for a smooth implementation and especially for successfully implementation of reuse schemes.
PWA recognises that accessibility for environmentally safe wastewater services must be assured in order to achieve better social equality. In this respect wastewater treatment and reuse policies must include stakeholders' involvement throughout the policy and strategy formulation by awarding and informing them, in order to create a sense of ownership and understanding. This approach will result in transparency and build-up credibility among the parties and facilitate a smooth implementation of the strategies and action plans.
Vital elements of the policy can only be possible in close cooperation with stakeholders like farmers and other affected people. Especially awareness must be established for the utilisation of sludge and treated wastewater as important resources and to achieve acceptance of the principle of recycling of resources.
2.2.3.5 Tariff Policy Through the Tariff Department, PWA must make sure all development understand the tariff model and are capable of implementing this. This is needed as early as possible in any project. Partly this will be achieved through general information and communication and partly through implementation of bigger projects. PWA has developed a tariff model, based on parts of the general policy. It will be very important to, monitor the experiences regarding affordability, and including of depreciation and O&M costs to adjust the ambition levels.
50
General tariff policies are, Make sure the projects are affordable and feasible
Overall fees for storm water handling, wastewater collection, and treatment, storage and reuse should be calculated in order to achieve full cost recovery of the system(s) taking overall goals into consideration
The elements of these fees should be distributed using the Polluter Pays Principle (PPP) Households cannot be charged more than the defined affordability and the government should cover the gap between full cost recovery
and affordability The farmers must contribute for making treated wastewater available for irrigation To facilitate enforcement of regulations and to sustain development of the sector, PWA will use economic incentives for polluting industries to abate and control pollution.
2.2.3.6 Legal and Administration Policy The established licensing system for wastewater project must be used as soon as possible for all relevant projects. PWA must also invite other relevant authorities to participate in these processes. PWA is considered according to By Law No. 3 (2002) and the Water Law of 17.07.2002, as the responsible Palestinian authority for
51
Licensing and approving all water and wastewater projects and activities including wastewater and storm water collection, treatment,
reuse, and/or disposal Ensuring and overseeing the efficiency and compliance of these activities and projects initially and during operation, according to approved regulations, specifications and standards.
Administering the construction, operation, and maintenance of wastewater and reuse systems will be done by municipalities or regional utilities with various levels of co-ordination and involvement of other PNA organs, such as the Ministry of Environmental Ministry of Industry, Ministry of
Education, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Local Government, and the Palestinian Water Authority.
52 Chapter 3
Current situation of institutional wastewater management agencies in palestine
Several institutions including mainly the National Water Council, Palestinian Water Authority (PWA), local committees and village councils, local and international NGO’s and institutions, work in the wastewater sector in the Palestinian areas, the Figure 3.1 is showing the Water Sector Framework and Figure 3.2 is showing the main stakeholders in water and waste water sector and the relationship between it.
Figure 3.1: Water Sector Framework
53
Figure 3.2: Main stakeholders in water and sanitation sector
3.1 National Water Council National water council is highest body responsible of water and waste water sector; Figure 3.3 is showing national water council framework.
54
Figure 3.3: National Water Council framework Duties and prerogatives of the National Water Council: Sanction the general water policy; Sanction the policy for development and utilization of water resources and the different usage; Ratify plans and programs aimed at organizing the usage of water, the preventing wastage, and directing consumption; Ratify the tariff policy; Confirming the allocation of funds for investment in the water sector;
Approving the periodic reports concerning the activities of the
Authority and its work;
55
3.2 The Palestinian Water Authority Since 1996, the PWA is responsible for regulation of the Palestinian wastewater policy, including collection, treatment, sludge handling and reuse. It is the Palestinian legal body that is responsible of: Licensing and approving all wastewater projects and activities including wastewater and storm water collection, treatment, reuse,
and/or disposal Ensuring and overseeing the efficiency and compliance of these activities and projects initially and during operation, according to approved regulations, specifications and standards. However, and
due to the existing complicated political circumstances in the West Bank and the insufficient wastewater management expertise staff, the PWA faces great challenges in enforcing its regulations. Coordinating with relevant wastewater sector development agencies
like the NGO’s and donors is still poor. The main issues concerning the management of wastewater such as the collection systems, treatment plants, regulations, standards, and regulations are not
available yet.
The Palestinian Water Authority (PWA) is by its by-laws a governmental institution with an independent status with its own budget and follows the President of the Palestinian National Authority and has a commissioner who is appointed by its President. PWA is responsible for the management of the most scare and vital sources for sustaining life, for promoting
56 development, and for maintaining the environmental in Palestine. Water is in focus of the attention in the general public and the medic.
3.3 Other Government Institutions Several other government agencies bear or will bear responsibilities directly related to water resources and water and wastewater services. The Joint Water Committee (JWC) was established under the Oslo accords as a means to share information about water issues affecting both Israel and Palestine. As a member of the Joint Water Committee, the PWA is the primary Palestinian contact with Israeli authorities. The Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) is responsible for planning and policy concerning the use of water for agriculture, including reuse of treated wastewater. As facilities for the treatment and distribution of treated wastewater are implemented and brought into service, the responsibility for the conversion of farmers to more efficient irrigation and more value added cropping will fall heavily on MOA. The Ministry of Environmental Affairs (MEnA) is concerned with protecting the Gaza Strip’s natural environment. This includes setting standards related to the conservation and protection of the environment, such as: Minimum water requirement to preserve the environment Disposal of treated sewage in wadis, streams, rivers, lakes and seas Disposal of treated sewage in environments, which affects the bio-
diversity
57
Regulation of the industrial wastewater which is not treated by the utility
Disposal of brine from the desalination plants The Ministry of Local Government (MOLG) is responsible for the coordination of all Gaza Strip municipalities and other forms of local government. As such they have considerable influence in the absorption of municipal resources into the CWMU and in the continuing provision of water and sewer services to the population. The Ministry of Planning (MOP) is responsible for policy development, coordination, and planning for the overall development of Palestinian areas, including both the water resources and agriculture sectors. Every three years, MOP prepares a Palestinian Development Plan (PDP), comprising sections submitted by Palestinian institutions from various sectors. PWA prepares the section on water and wastewater.
Ministry of Health (MOH) is responsible for the protection of public health and safety. This includes setting the standards that are related to the public health such as:
Drinking water quality.
Disposal of treated wastewater in bathing waters. Disposal of treated wastewater in environment which affects the quality of some products such as fish. Treated wastewater reuse for irrigation which may affect the
agricultural products Disinfection and drinking water storage.
58
3.4 Local Committees, Municipalities, and Village Councils The local bodies are managed and develop public services in the cities and village including the supply of sanitary services. Local committees are formed wherever a village council does not exist and in refugee camp. The councils and committees are generally unqualified from technical, administrative and financial viewpoints, which lead to inefficient management.
3.5 Local NGO’s and International Organizations Many non-governmental organizations (NGOs), scientific and technical groups, professional and other associations working on wastewater management in Palestine such as Palestinian Hydrology Group (PHG), Palestinian Agricultural Relief Committee (PARC), Applied Research Institute Jerusalem (ARIJ), House of Water and Environment (HWE), Water and Environmental Studies Institute at An-Najah National
University (WESI), Centre for Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences (CEOHS) and Water and Soil Environmental Research Unit (WSERU) at Bethlehem University, Institute of Environmental and Water
Studies (IEWS) at Birzeit University, and the United Nations Relief and
Works Agency for the Palestinian Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). International organizations of various statuses such as United Nations Development Program (UNDP), World Bank (WB), and German Agency for Technical Co-operation (GTZ), US Agency for International
Development (USAID), Save the Children Federation (SCF), America
59
Near East Refugee Aid (ANERA), and (CARE) conducted some wastewater infrastructure projects.
The aforementioned organizations and institutions operate under severe constraints: poor capacities, high political instability and uncertainty, and inadequate sources of funding. Moreover, co-ordination among the institutions is poor, which result in vagueness in their roles in the management process of the wastewater services. Consequently, a new institutional management approach with a clear legal framework for optimizing wastewater management in Palestine should be developed.
60 Chapter 4 Situation of sanitation in palestine and future plans
During the occupation period, sanitation sector to be a much neglected issue, there are collection networks in the main cities and refugee camp (served 28-32% of population) remaining population uses cesspits. The situation for wastewater system in Palestine (WW Departments in PWA, 2012):
During the occupation period, wastewater sector used to be a very neglected issue There are collection networks in the main cities and refugee camps (served 28-32% of population) remaining population uses cesspits
Many of these networks are old and poorly designed established before 1967 through Jordanian Administration and stayed without development The majority of the population uses individual or communal cesspits for
temporary storage of wastewater. Ιn refugee camps sewage flows through open drains originally constructed to convey rainwater. Most villages have no sewerage system and wastewater is discharged
into absorption pits. The existing wastewater treatment plants in the West Bank are inadequate to serve the volume of wastewater produced The situation of the sewerage system is extremely critical. Both the
West Bank and Gaza are facing a series of wastewater and sanitation
related problems:
61
large scale discharge of untreated wastewater leaking of collected wastewater from sewer systems and cesspits
water treatment plants that are badly functioning uncontrolled reuse of untreated wastewater by the irrigation sector Total production of wastewater is around 70 MCM Only 42% of 70 MCM (30 MCM) is collected in networks Around half of the collected (15 MCM) is discharged into wadi and treated inside the Green Line: Jenin, Tulkarm, Nablus west, Qalqilya, Ramallah, Hebron and Beit Jala Only 2 MCM is treated in Al Bireh WWTP Around 13 MCM WW is discharged into Wadis (Salfit, Bethlehem, Nablus East) 4.1 Situation of Wastewater in the Urban Area (1996-2012) There are collection networks in the main cities (ranges from 57% in Salfit to 98.7% in Qalqilya) remaining population uses cesspits and septics, the Table 4.4 is show the wastewater status in Main Cities and Table 4.2 shows existing wastewater treatment plants in urban area.
Table 4.1: Wastewater status in WB-Main Cities (WW Departments in PWA, 2012) Main % of ww No. Treatment services cities services Treatment plant Under Jenin 1 66.5 Rehabilitation, then treated inside City GL Tulkarem Primarily treatment (lagoons), then 2 73.7 City treated inside GL Qalqilya No WWTP (Treated inside GL) 3 98.7 City
62 Nablus To start construction (Nablus West 4 97.2 City WWTP Salfit No WWTP (discharged into Wadi 5 57.1 City Matwi) Ramallah Overload WWTP, then treated 6 74.6 City inside GL El Bireh Treated in Al-Bireh TP, not reused 7 85.8 City Jerusalem Under Israeli control 8 95 City Bethelem No WWTP (discharged into Wadi 9 92.7 (WSSA) Al-Nar) Hebron No WWTP (Treated inside GL) 10 82.1 City No WWTP (using Cesspits) – 11 Jericho Zero Under construction
Table 4.2 : Existing WW Treatment Plants -urban area (WW Departments in PWA, 2012) No. Project Name Status 1 Existing Jenin TP Under Rehabilitation (Funded by KFW) 2 Existing Al-Bireh TP Function at 2000 (Funded by KFW) 3 Existing Ramallah City Constructed 1973, overload 4 Existing Tulkarem City Primarily treatment (lagoons)
4.2 Situation of Wastewater in the Refugee Camps (1996-2012) Most of the refugee Camps served with Wastewater Networks The service exceeds more than 95% of the population. Only Jericho Camps (Aqbat Jaber and Al-Sultan) has no Wastewater Networks) Most WW generated from the refugee camps are connected to the Adjacent City wastewater Network or discharged into Wadi (Qalandia, Al Jalazon, Al-Far’a and Al’Aroob)
63
The table below is show the wastewater status in Refugee Camps.
Table 4.3: Wastewater status in WB -Refugee Camps (WW Departments in PWA, 2012) % of ww No. Main cities Treatment services services Jenin Refugee 1 97.5 Connected to Jenin Camp Tulkarem Refugee 2 99.9 Connected to Tulkarm Camp Nor Shams 3 99.5 Connected to Tulkarm Refugee Camp Askar Refugee 4 99.8 Connected to Nablus Camp Balata Refugee 5 99.9 Connected to Nablus Camp Ein Bei El-Ma 6 99.6 Connected to Nablus Refugee Camp 7 Al Jalazon 93.6 Discharged into Wadi
Al’Amari Refugee 8 98.1 Connected to Al-Bireh Camp
Qalandia Refugee 9 97.5 Connected to Ramallah Camp Qadoura Refugee 10 90.0 Connected to Ramallah Camp 11 Al Sultan Zero (using Cesspits) 12 Aqbat Jaber 0 (using Cesspits) Ayda Refugee Connected to 13 99.4 Camp Bethlehem Al’Aza Refugee Connected to 14 97.5 Camp Bethlehem Al Duheisha Connected to 15 94.0 Refugee Camp Bethlehem
64 Al’Arroob refugee 16 98.6 Discharged into Wadi Camp Al Fawwar 17 98.5 Connected to Hebron Refugee Camp 18 Al Far’a 17.0 Discharged into Wadi
4.3 Situation of Wastewater in Rural (1996-2012) In rural and peri-urban communities that represent more than 60 per cent of the total population there is no clear approach for sanitation development, and there is a big controversial on whether using centralized or decentralized system, where centralized system facing another challenge of low population densities in these areas, and decentralized system still need many studies to check its efficiency.
1.43 Million in 446 community without any Wastewater network. Using Cesspits or septic and discharge into open areas (wadis) Only 16 communities( 88.2 thousands) with wastewater network covers more than 70%
Only in 13 communities (60.9 thousands) with wastewater network covers between 40% and 70% Only 6 communities (22.8 thousands )with wastewater network covers less than 40%
Around 400 locations for vacuum tankers for discharging ww Estimated wastewater collected in cesspits around 40 MCM The Table 4.4 show the Existing Small Scale Treatment Plant-Sample in Rural and Table 4.5 is show the No. of Existing On-site (Household level) Treatment plants.
65
Table 4.4: Existing Small Scale Treatment Plant-Sample Village / No. Load (m3/day) Status Town Nuba 2002 (Not functioning) 1 15 (Hebron) Kharas 120 2002 (Not functioning) 2 (Hebron) (40 household) Beit Dukko 2000 (Not functioning) 3 16 (Jerusalem) Deir Samit 15 2000 (Not functioning) 4 (Hebron) (40 household) Bidya ( 2007 5 11 Salfit) Sir 2006 6 14 (Qalqilya) Bani Zeid ( 2005 (Not functioning) 7 50 Ramallah) Zeita 2008 8 14 (Tulkarm) Attil 2007 9 14 (Tulkarm) Izbet 2001 ( Not functioning) 10 Shofeh 15 (Tulkarm)
Table 4.5: Existing On-site (Household level) Treatment plants No. Governorate Total On-Site 1 Hebron 222 2 Bethlehem 97 3 Ramallah and Jerusalem 146 4 Salfit 10 5 Nablus 6
66 6 Jenin and Tubas 151 7 Tulkarm 6 On Going survey (through the EU & Austrian Project) to evaluate these TPs (at least 70 % are not functioning as planned)
The Occupied Palestinian Territories are facing a rapid population growth against a context of limited water-resources and poor wastewater management. Most Palestinian households are internally equipped with proper sanitation facilities (plumbed toilets, sinks, drains, etc.), but lack means for proper collection and discharge. Only around 25 percent of Palestinian households (35 per cent of the total population) are served by central sewerage systems, and a further 17 per cent of the collected municipal wastewater (from 6 per cent of the population) is partially treated. The high percentage of unserved areas and lack of treatment plants cause an over-reliance on traditional on-site systems for wastewater disposal, mainly cesspits and septic tanks.
Traditionally, each household has a cesspit for the collection of excreta, which often percolates into the surrounding soil. This is a disposal system fraught with disadvantages, since it jeopardizes groundwater and the. In addition, when the surrounding soil becomes saturated, cesspits require frequent emptying using expensive private vacuum tanks, where the tanker operators who empty the cesspits often do not follow rules and regulations and discharge the emptied seepage within the surroundings of the communities, especially in agricultural areas and open fields.
67
4.4 Investments and Progress in Sanitation Sector The PWA is working to development the sanitation sector in Palestine by construction and rehabilitation the sewer network and sewer pump station, and by construction the WWTP. Table is showing the currently work in wastewater projects
Table 4.6: On-going WW Projects (WW Departments in PWA, 2012) No. Project Name Status Baqa, Bart’a, Hable To start Implementation 1 (UNDP-Japan) Misslye (collection System+TP) Funded by AFD (Under 2 Design) 3 Artas Collection System Funded by BTC azmut and Rujib Collection Funded by MoF ( licensing 4 systems procedures) Al-Tireh Collection system and Funded by moF 5 TP (Tendering Process ) West Bethlehem Rural Submitted to World Bank 6 Collection system and TP 7 Jenin Industrial Estate Tp Funded by KFW Bethlehem Industrial Estate TP Funded by AFD (need 8 approval JWC) 9 EU food Security (Rural Area) Call for proposal
In the WWTP project we can see the PWA is focusing to construct the WWTP to service the main cities, Figure 4.1 and Table 4.7 show the
WWTP proposed and existing.
68
Figure 4.1:: Existing and future WWTP Projects (WW Departments in PWA, 2012)
Table 4.7 Proposed and Ongoing WW Treatment Plants (urban area) (WW Departments in PWA, 2013)
No. Project Name Status 1 Jenin Regional TP Needs Feasibility Study 2 Tubas TP (Tayasir) Funded by AFD ( feasibility study) Nablus East TP Approved and Feasibility study 3 finished (funded by KFW) 4 Tulkarm regional TP Funded by KFW ( Design phase) Salfit TP Approved from JWC (No Fund (the 5 fund was reallocated to other project by KFW
69 6 Ramallah Regional (Ein Approved and Feasibility study Jaruit) finished (funded by KFW) 7 Jericho TP Under construction ( Submitted to JICA) 8 Wadi Al-Nar (Ubeideiye) Needs Feasibility Study TP 9 Hebron TP Approved by JWC ( was funded by USAID and canceled)
The following is a simple explanation for the most important projects
(WW Departments in PWA, 2012): A. Regional Sewerage Project Jenin: Project: Regional Sewerage Jenin
Total Investment: 40 Million USD
Donor: Germany KFW Start Implementation: not yet Status: TOR prepared needs approval from JWC Obstacles: Feasibility study could not be tendered before approval
B. Regional WW Disposal Tulkarm: Project: Regional Sewerage Tulkarm Total Investment: 45 Million USD Donor: Germany-KFW
Start Implementation: 2008 Period of Implementation: 3 years Status: Feasibility Study ready C. Sewerage Nablus West:
Project: Sewerage Nablus-west (investment/Infrastructure restoration Measures)
70
Donor: Germany -KFW Start Implemntation:1998
Period of Implementation: 37.8 Million USD Status: Final Design ready D. Ramallah Sewerage Treatment Project: Project: Ramallah Sewerage Treatment
Donor: Germany KFW Start Implementation: Not yet Status: Feasibility study Ready Obstacles: TP Location
E. Al-Bireh Wastewater Treatment Plant: Project: Sewerage Al-Bireh Total Investment: 12 Million USD Donor: Germany - KFW
Start Implemntation:1998 Period of Implementation: 2.5 Years Status: Functional TP
F. Salfeet Sewerage:
Project: Sewerage Salfeet (investment/Infrastructure restoration Measures) Total Investment: 11 Million USD Donor: Germany KFW
Start Implementation: 1995 Status: postponed
71
Obstacles: JWU approval G. Hebron WWTP:
Total Investment: 45 Million USD Donor: USAID Start Implementation: Not Yet Status: Postponed
Obstacles: Regulation of USAID H. Jericho WW collection System: Donor: JICA Start Implementation: Not Yet
Period of Implementation: 3 years Status: Feasibility Study is Ready Obstacles: Location of WWTP, JWC approval I. Abu-Dis WW collection System:
Project: Abu-Dis, Al-Izarita & Az-Zaim WW Total Investment: (25) Million USD Donor: Submitted to AFD
Start Implementation: Not Yet
Status: Obstacles: Not Funded yet Despite all what have been done, still huge efforts are needed to properly manage the wastewater in Palestine.
4.5 Deficiencies and Problems Palestinian Water Authority (PWA) is the main responsible for developing the sanitation sector; PWA has an approach to provide urban areas by
72 centralized systems, but this face some challenges which are:
Challenges 1: Water Supply Priorities Providing drinking water systems takes the priority where still more than 220 thousands in around 220 communities without networks.
Challenges 2: Fund Limited funding which is a major obstacle for the development and maintenance of wastewater services. Current wastewater treatment facilities are heavily overloaded, have inadequate maintenance and are of low cost recovery. Raising huge amount of fund to improve WW sector services more
than billion US Dollar are needed. Donor regulations. Limitation of fund and donor regulations and requirements. Unsustainability & stability of External Donation: Donor funds only
to have sustainable & sanitation infrastructures, PWA policy and strategies should carefully considers the affordability of beneficiaries to pay for this service.
Challenges 3: Occupation Some side effects of the Israeli occupation hinder the construction of wastewater projects by Palestinians. The last 10 years, The Palestinians allocated 250Millin USD for WWT projects but the Israelis stopped us by one way or another.
Israeli conditions through JWC and Civil administration that affect, postpones, stop projects for unreasonable aspects.
73
Connection of illegal Israeli Settlement effluent to Palestinian Sewerage Systems.
Specifications and standers of effluents and treated WW imposed by Israelis. Security aspects. Israeli Colonies effects on the Environment:
Israel is controlling the Palestinians for 40 years but they did nothing to protect the environment. Israel moved most of internationally forbidden industries to the West Bank and disposes all toxic effluents into Palestinian land
without treatment. 95% of the industry in the Israeli settlements is considered toxic & dangerous industries. Total effluent sewage discharged to the Wadis by Israeli
Settlements is around 50 MCM. Palestinian Agricultural lands around the settlements were destroyed by untreated effluent.
Challenges 4: Selection of appropriate treatment systems and technologies That leads to WW management driving forces and treatment technologies that achieve specific criteria by utilizing all type of technologies that help to minimize the running cost, example:
produce gas CH4, incineration of sludge and available solid waste.
74
Challenge 5: Upgrading of the West Bank old urban sewage works Odor nuisance:
Overloaded pond systems. Misconception in design. Land availability: No space for extension.
Challenge 6: Final effluent disposal: Reuse in agriculture: where, this was one of the main target of Master Plan started in 1996. Treated WW recycling and reuse is considered a very important
option for generating additional water resources to replace fresh water used for agricultural and industrial purposes. Artificial Recharge through Disposal final effluent in Wads: environmental impact; compliance with political agreements.
Final effluent Reuse (selecting the appropriate crops and encourage farmers to reuse the effluent).
Challenge 7: Enforcement of policy and laws: PWA policy: Based on ―Polluter Pays Principle‖ and envisages a
full cost recovery based on affordability basis, water-tariff models should be developed to assure cost recovery. Palestinian Water Law: Set of regulations and rules entailing pollution fees for environmental pollution handlings.
Challenge 8: Capacity building: Building and maintaining a core staff for managing and regulating
75
the wastewater projects: review of documents and formulation of future plans.
Prepare for all training and capacity building program that required to support sustainable operation of the WWTP, and to achieve value from reuse of the treated wastewater.
Challenge 9: On the technical and Institutional levels, still some obstacles Lack of technical Experience in Design, operate and maintain WWTP Un-defined Wastewater Reuse Strategy
Weakness of the institutions to run WW project due to: Lack of qualified staff Lack of financial resources Lack of practical experience
Lack of Institutional management body and cost recovery (affordability and sustainability).
Challenge 10: Absence of Public & Educational Awareness Strategy Institutional level
Operators level Farmers level
4.6 Driving Forces for WW Management Public health risks: waterborne diseases
Environmental protection: water resources and soil National and regional policies: standards and guidelines
76
Adequate sanitation services: life quality standards Economical benefits: reuse and recreation
Political issues: regional stability
4.7 Opportunities Master Plan for Water& WW is Available Location of WWTP’s is Approximately Defined
Availability of the land for construction WWTP Willingness of the beneficiaries to participate in implementing the project Availability of extended irrigable land for WW reuse
Availability of fund to start implementing the project
4.8 Existing and Future Plans: PWA work on several plans, including (WW Departments in PWA, 2012):
4.8.1 To Stop Flowing Wastewater Toward the Green LINE to be
Treated and Reused in Palestine Value of treated wastewater as resource Stop deducting money by the Israeli to treat and upgrade the
treatment plant inside the green line
Centralized WWTP (>15000 m3/day) (Jenin regional, Nablus East, and Wadi-Alnar) Semi-Centralized WWTP (5000 – 15000 m3/day), (Tulkarm, Nablus West, Hebron, Jericho
De-centralized (local WWTP), (Intensive with electro-mechanical equipments-small space
77
Onsite WWTP ( extensive without electro-mechanical equipments- large space
4.8.2 Criteria for WWT Selection Satisfactory treatment efficiency towards: COD/BOD, suspended solids, N, P, etc. Robust technology: high stability towards power cut, peak loads,
toxicants, etc. Flexible with respect to future amendments (extensions, improvement) Simple in operation maintenance and control and low running cost
Limited number of treatment steps Absence of disposal problems (e.g. sludge) No malodor nuisance Availability of local experience
Designed for (by) product recovery Availability of required land Avoid of side effect problems (e.g. odour)
Availability of required spare parts
4.8.3 Look into the Future Sustainable Planning of WWTP WW treatment facilities Realistic planning and management? Affordable CAPEX and OPEX?
Political issues Sovereignty?
78
Political power? Commitment?
Financial Resources Effective financial management Socio-cultural aspects Public awareness and cleaner production tools
Institutional issues Establishment of wastewater associations? Private sector involvement in sanitation services Pollution control & reuse guidelines?
Water quality & public health protection?
4.8.4 Centralized WWTP (>15000 m3/day or 200,000 PE) The centralization can be implemented if all the following fulfilled Adequate financial investment (at least 100 million USD)
High potential for wastewater reuse (availability of irrigable lands) Availability of land to construct the treatment plant, to expand in the future and to construct larges earth reservoir (at least 500,000 cubic
meter capacity or 21 days) or harvesting water dam (to store the
effluent in winter) High well prepared institution and technically trained staff to operate and maintain the plant adequately Emergency plans to deal with influent in case of technical failure
Stability of financial resources
79
4.8.5 Look into the Future Sustainable Operation Small WWTP Financial Resources
Effective financial management Socio-cultural aspects Public awareness and cleaner production tools Institutional issues
Establishment of wastewater associations? Private sector involvement in sanitation services Pollution control & reuse guidelines? Water quality & public health protection?
4.8.6 Main Cities and Urban Areas Treatment Plants to serve all population within the city and adjacent camps or communities Network to cover 100% of the population in the city either by
gravity or by booster pumping stations. Forbid any construction for individual sanitation ( cesspits, septic tank or on-site treatment)
Secondary or Tertiary Treatment (BOD<20, TSS<30, N<50)
Adequate pre-treatment for industrial wastewater before dumping into WW networks Reuse the treated effluent in suitable crops or for artificial recharge in Winter
To Construct Effluent reservoirs to collect the treated wastewater for at least 30 days for sustainable reuse
80
4.8.7 Priorities for Selecting Wastewater Projects (Main Cities &Urban Areas) Not served cities like Jericho and adjacent camps To follow up to implement the funded Projects ( Tulkarm, Tubas, Nablus West and Ramalla-Beitunia) To allocate fund to construct the approved treatment plants ( Hebron
and Salfit) To prepare necessary feasibility studies and EIA for (Nablus-East , Al’UBeidiye, Abu Dis and Jenin Regional)
4.8.8 Semi Urban (Population 5000-10000) and Rural Areas
(Population 2000-5000) To construct secondary treatment plant to serve at least the whole community or different communities with design period 25 years to construct wastewater networks to serve at least 80% of the
population either by gravity or by pumping stations To construct individual sanitation (group septic tank, individual septic tank or on-site treatment) to serve not connected population to
the collection system
Forbid using cesspits and free discharge in wadi or surroundings Locally reuse the treated effluent in suitable crops according the Palestinian Standards for WW reuse
4.8.9 Priorities for Selecting Wastewater Projects (Semi Urban and
Rural Areas) Public health risks: waterborne diseases
81
Environmental protection: water resources and soil Quantity of generated Wastewater
Availability of the land to construct treatment plant Cropping areas for irrigation and suitable crops Willingness of the local authority to operate and maintain the system
Strong will to develop a sanitation project (financial and non financial contribution) Ability to recover water and wastewater bills Commitment to set up a sanitation fee covering operation and
maintenance costs)
4.8.10 Rural Areas and Small Communities (De-Centralized (Local WWTP)) Construct low cost WWTP to serve at least the whole community or
adjacent communities when topography allows. Construct wastewater network/s to serve most of the population by gravity and avoiding pumping station.
Construct individual sanitation (collective septic tank, individual
septic tank or household treatment (grey water) to scattered houses that not connected to wastewater network/s Provide vacuum tankers for evacuating the cesspits and for safe disposal in nearby treatment plant
Forbid construct new cesspits and replace them with concrete septic tanks
82
Forbid free discharge in wadi or surroundings Encouraging Locally reuse the treated effluent in suitable crops
according the Palestinian Standards for WW reuse
4.8.11 Reuse & Recycling Reuse in agriculture: where, this was one of the main targets of Master Plan started in 1996
Treated WW recycling and reuse is considered a very important option for generating additional water resources to replace fresh water used for agricultural and industrial purposes
4.8.12 PWA with Cooperation and Coordination with all
Stakeholders and Beneficiaries will do Strongly and Effectively For appropriate and realistic management and planning For the promotion of the sustainable practices Enforcement of policy and laws
Training and capacity building program that required to support sustainable operation of the WWTP
83 Chapter 5 Criteria Idntification
This chapter aims to define criteria that affect the sanitation sector, which will be done through the following: A. Identify the criteria used in some countries. B. Stakeholder Consultation such as institutions; organizations;
ministries; universities and municipalities. C. Identify the criteria established by the laws and strategy in Palestine; these criteria are shown in 0 and 0. D. Questionnaire for citizens.
E. EQA Terms of Reference (TOR) on sanitation projects. F. Determine the criteria followed by donors in the projects.
5.1 Criteria Used in Some Countries 5.1.1 Egypt National Rural Sanitation Strategy was released in September 2008 is talking about unserved areas has developed a program called (Diversion Program).
The Diversion Program concept makes pollution abatement the first priority in this strategy. Therefore all the municipal sewage, seepage flows, and solid wastes of each Sanitation Service Cluster (SSC) should be directed to a central Integrated Treatment Facility (ITF), thus eliminating (―diverting‖) unsanitary habits of discharging liquid and solid wastes to canals and drains in the service area. SSC treatment and conveyance facilities are planned on the basis of an SSC’s flow composition.
84
The Diversion Program would be implemented in two stages. The first stage would involve three types of investments: a) Construction of a ―first-stage‖ fecal sludge/seepage treatment facility (plus a solid waste management "SWM" facility) in each SSC b) Reorganization (and where necessary, purchase or contracting) of SSC seepage evacuation truck services, ensuring conveyance of all septic wastes to the treatment facility c) Construction of pumping stations and force mains to convey wastewater from existing gravity sewered areas (and selected on-site systems) to the SSC.
Ministry of Housing, Utilities, and Urban Development (MHUUD) would undertake, through Holding Company for Water and Wastewater (HCWW) and its affiliated companies and National Organization for Potable Water and Sanitary Drainage (NOPWASD), all responsibilities of liquid wastes; while Ministry of Local Development (MLD) would undertake all responsibilities of solid wastes, through governorates and rural local units. The second stage of the Diversion Program involves the completion of full wastewater treatment trains in SSCs and planning and implementation of appropriate sewerage interventions in unsewered villages or clusters of villages. Criteria for village and community prioritization might include: Subsurface water level Population size and density
Water consumption levels Ability and willingness to participate.
85
This prioritization scheme recognizes that high water table poses a serious public health and building risk in many villages. But the treatment facilities have the absolute priority and must be set in place first, and when funds become available, some sewerage projects can be introduced in parallel with ITF construction.
5.1.2 Iraq Through my work in (Samawa Al-Soub Al-Saghir Sewerage and Stormwater Systems Design in Iraq) there are lists of possible environmental impacts will be analyzed selected from General directorate of Sewage in Ministry of Municipalities &Public Works (MMPW):
The topography of the study area and flat plains. The selected site for the planned STP and its relation with the flood plan. The geological formations of the project area.
The surface runoff and storm water runoff originating from urban and rural areas. Land use classifications within the study area and long-term planning
policies envisaged. The present main land uses within the study area
are residential, agricultural and commercial with no large industrial enterprises. Rain-fed and irrigated agricultural practices in the area with prevailing crop patterns (vegetables, fruit trees and field crops).
The current main roads in the study area within the urban and rural areas.
86
Soil investigations will be made. The natural biotic life of the study area shows no sensitive habitats with insignificant biodiversity
relevance. A detailed EIA study shall investigate the soil type, flora and fauna dominating in the study area. Site Identification: The sites shall be studied carefully based on the following site selection criteria:
Distance from the Urban Area Limits and the surrounding residential areas. Distance between effluent discharge point and reuse option. Prevailing wind directions.
Topography of the project area. Effluent discharge. Sites accessibility.
5.1.3 Libya The criteria presented in the following sections are provided as the standard basis for all projects prepared for the Libya Housing and Infrastructure Board (HIB). These criteria are mention in Guidance Document, Revision
No. 01 in 21 August 2008, Libya Housing and Infrastructure Board (HIB).
These criteria are: Population and growth projections. Sewage flow generation. Sewage loadings.
Reusing wastewater. Ground water.
87
Solve an immediate environmental problem. Solve the problem of the dumping of waste water into the sea
(coastal areas).
5.1.4 South Africa There are a lot of factors shared between Palestine and South Africa, the most important of the scarcity of water and lack of sanitation systems only in major cities. In 1994 approved to (NATIONAL SANITATION POLICY). The most important reportedly in the National Sanitation Policy in to identifying the priorities of sanitation sector is:
The proposed system affordable to the user, the service supplier and the government. Number of people will be served compared to the cost of the project The risks to the environment
Acceptable to people (bearing in mind the cost to them) Water supply, Is it adequate? Can it support the proposed sanitation system?
Also the National Sanitation Policy stipulates the following:
The design of sanitation improvement projects will ensure that the environmental consequences are adequately considered during the planning process. The risk of pollution through different sanitation approaches will be assessed in order to use the option which will
minimise impacts on the environment in the most cost effective way. The Integrated Environmental Management (IEM) Guidelines have
88
been prepared on what level of impact assessment to use for different types of projects.
Where it is envisaged that a significant environmental change may result, public awareness and participation is essential. Information must be presented in an even handed manner in order to convey the potential costs and trade-offs. For example, comparison of the costs
of avoiding pollution with those of treating the pollution after it has happened should be accompanied by an explanation of the receiving water quality objectives. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) procedures should be
followed during the design and sitting of waste water treatment works and waste disposal sites. As the degree of complexity may vary according to the anticipated risk, appropriate risk assessment procedures need to be developed.
5.2 Stakeholder Consultation Several consultative interviews were conducted with stakeholders in the sanitation sector such as institutions; organizations; ministries; universities and municipalities to identify the issues and concerns to be taken into consideration during the criteria-setting. The consulted parties, and feedback, comments, and concerns are listed below.
5.2.1 Consultation with Palestinian Ministries Several consultative interviews were conducted with the Palestinian
Ministries and Authorities. These included Ministry of Agriculture (MoA), Palestinian Water Authority (PWA), Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities
89
(MoTA), Environmental Quality Authority (EQA) ), Ministry of Local Governments (MoLG), and Ministry of Labor (MoL).
5.2.1.1 Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) On November 22, 2012, Eng. Thaer Al- Rabi from MoA was interviewed and he indicated the following: • The Ministry supports the establishment of a sewage networks and
treatment plants in the west bank and they have no objection about any projects unless inconsistent with the requirements of the Ministry. • MoA supports of the re-use of treated wastewater to irrigate crops
only if the farmers will follow the instructions of the ministry, also they have some concerns about this matter because of the lack of staff to control this process. • The Agricultural Sector Strategy within the Palestinian National
Strategy (PNP) 2011-2013 emphasizes finding alternative sources for water (treated wastewater). However, there are regulatory instructions for using treated wastewater for agricultural purposes.
• The Palestinian Standard, PS 742, of Palestinian Standards Institute
(PSI) regulates and permits use of treated wastewater on fodder and tree crops only. • The ministry opposes cutting down fully protected trees, while for the rest of the trees if there is no alternative site for the station they
will have no objection of removing and re-planting them to another land, but only under the competent authorities supervision.
90
• Application must be submitted to the Ministry of Agriculture for the use of agricultural lands for other purposes to be reviewed by a
specialized committee at MoA. • He mentioned that the sewage projects are expected to contribute to increase the agricultural production. • He emphasized that the awareness level must be raised among the
citizens through the distribution of booklets and conducting seminars about precautions and concerns of dealing with treated waste water. • For crops irrigated with treated wastewater there is no problem in changing patterns of agriculture in the region but only according to
the nature of the land and within the instruction of the ministry taking into consideration that the farmer always seeks to increase his agricultural production with higher benefit. • There are mandatory instructions from the Ministry of Agriculture
about re-using the treated wastewater for all beneficiaries. • Regarding using treated sludge as compost in agriculture, Palestinians have no such experience. Sludge should preferably be
transferred to sanitary landfills. Main problem of sludge is the
accumulated heavy metals and chemicals rather than the organic matter. He mentioned that the select criteria should be sensitive to the following: capability to re-use of treated wastewater, nature of the agricultural lands and patterns of agriculture in the region, agricultural production.
91
5.2.1.2 Palestinian Water Authority (PWA) On November 26, 2012, Eng. Adel Yaseen was interviewed from PWA and he indicated the following: • He expressed his concerns about the need for permits from the Israeli side and difficulties to obtain them and also about farmers to accept the possibility of reusing of treated wastewater. Also how to dispose
the treated wastewater at the time of emergency and in case of problems in the operation. • He emphasized the point that the PWA rejects to link settlements with any treatment plant.
• Treated water will help to reduce the demand of drinking water used in agriculture, and will provide additional water to increase agricultural production. • PWA does not mind the use of treated wastewater in groundwater
recharge in the event of the treated wastewater reached to the level of quality permitted for use in the recharge of groundwater. • Mechanism for addressing contingencies and emergencies must be
clarified, especially in regards to potential contamination to
groundwater resources. • Odors and proximity to residential areas are concerns, especially in an area that is relatively very warm in summer. Wind direction with regard to the WWTP location from residential areas must also be
considered.
92
He mentioned that the select criteria should be sensitive to the following: Water consumption, hydrogeological profile as well as water slopes and vulnerability.
5.2.1.3 Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities (MoTA) On November 14, 2012, Mr. Awni Shawamre was interviewed and indicated the following:
• Must protect archaeological and historical sites • It is the responsibility of the MoTA to scan the area and conduct a field survey and facilitate in the assessment activities.
5.2.1.4 Environmental Quality Authority (EQA) On October 30, 2012, Eng. Amjad Al Kharraz from EQA was interviewed and he indicated the following; • EQA supports such projects if they were built on scientific and environmental basis.
• EQA started to support projects of sewage networks and treatment plants in general in the West Bank because it is environmental friendly.
• EQA has no objection of re-using treated water to irrigate crops, but
after following the Palestinian standard of water treatment in irrigation some crops but not all of them can be irrigated by treated wastewater, and also forest trees of various types within the instructions of the Ministry of Agriculture.
• Regarding to solid waste that result from the process water treatment solids (sludge) he has pointed out that at present there is only one
93
solution to the EQA which is to send the sludge to certified landfill after treatment because there is no of a Palestinian standard for re-
using it. • Awareness programs should be conducted for the farmers with emphasis on limited use of treated water for irrigation certain and the types of crops that to be irrigated by the treated wastewater
according Ministry of Agriculture. • MoA opposes changing agricultural patterns in the Palestinian areas randomly without a sustainable strategy in this regard. • Alternatives should be studied in detail whether the site or the
technology used in the station and there must be an integrated plan for the reuse of treated water. • Several actions must be considered during the excavation and construction process to preserve the environment during the
establishment of the sewer network in coordination with the targeted municipalities. He mentioned that the selected criteria should be sensitive to the environmental issues.
5.2.1.5 Ministry of Local Governments (MoLG) Based on previous conversations with Mr. Suleiman Abu Mfarreh, he emphasizes the following points: • Wastewater treatment and reuse is becoming a national priority.
• MoLG maintained that the project must be compatible with the existing and future land uses. In addition, it should take into account
94
the political land classifications: Areas A, B, and C (Area A: Under full Palestinian civil and military control. Area B: Under Palestinian
civil control and Israeli military control. Area C: Under full Israeli civil and military control).
5.2.1.6 Ministry of Labor (MoL) Based on previous conversations with Mr. Iyham Nsoor, he emphasizes the following points: • The sanitation projects would result in job creation at different levels through construction and operation. • The projects should comply with the Palestinian Labor Law No. 7
adopted in 2000. The Law provides regulations for workers' health and safety measures, safe and healthy work conditions, life insurance, accident insurance, working hours, and wage rates. • Safety measures should be provided.
5.2.2 Consultation with Universities Consultative interviews were conducted to Water and Environmental Studies Institute (WESI) at An-Najah National University (ANU). The
Water and Environmental Studies Institute (WESI) at An-Najah National
University (ANU) was established in June 2001, as a result of upgrading Water and Environmental Studies Center founded in 1994. The main objective of WESI is to serve the Palestinian community's needs in terms of studying, monitoring, describing, controlling, and following up all issues and aspects related to the present and future state of water and environment in Palestine.
95
Through multiple meetings with Dr. Prof. Marwan Haddad as my thesis supervisor, and Associate Professor and Director, Water & Environmental
Studies Institute (WESI), he indicated to we should look at the following criteria: Ground water, Amount of water consumption, Availability of agricultural land, Collection rate for electricity and water bills, Pricing of water, Reuse, Geographical location, Agricultural pattern, Citizens to accept the use of treated water in agriculture, Water availability, The existence and condition of water networks and coverage ratio, Political Constrains, Environmental sensitivity, Social problems, Service Provider (Municipality, Village Council, the Council of shared services, ....) and preparations for such a project, Religious, tourist, and archaeological areas, Water Resources, an Industrial activities and olive presses.
5.2.3 Consultation with NGOs Consultative interviews were conducted with the House of Water and
Environment (HWE). The House of Water and Environment (HWE) is a Palestinian not-for-profit NGO that was established in the year 2004. HWE aims to promote practical research into the current and future state of water resources and the environment in Palestine and across the region.
On January 26, 2013, Eng. Abdelhamid Alshami (Research Associate - Water and Environmental engineer) was interviewed from HWE and he indicated the following: According to HWE experience in wastewater sector, to identify the area we should look at the following (start from the most important factor):
96
1- In general, the areas that has open wastewater streams must have the most priority because they have highly significant negative impact
on environment in addition to health and social impacts if these streams flow through or near the built-up area (like salfeet wastewater and Wadi Al zomar). 2- Vulnerability or Sensitivity of ground water.
3- Existing of agricultural lands that suffer from water shortage. 4- Existing of notable health problems due to the cesspits (if there are reports assure that). 5- Population number.
For selecting the location of the WWTP, we should look at the following criteria (start from the most important factor): 1- Distance to built-up area and future extension, which reflect on residents health and their satisfaction.
2- Vulnerability or Sensitivity of ground water. 3- Existing of suitable reuse site. 4- Political Constrains, A, B, C.
5- Suitability of land (flat land or suitable slope).
6- Flood Risk. 7- Land ownership.
5.2.4 Consultation with Private sector Consultative interviews were conducted to private sector (Companies that have worked in the field of consulting, studies, designs and supervision in
97 the sanitation sector) like Universal Group for Engineering & Consulting (UG) and Center for Engineering and Planning (CEP).
5.2.4.1 Universal Group for Engineering & Consulting (UG) Universal Group for Engineering and Consulting (UG) was established in 1993 as a unique Palestinian firm with the intention to face the challenges for the reconstruction and development of the Palestinian territories after more than 28 years of occupation and the resulting deterioration of the infrastructure, through offering its state-of-the art engineering and technical services. UG is currently developing a 21st century consulting business on the basis of a decade of engineering excellence.
UG has committed itself to high quality engineering and consulting services with the contribution of its experienced professionals and highly qualified and specialized experts. Since 1993, UG has grown into a recognized leader in the consulting business in the Palestinian territories.
During this period, Universal Group for Engineering and Consulting has become a leading multi disciplined firm known and respected for its work and services in the planning, design, supervision, and management in the various fields of architecture, engineering, and infrastructure.
Universal Group for Engineering and Consulting is registered as a first grade consulting firm with the Engineers Association in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The Universal Group for Engineering and Consulting co- operates with a number of leading regional and international consulting firms.
98
On February 28, 2013, Dr. Hafez Shaheen (Associate Professor in An- Najah National University and Water and Environmental Expert
(Backstopping) in UG) was interviewed and he indicated that the following factors must be taken into account: demography, wastewater production, environmental factor, Socio-economic factor, geographical factor (topography, catchment), investment factor.
5.2.4.2 Center for Engineering and Planning (CEP) Since its establishment in 1984, CEP has been involved in a large number of projects both in Palestine’s Inland Region (West Bank) and Coastal Region (Gaza Strip) and in other countries such as Iraq, United Arab
Emirates (UAE) and Libya, in the areas of town and regional planning, socio-economic studies, housing, architecture and building engineering, road and traffic engineering, water supply and distribution, sewage collection, treatment and reuse, stormwater collection and drainage systems, irrigation systems, industrial development projects and the development of teaching and laboratory programs for academic and technical institutions.
The professional services offered by CEP in these areas include preliminary investigations and comprehensive research, field studies and reports, performance evaluation studies, engineering and economic feasibility studies, master planning, preliminary and detailed engineering designs for buildings and infrastructure projects, the preparation of tender documentation and the provision of construction management/quality assurance services during project construction and operation.
99
In the area of infrastructure development, CEP has been actively involved in the preparation of assessment and feasibility studies, master plans for roads, water supply and distribution, sewage collection, treatment and reuse, storm water drainage and environmental impact assessments. In the course of these activities CEP’s staff has become very familiar with the operational modalities of Palestinian municipalities and village councils and has accumulated a wealth of information and data relating to the physical, institutional, regulatory and legal aspects of infrastructure planning and development. On February 20, 2013, Eng. Shireen Shelleh (Manager, Design and
Studies) and Eng. Bassam Abu-Zahra (Environmental, Water, and Wastewater Engineer) were interviewed and he indicated that the following criteria must be taken into account: population forecast, wastewater generation, vulnerability of ground water, reuse and agricultural lands, and political constrains (A, B, C).
5.2.5 Consultation with Municipalities Consultative interviews were conducted to municipalities (Specifically large municipalities where there are sewer systems and has extensive experience in the sanitation sector) like Nablus and Ramallah municipality.
5.2.5.1 Nablus Municipality Nablus Municipality is a public institution with specific by-laws and systems enacted in order to render the best quality of municipal services to its local citizens. Nablus (177,000 inhabitants including 4 refugee camps) is the biggest urban centre of the northern West Bank. Nablus Municipality is
100 currently implementing a western WWTP where serve around 150,000 people in 2020, and municipality is finish of the preparation of a feasibility study for the establishment of eastern WWTP. On January 02, 2013, Eng. Emad El Masri (Director of water and sanitation department in the municipality) was interviewed and he indicated that the requirements of implementing sanitation projects must be taken into account the following: Land for the WWTP, Fund for the capital cost, Agricultural land for reuse, Operation body, Approvals and permits, Population density, Wastewater production.
5.2.5.2 Ramallah Municipality Ramallah Municipality is a public institution with specific by-laws and systems enacted in order to render the best quality of municipal services to its local citizens. Ramallah (36,000 inhabitants) It currently serves as the de facto administrative capital of the Palestinian National Authority. The existing sewerage situation in Ramallah is: Only around 65% of the urban area is connected to the sewerage system.
Many cesspits cause flooding with related odour and hygiene
problems in developed but unconnected areas (especially Al Tireh). Sewerage system should be a separate system, but some illegal connections of roof gutters increase flows during rainfalls. Industrial wastewater is not pre-treated and thus affects the
functionality of the WWTP (especially textile industries using colorants) and sludge & treated wastewater re-use.
101
Overload of the existing WWTP, both in quantities and pollution loads.
Effluents do not meet the Palestinian discharge standards. Very limited extension possibilities for the existing WWTP. WWTP very close to the city (in close vicinity to the industrial area). Network likely to be undersized: DN 100 house connections at an
estimated rate of 80%, and maximum diameter in the network being DN 300 (12‖). Ramallah Municipality is currently seeking to establish a treatment plant in Ein Jariot area funded by KFW.
On January 29, 2013, Eng. Khaled Ghazal (Director of sanitation department in the municipality) was interviewed and he indicated that the requirements of implementing sanitation projects must be taken into account the following:
Demography (Population, No of Buildings, Average income). Environmental risk (water borne disease, no of polluted springs, no of polluted wells, No of Cesspits).
Land availability (Land for TP, Land for Future Expansion, Location
of TP, and Price of the land). Technical implementation (Topography (Connection by Gravity), Needs for pumping, coverage of wastewater in the first phase). Risk of industrial Waste (No. of Olive press, No. of Stone cutting
(Quarries)).
102
Institutional Management (No. of employees, No. of technical staff, financial stability, collection rate, cost of evacuation, cost of water,
coverage of water networks) Reuse (Available lands for reuse, Type of crops, location for lands downstream, availability of fresh water for irrigation, quantity of produced ww)
5.3 Citizens Questionnaire A questionnaire was developed for citizens in their capacity as the affected side of the sanitation. By conducting an interview with citizens, one can deduce a number of criteria that must be taken into account.
The questionnaire was well-developed to cover all aspects in relation to the water sector and wastewater sector. The questionnaire and sample size were audited by Dr. Numan Mizyed (Associate Professor, An-Najah National University (ANU)).
The questionnaire consisted of a number of topics; these are: water situation, current status of sanitation and citizens' satisfaction, impact of wastewater on citizens, economic and social aspects, institutional issues, and decision-making. See citizen’s questionnaire in Annex A.
5.3.1 Sample Size Respondents for the questionnaire were selected randomly. The sample size included different certain categories, e.g. gender, income level, educational level, etc.
The alpha level used in determining sample size in most educational research studies was either 0.05 or 0.01 (Ary, Jacobs, & Razavieh, 1996).
103
The alpha level was taken as 0.05 for sample size above 120 and as 0.01 for smaller populations less than 120 (Bartlett, Kotrlik, & Higgins, 2001).
T-value for alpha level of 0.05 was 1.96, so confidence level was 90%. The sample was chosen to give a 90% confidence level with a confidence interval of 5%. The required sample size was calculated according to the Kachigan formula:
Where: SS: Sample Size. Z: value (1.69 for 9AYo confidence level) proportion of area under the normal curve above the indicated values of Z. P: Percentage of picking a choice expressed as decimal (0.5) E: Confidence interval, expressed as decimal or maximum effort for a given confidence level (0.05)
By substituting in the above equation:
The above equation is for an infinite population. For a finite population, a correction factor was applied according to the following.
Where:
Pop. is the population. Here, the number of families was used as a population, since each questionnaire represented one family.
104
The number of families in the selected communities (see CHAPTER 7) is shown in Table 5.1.
Table 5.1: Number of families in the selected communities No. of No. of No. Community No. Community families* families* Ar Ram & Silat al 1 1,970 33 Dahiyat al 4,370 Harithiya Bareed 2 Al Yamun 3,546 34 Biddu 1,446 3 Kafr Dan 1,194 35 Hizma 1,261 Deir Abu 4 1,151 36 'Anata 2,971 Da'if 5 Birqin 1,310 37 Al 'Eizariya 4,195 6 Ya'bad 2,881 38 Abu Dis 2,476 As Sawahira 7 Qabatiya 4,126 39 1,382 ash Sharqiya 8 Arraba 2,121 40 Al 'Ubeidiya 2,075 9 Kafr Ra'i 1,610 41 Husan 1,227 10 Meithalun 1,513 42 Nahhalin 1,510 11 Jaba' 1,764 43 Za'tara 1,297 El Far'a 12 1,258 44 Jannatah 1,094 Camp 13 Tammun 2,434 45 Tuqu' 1,701 14 Qaffin 1,854 46 Beit Fajjar 2,201 15 'Attil 1,883 47 Surif 2,821 Deir al 16 1,753 48 Beit Ummar 2,777 Ghusun 17 Bal'a 1,359 49 Kharas 1,220 'Asira ash 18 1,750 50 Beit Ula 2,116 Shamaliya 19 'Awarta 1,161 51 Sa'ir 3,253 20 Huwwara 1,145 52 Halhul 4,863 21 Beita 1,917 53 Ash Shuyukh 1,821 22 Jamma'in 1,260 54 Tarqumiya 2,759 23 Aqraba 1,696 55 Beit Kahil 1,239 24 Qabalan 1,487 56 Idhna 3,814 25 'Azzun 1,561 57 Taffuh 2,253 26 Biddya 1,754 58 Deir Samit 1,356 27 Sinjil 1,160 59 Bani Na'im 3,931
105 28 Shuqba 1,000 60 Beit 'Awwa 1,565 29 Qibya 993 61 Dura 6,126 Al Jalazun 30 1,624 62 Yatta 8,797 Camp Kharbatha Adh 31 1,006 63 5,521 al Misbah Dhahiriya 32 Beit Liqya 1,577 64 As Samu' 3,594
* No. of families = (Projected Population 2013 / Average Size of Household in 2007) according to the PCBS
The total numbers of family are 143,851 By substituting in the above equation
The samples were taken for each community as a proportion and fit for the number of families as shown in Table 5.2.
Table 5.2: Number of samples for each community No. of No. of No. Community No. Community samples samples Ar Ram & Silat al 1 4 33 Dahiyat al 8 Harithiya Bareed 2 Al Yamun 7 34 Biddu 3 3 Kafr Dan 2 35 Hizma 3 4 Deir Abu Da'if 2 36 'Anata 6 5 Birqin 3 37 Al 'Eizariya 8 6 Ya'bad 5 38 Abu Dis 5 As Sawahira 7 Qabatiya 8 39 3 ash Sharqiya 8 Arraba 4 40 Al 'Ubeidiya 4 9 Kafr Ra'i 3 41 Husan 2 10 Meithalun 3 42 Nahhalin 3 11 Jaba' 3 43 Za'tara 3 12 El Far'a Camp 2 44 Jannatah 2 13 Tammun 5 45 Tuqu' 3 14 Qaffin 3 46 Beit Fajjar 4
106 15 'Attil 4 47 Surif 5 16 Deir al Ghusun 3 48 Beit Ummar 5 17 Bal'a 3 49 Kharas 2 'Asira ash 18 3 50 Beit Ula 4 Shamaliya 19 'Awarta 2 51 Sa'ir 6 20 Huwwara 2 52 Halhul 9 21 Beita 4 53 Ash Shuyukh 3 22 Jamma'in 2 54 Tarqumiya 5 23 Aqraba 3 55 Beit Kahil 2 24 Qabalan 3 56 Idhna 7 25 'Azzun 3 57 Taffuh 4 26 Biddya 3 58 Deir Samit 3 27 Sinjil 2 59 Bani Na'im 7 28 Shuqba 2 60 Beit 'Awwa 3 29 Qibya 2 61 Dura 11 Al Jalazun 30 3 62 Yatta 16 Camp Kharbatha al 31 2 63 Adh Dhahiriya 10 Misbah 32 Beit Liqya 3 64 As Samu' 7
5.3.2 Analysis of the Questionnaire This section presents the results of the questionnaire and the main findings of its analysis. The results were analyzed as per the different parts of the questionnaire as follows: 1. Water Situation
2. Current status of sanitation and citizens' satisfaction
3. Impact of wastewater on citizens 4. Economic and social aspects 5. Citizens' awareness, and awareness campaigns 6. Institutional issues
7. Decision-making
107
5.3.2.1 First Topic: Water Situation The amount of water consumption in the summer is 80 liters for each person per day and 73 per day in the winter. The questionnaire showed about 65% of people think the amount of water available for all uses is not sufficient while only 45% think it is sufficient. According to the views of respondents, there is a large deficit in the amount of water needed for agriculture more than the amount of water needed for Industrial and Commercial sectors, while there is no significant shortfall in domestic water. The questionnaire also showed that there is a small number of people satisfied with the water services provided to them with a rate not exceeding 15%.
5.3.2.2 Second Topic: Current status of sanitation and citizens' satisfaction All respondents explained that they use cesspits for the disposal of wastewater rather than using sewage systems, and they are not provided with any services related to sanitation issues. The Figure 5.1 shows the kind of censorship of wastewater disposal based on the opinion of the interviewees.
108
%2
%4 %5 Strongly Agree %8 Agree No Opinion Opposed Strongly Opposed
%81
Figure 5.1: Censorship of wastewater disposal
5.3.2.3 Third Topic: Impact of wastewater on citizens The Figure 5.2 shows the answers of respondents to the question "Are you already affected by the wastewater directly?". Less than 5% of respondents said that they suffered from wastewater coming from Israeli settlements.
%8
Strongly Agree %17 Agree
%48 No Opinion Opposed %6 Strongly Opposed
%21
Figure 5.2: The impact of wastewater on citizens directly Also, 84% of the respondents indicated that the processes of getting rid of waste water after emptying cesspits or sewage systems are not proper. A
109 rate of 37% of the respondents said that the vacuum car for wastewater is get rid near pastures while 68% reported that get rid of wastewater near the trees and plants. The following Figure 5.3 illustrates the problems faced by citizens because of wastewater:
There are no problems 22
Wastewater flooding and run at in the streets 54
Rats and mice 12
Harmful insects 32
Unpleasant odors 63
Diseases 9
Contamination of drinking water 5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Figure 5.3: Illustrates the problems faced by citizens because of wastewater
5.3.2.4 Fourth Topic: Economic and social aspects As far as economic and social aspects are concerned, 97% of the respondents explained that there are no debts they accumulated as a result of providing them with water and wastewater disposal services. 52% indicated that they were satisfied with the price of water, compared to 46% in addition to 2% who did not answer the question. About 78% believed that sanitation projects would ease the financial burden resulting from the disposal of wastewater. Moreover, 68% of the respondents believed that the wastewater and wastewater disposal cause social problems among citizens.
110
5.3.2.5 Fifth Topic: citizens' awareness, and awareness campaigns Almost 4% of the respondents said that they attended seminars or lectures on wastewater while the rate of respondents who attended documentary films or TV ads on wastewater problems and methods of treatment was about 73%, and the rate of respondents to whom leaflets or posters about wastewater and wastewater problems were distributed was about 22%.
5.3.2.6 Sixth Topic: Institutional issues A survey showed lack of knowledge on the part of citizens of whether or not there is an overlap in functions and positions in government institutions as almost 78% did not answer the question while the rate rose to reach 86% of our questions that were answered regarding whether or not there is an overlap in the tasks and functions between government institutions and civil society organizations (NGO's). Figure 5.4 shows the opinion of citizens in attention to the wastewater sector by government institutions and civil society organizations (NGO's).
111
55 Strongly Opposed 45
14 Opposed 16 Attention to the wastewater sector by civil society 16 No Opinion organizations (NGO's) 20 Attention to the wastewater sector by government 12 Agree institutions 15
3 Strongly Agree 4
0 20 40 60
Figure 5.4: Attention to the wastewater sector by government institutions and civil society organizations (NGO's)
5.3.2.7 Seventh Topic: Decision-making The survey indicated that citizens prefer to use sewage networks to discharge wastewater and they are willing to contribute to the creation of sewage systems at a reasonable cost , and as demonstrated by the questionnaire, 8% of citizens support the use of treated wastewater in agriculture compared to 37% and 48% who agree but with some preventive measures.
Figure 5.5 and Figure 5.6 illustrate the opinion of respondents who prefer to carry out the management of the sanitation sector and provide wastewater disposal services.
112
PWA
%15 %21 MoLG %12 MoH %9 %30 EQA %13
A joint committee of the ministries No Opinion
Figure 5.5 : Management of the sanitation sector
%4 Village councils and %2 %1 %4 municipalities %1 Joint services councils
Private sector %15 PWA
%51 MoLG
EQA
%22 Local committee
No Opinion
Figure 5.6 : Provides wastewater disposal services
5.4 EQA Terms of Reference (TOR) Terms of reference (TOR) prepared by EQA were taken into account in order to be considered during the work of environmental impact assessment. This EIA is subject to the review and approval by several local agencies, such as the EQA, PWA, and MoLG in order to ensure
113 environmental compliance prior to project commencement and during project implementation.
The EQA has determined that a detailed EIA study is required for all wastewater collection and treatment systems. The EQA provides guidance on the content and preparation of the EIA (We take Al-Yamun project for example) as specified in the Terms of Reference (TOR) presented in Annex B
5.5 Selected Criteria Used in the Sanitation Projects (donors criteria) The aim of this section is to review the selected criteria used in the sanitation projects. Criteria used in the projects are normally within the orientations of the donors and the approval of relevant government ministries. The methods for determining the priorities in sanitation sector in the ministries and relevant institutions are according to the donors’ police. There is no clear vision of how to identify priorities in sanitation sector in the government ministries. The following section shows the criteria used in the various projects funded by United States Agency for International Development (USAID),
European Union (EU), German Bank for Reconstruction (KFW), Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) Republic of Finland and Local finance investment projects.
5.5.1 Wastewater Projects for USAID Funding The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) West
Bank and Gaza is considering wastewater sector investments in the West Bank. USAID wishes to understand the feasibility of funding wastewater
114 sector projects by identifying potential projects and evaluating their associated scopes, sustainability, permitting requirements, beneficiaries, costs, implementation schedules, and other aspects. Inc. (MWH) was selected by USAID to Assessment of Potential West Bank Water Projects for USAID Funding, dated July 15, 2010 (Assessment). USAID has selected Black & Veatch Company to confirming the findings of the assessment and obtaining additional data in order to establish a recommendation for the immediate engagement of design efforts on two of the ten wastewater systems through the preparation of site selection report, dated February 15, 2011.
5.5.1.1 Assessment of Potential West Bank Water Projects for USAID Funding The methodology developed to proceed with this investigation consisted of the following steps:
1. Initial identification of potential projects 2. Establishment of project selection criteria 3. Development of a shortlist of projects to evaluate
4. Evaluation of shortlisted projects
5. Recommended criteria for prioritizing projects
5.5.1.1.1 Identification of Potential Projects The initial identification of potential projects began with an examination of documents produced by the Palestinian Water Authority (PWA) including their Recommended Project Lists, which is updated monthly, and the document entitled The Palestinian Water and Wastewater Sectors: Basic
115
Needs and Development Ongoing and Proposed Projects by Governorates (October, 2009). Meetings were held with both USAID and PWA to further discuss these documents. Additionally, to obtain a better understanding of wastewater projects in the West Bank, meetings were held with other organizations involved in the West Bank wastewater sector work including:
Ministry of Local Government – Eng. Walid Halayqa Al Bireh Municipality – Eng. Lamia Hamayel Bir Zeit University - Dr. Omar Zimmo KFW (German Donor Organization) – Dr. Hisham Sharabati and
Eng. Waddah Hamadalla JICA (Japanese Donor Organization) – Dr. Abed Al-Naser
5.5.1.1.2 Establishment of project selection criteria Establish project selection criteria based on USAID’s objectives and goals for this effort. The identified project selection criteria included: Project costs in the range of $10M to $15M USD Projects that have a high likelihood of being successfully operated in
the future
Projects that have a high likelihood of being approved and permitted Projects that solve an immediate environmental problem Projects where the treated effluent can be used as reuse water Projects that can be coupled with USAID water projects
Projects that are aligned with PWA’s wastewater sector goals Projects that are not being funded by other donor agencies
116
Projects that are spread around different areas of the West Bank The ceiling on project costs eliminated large wastewater projects, such as
Wadi Nar and Hebron City, and instead focused the search on medium- sized projects serving communities with 2010 populations of approximately 10,000 to 20,000 people.
5.5.1.1.3 Evaluation of Shortlisted Projects The shortlisted projects were evaluated with the goal of providing USAID the information needed to prioritize projects if funding becomes available. The first step in the evaluation process was to set up meetings with the authorities that would be involved in the potential projects. Meetings were setup with each municipality or joint village council and were typically attended by the mayor of the town and his key engineering and utilities staff, as well as MWH and PWA representatives. At some meetings, representatives from nearby towns also attended the meeting. The authorities were provided with a list of questions prior to the meeting so that they could be properly prepared. The information requested at each meeting included:
1. Topographic and road maps of the area
2. Population of the town, number of households, and number of buildings 3. Description of the municipality including number of employees, engineers, and technicians
4. Water resources in the town, supplied quantities, and water usage rates
117
5. Internal water network situation and its coverage area 6. Cost of water supplied to citizens
7. Percentage of water bills paid and the billing mechanism 8. Number of cesspits in town 9. Cost of emptying cesspits by vacuum tankers 10. Wastewater disposal sites
11. Social and environmental problems resulting from lack of wastewater collection and treatment 12. Industrial activities in town especially stone cutting workshops and olive presses
13. Disposal mechanism of stone cutting workshops and olive pressers remnants 14. Previous studies or designs for wastewater systems 15. Status of any existing collection pipes or treatment facilities
16. Percentage of the town that could be served by a gravity collection system 17. Availability of land to construct a wastewater treatment plant
18. Types of crops grown locally and locations where reuse water could
be utilized 19. Political areas that the system would be located in (Area A, B, or C or a combination) 20. Potential initial service areas and future phasing opportunities
As a result of the meetings, it became very evident that all of the municipalities and joint village councils are extremely aware of the
118
social and environmental problems caused by uncollected and untreated wastewater and are desperate for funding for wastewater
projects. Key social and environmental issues that came up at all the meetings included: 1. Health risks to citizens, especially children, from raw sewage running in the streets and wadis
2. Contamination of springs and groundwater, formerly used for water supplies, as a result of overflowing cesspits and illegal dumping of raw sewage from tanker trucks 3. Contamination of water network piping due to overflowing
cesspits 4. Structural damage to roads and building foundations as a result of overflowing cesspits 5. Conflicts between neighbors caused by overflowing cesspits
6. Waste of a valuable resource that could be used for irrigation or other purposes
5.5.1.1.4 Recommended Criteria for Prioritizing Projects The criteria listed below, are proposed for prioritizing the projects. These criteria are based on a scoring system of 1 to 3 points. It is also recommended that a weighting system be employed to differentiate criteria deemed to be critical to the implementation and long-term success of the project including those related to unit costs, existing water consumption, sustainability, and permitting.
119
1. Demographics: a. Initial and Ultimate Service Area Populations
1 point: <20,000 2 points: 20,000 - 30,000 3 points: >30,000
1 point: <40,000 2 points: 40,000 - 60,000 3 points: >60,000 b. Existing Water Consumption 1 point: < 50L/day/cap 2 points: 50 - 75L/day/cap 3 points: > 75 L/day/cap c. Industries 1 point: > 10 stonecutters + olive presses 2 points: Between 5 and 10 stonecutters + olive presses
3 points: < 5 stonecutters + olive presses
2. Institutional Management (Sustainability): a. Current Collection Rate 1 point: <50% 2 points: 50% - 75%
3 points: >75% b. Financial Structure
120
1 point: Not tied to other utilities 2 points: Tied to other utilities - post pay system
3 points: Tied to other utilities - pre pay system c. Management Structure 1 point: Need to form management structure 2 points: JVC
3 points: Municipality only d. O&M Structure 1 point: Need to form O&M structure 2 points: Structure but no water staff
3 points: Structure with staff
3. Environmental Issues: 1 point: Minor 2 points: Major
3 points: Severe
4. Approvals and Permitting: 1 point: Trunk lines and/or WWTP in Area C
2 points: Project in Area A and B except road crossings in Area C
3 points: Entire project in Areas A and B
5. Technical Implementation: a. Collection System 1 point: <50% by gravity flow
2 points: 50% to 75% by gravity flow 3 points: >75% by gravity flow
121 b. WWTP Site 1 points: Poor site
2 points: Average site 3 points: Great site (large, clear, power, no neighbors, good reuse) c. Reuse 1 point: Minimal reuse potential near WWTP
2 points: Medium potential 3 points: Great potential
6. Project Cost per Capita: 1 point: Project Cost per capita > $600
2 points: $500 to $600 3 points: < $500
5.5.1.2 Site selection report USAID is to design ten sewage collection and treatment systems in medium sized communities (average current population 20,000) throughout the West Bank. Ten municipal entities in the West Bank were previously identified in a study entitled Assessment of Potential West Bank Water
Projects for USAID Funding. Prior to engaging in detailed design efforts,
B&V is tasked with confirming the findings of the Assessment and obtaining additional data in order to establish a recommendation for the immediate engagement of design efforts on two of the ten wastewater systems.
B&V and local sub-consultants worked with Palestinian Water Authority (PWA) staff, Ministry of Agriculture staff, the Israeli Civil Administration,
122 and the mayors and engineers of the ten municipalities to analyze the circumstances of each proposed system. Comparisons of factors affecting project implementation were made, some of which relied on information presented by the municipalities themselves, others drawn from observations and investigations made directly by B&V professionals and sub- consultants. Where possible, the information reported by each of the ten municipalities was cross checked with data from other sources such as Palestinian Authority 2007 Population Census Data and PWA well production data. The purpose of this report is to prioritize two wastewater systems for immediate design. A criteria based ranking system was used to score all ten systems with recommendations for immediate design implementation going to the top two. The evaluation and scoring is only intended for the purpose of identifying two systems for immediate design implementation. The evaluation and scoring is not intended as a prioritization list for all ten projects. Nor are the criteria or ranking applicable to identifying the next stage of construction prioritization after the first one is designed and constructed.
Four criteria were developed for the evaluation. Where appropriate, the criteria were further divided into sub‐criteria. A numerical scoring system was developed to determine the overall ranking and identification of the top two projects for immediate implementation. Each of the four criteria were weighted and combined into a final qualitative scoring. The four criteria, in no particular order, are:
123
1. Ease of Civil Administration Approval 2. Operational simplicity
3. Environmental and Health Impacts 4. Municipal readiness Each criterion was given a weight of 25 percent.
5.5.1.2.1 Criteria 1: Civil Administration Permitting The duration of the Civil Administration’s permit approval process will drive the schedule of project implementation for those systems that impact Area C. This can have an overriding impact on the selection of the wastewater system that is slated for immediate implementation. At a minimum, each project consists of the following geographical elements which will be located in two or more of the security/administrative areas (A, B, or C):
The geographical location of each of these permanent features will affect the relative ease of implementation by the impact they have on Area C. In coordination meetings with B&V, the Civil Administration has indicated that projects that impact Area A and B only can get implemented much faster than those that impact Area C. The Civil Administration also distinguishes between types of construction in Area C. According to the
124
Civil Administration, approval for construction of buried pipelines in Area C is significantly shorter (approximately six months) and a less complicated than permanent, above‐ground structures (approximately three years). Some Area C approvals may take a shorter time than anticipated. Other Area C approvals may take significantly longer. In any case, the exact duration is unknowable in advance and projects that impact Area C are relatively risky for immediate project implementation. However, it should be recognized that site specific issues affecting Israeli interests are expected to have an impact on the duration of the permit approval process. For example, the proposed wastewater systems may be impacted by the proximity of Area C settlements. Environmental improvements resulting from the implementation of proposed projects may also factor into the duration of permit approvals. One example of this is the proposed Ein Sinya wastewater treatment plant. The Civil Administration has reportedly encouraged the development of this project by offering financial incentives to the Palestinians to build a wastewater plant. The existence of such a plant would improve the environmental conditions of nearby Israeli settlements.
For the purposes of this analysis, the following numerical scoring system was applied:
125 Table 5.3: Numerical Scoring Description for Criteria 1 ‐ Ease of Civil Administration Approval Score Description 10 trunks, or wastewater plants;
the catchment area; 8 trunks, or wastewater plants;
6 wastewater plants; sewer (buried pipeline) crosses Area C;
4 wastewater plants; pipeline) crosses Area C;
2 Permanent above grade structures (wastewater plant or storage reservoirs) in Area C Inadequate Area A & B land for application of reuse water; No Israeli settlements in the catchment area 0
5.5.1.2.2 Criteria 2: Operational Simplicity In general, service areas with full gravity collection systems are expected to have lower operational and maintenance obligations than those requiring lift stations. The more lift stations required for a given service area, the greater the operational cost and complexity. Another operational consideration is the wastewater generation per capita.
The design parameters established in the Assessment were based on the notion that water supply and wastewater generated per capita would
126 significantly increase in the future. There is no guarantee that will be the case in the future. Moreover, the per capita generation has significant impacts on the wastewater treatment process selection. In general, the lower the wastewater per capita the more concentrated the waste and the more difficult it is to achieve reductions in effluent Nitrogen, which is currently set at 50 mg/l in the Palestinian Standards. This is also related to the operational costs of lime addition, which would be required to boost the alkalinity of the wastewater in order for the required nitrification/denitrification process to function at all. Greater operational complexity accompanies the treatment of higher concentrated wastes (low wastewater generation per capita). This operational complexity results in a lower score for immediate implementation where there is obviously a greater humanitarian need. However, this would also suggest that efforts for the municipalities with the lowest water consumption per capita (highest concentration wastes) should be prioritized on increasing their water supply and distribution prior to implementing sewage collection and treatment. In any case, for the purposes of this evaluation, the municipalities with the lowest wastewater generation per capita received lower scores on these subcriteria. For the purposes of this evaluation, both subcriteria were assumed to have equal weight. Each subcriteria carried a 12.5% impact on the final weighted score.
127 Table 5.4: Numerical Scoring Description for Subcriteria 2A – Operational Simplicity – Gravity Collection Score Description 5 100% of the municipality’s service area potentially served by a gravity collection system; 4 80% of the municipality’s service area potentially served by a gravity collection system; 3 60% of the municipality’s service area potentially served by a gravity collection system; 2 40% of the municipality’s service area potentially served by a gravity collection system; 1 20% of the municipality’s service area potentially served by a gravity collection system; 0 0% of the municipality’s service area potentially served by a gravity collection system;
Table 5.5: Numerical Scoring Description for Subcriteria 2B – Operational Simplicity – Wastewater Generation Score Description 5 Estimated wastewater generation of 100 liters/per capita per day; 4 Estimated wastewater generation of 80 liters/per capita per day; 3 Estimated wastewater generation of 60 liters/per capita per day; 2 Estimated wastewater generation of 40 liters/per capita per day; 1 Estimated wastewater generation of 20 liters/per capita per day; 0 Estimated wastewater generation of 0 liters/per capita per day;
5.5.1.2.3 Criteria 3: Environmental and Health Impacts None of the ten municipalities have usable collection systems, with the exception of Dura. Dura has a partial collection system that was built ten years ago. However, Dura’s partial collection system is not connected to an outfall and has no house connections. The use of cesspits (and in some cases, septic tanks) is widespread with some households using more than one cesspit. Overflow and seepage problems are common to all ten municipalities, with little distinguishable relative differences. Infiltration and groundwater contamination from the cesspits, which are unlined, is
128 also a problem common to all ten municipalities. The installation of collection systems and centralized treatment will have a direct benefit to the environment from the discontinuation of unrestricted dumping of raw sewage and the cessation of cesspit leakage. The comparative magnitude of the resulting environmental and health improvements can be estimated by the relative hydrologic vulnerability of the wastewater system locations. Projects in municipalities located in aquifer recharge areas with high infiltration rates would produce a higher benefit than those that are located in less vulnerable areas. To make this determination, B&V used hydrological vulnerability maps published by the
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in cooperation with the Palestinian Environmental Quality Authority from a study entitled Desk Study on the Environment in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (2003). The scoring system is showing in Table 5.6 below.
Table 5.6: Numerical Scoring Description for Criteria 3 – Environmental and Health Impacts Score Description 10 Greatest relative benefit realized by construction of collection and centralized treatment ‐ Municipal area located in a region of high hydrological vulnerability to groundwater pollution as defined by UNEP. 5 Moderate relative benefit realized by construction of collection and centralized treatment ‐ Municipal area located in a region of medium hydrological vulnerability to groundwater pollution as defined by UNEP. 0 Low relative benefit realized by construction of collection and centralized treatment ‐ Municipal area located in a region of low hydrological vulnerability to groundwater pollution as defined by UNEP.
129
Industrial waste contribution was considered as a possible sub‐criteria. However, the amount of liquid waste generated by existing industrial operations (stone cutting, olive press, textiles, etc) for all municipalities appears to be low. It is assumed that direct connection of these wastes to the collection system will not be allowed without pre‐treatment in accordance with soon‐to‐be ratified By Laws regarding sewer discharge. For this reason, the relative amounts of industrial wastes and their impact on the environment and health was not considered a differentiator in the prioritization effort.
5.5.1.2.4 Criteria 4: Municipal Readiness All municipal mayors, council members, and staff expressed a strong desire to have a wastewater collection, treatment, and reuse system. The residents of these municipalities all experience similar hardships that accompany the lack of such infrastructure. The expense of cesspit pumping, structural issues with building foundations, contamination of cistern and groundwater supplies from existing cesspits, and social conflicts resulting from the spillage of wastes from cesspits, were common to all of the municipalities visited. The problems associated with the existing situation are clear.
However, measuring the preparedness of a municipality to implement and operate a wastewater system is less clear. Developing a scoring system and ranking the ten municipal entities from one or two introductory meetings is a subjective exercise. Municipal readiness is difficult to accurately determine without having direct observation over the course of several weeks or months.
130
Nevertheless, it is clear that as things stand today, none of the municipalities is institutionally prepared to directly manage a new wastewater treatment plant and reuse scheme. There is a noticeable lack of experience and understanding of the issues associated with collection, and treatment operations in particular. To create a scoring system for these criteria, several indicators were considered, including: • The percentage of water fees collected from residents; • The willingness of municipal leaders to combine utility bills (water and sewer, and even electricity),
• The revenue currently generated between buying bulk water and sales to metered users,
• The implementation of pre‐paid utility bill programs, • Measures taken to reduce non‐payment and address water distribution losses, • The existence and willingness of agricultural associations to take part in water reuse contracts,
• The ability of municipal leaders to cooperate with one another in a
regional scheme (this applies mostly to the two regional projects: Ein Sinya and Northeast Jenin), • The experience and capacity of the municipality to operate and maintain its existing water infrastructure.
• The existing numbers and skill sets of the municipal operators and engineers.
131
The scoring system is shown in Table 5.7.below.
Table 5.7: Numerical Scoring Description for Criteria 3 – Municipal Readiness Score Description 10 Municipality has established an independently funded water/wastewater authority; 100% fee collection on existing water service; Losses in the existing water distribution system are measureable and less than 10% of the water is unaccounted for; Municipal personnel are capable and experienced in wastewater operations and maintenance There is an existing, mandated agricultural association that has produced a written commitment to purchase the treated effluent 5 Municipality has more than 80% of consumer water fee collection; Municipality has already implemented a combined bill for water/sewer on a prepaid use basis; An agricultural association exists with or without a mandate 0 Municipality will attempt to manage the wastewater system through the efforts of a fractioned joint service council without a clear leader; Municipality has less than 70% of consumer water fee collection; No existence of any significant agricultural associations
5.5.2 Wastewater Projects for European Union (EU) Funding To review the EU selected criteria used in the sanitation projects we studied last study submitted to the EU for sanitation projects, a project is (Feasibility study and ESIA for wastewater management in Tubas, Tayasir, 'Aqqaba and Al 'Aqaba), dated January 10, 2012. The project is divided to five components and evaluated each component separately by various criteria. These components and criteria are:
A. Wastewater collection and conveyance networks:
132
• Investment cost • Operation and Maintenance cost
B. Wastewater reuse • Land suitability for irrigation and Potential areas • Cropping patterns • Water storage
• Investment cost • Operation and Maintenance cost • Irrigated area • Irrigated water request
C. Ability to Groundwater recharge D. WWTP sites: • Distance to closest house • Distance to limit of future urban area
• Nuisance to surrounding residential areas • Potential aquifer impacts • Location in area A, B or C
• Platform elevation
• Excavation required • Access road • Flooding risk • Electrical energy supply
• Land ownership • Reuse potential
133
E. Process selection: • Pollution reduction
• Disinfection of treated water • Upgradability of the process • Footprint of the structures • Qualification of operating staff
• Investment and operating costs • Sludge quality • Land requirement
5.5.3 Wastewater Projects for German Bank for Reconstruction
(KFW) Funding To review the KFW selected criteria used in the sanitation projects we studied last study submitted to the KFW for sanitation projects, a project is (Consultancy Services for the Elaboration of a Feasibility Study for the
Project ―Wastewater Treatment Plant Ramallah‖), dated March 2010. The project ―Wastewater Treatment Plant Ramallah – Feasibility Study‖ was launched by the German Government as part of the efforts undergoing to improve the living conditions of Palestinian people. This project is funded in the frame of the bilateral German-Palestinian Co-operation. The Consortium of Gauff Ingenieure with ERM and Universal Group was awarded the project; signature of the related contract was made on 19 January 2009.
134
5.5.3.1 Multi-Criteria Screening of Options Due to the sensitivity of the project area, option comparison cannot take into account economical items only. In addition, socio-economical and environmental impacts have to be roughly assessed.
5.5.3.2 Environmental Issues Environmental criteria have been introduced to compare the different locations for the WWTP. Into account has been taken: • Land size required for 2030; • Availability of land for further extensions beyond 2030; • The distance to the closest residential area;
• The connected PE until 2030; • The requirements of having main pumping stations • The groundwater vulnerability at the proposed sites; • Groundwater vulnerability of the main collector routings.
5.5.3.2.1 Socio-Economic Impact • Full Cost Recovery • O&M Cost Recovery
5.5.3.2.2 Institutional Criteria • Inter-Communal Co-operation • Joint Service Council; • Improvements in Billing
135
5.5.4 Wastewater Projects for Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) Republic of Finland Funding The last study submitted to the MFA for sanitation projects, a project is (Sanitation Study for Northwest Jerusalem Villages), dated March 2011.
5.5.4.1 Selection Criteria and Screening Initial selection criteria have been applied to the proposed options. The sorts of criteria that have been used for the initial screening process include:
Type of Area including Oslo classification as A, B, or C
Israeli Closure Wall Adjacent settlements Israeli permits
Size of site (sufficient area available for extension?) Access to site Present land use
Distance to developed areas, wind direction and effects of odor
Approvals of Owners, PWA, JSCs and residents -use Facilities for storage of treated wastewater Available agricultural area for irrigation
Options for re-use of treated wastewater of the WWTP and Treatment method
136
Flexibility of options for future modifications Required performance to meet the required effluent standards
Strength of sewage Effluent quality requirements Ambient conditions in the project area Sewage flows and infiltration/flows
5.5.5 Wastewater Projects for Local Finance Investment Projects Bayti real estate investment company is construction the Rawabi city, Rawabi is new city in west bank and Rawabi is the biggest local finance investment projects in west bank.
The criteria cover a range of technical factors that consider site and land use issues, and community impacts including health and safety, environmental impacts, and economic impacts. Numerical ranking was applied to the selection criteria. These criteria were ranked by using a scoring range of 1 to 10, with 1 equal to the least favorable rating and 10 equal to the most favorable. These criteria are briefly described below:
5.5.5.1 Suitability of Land This criterion relates to the suitability of the site in terms of sufficient flat area available for treatment and reuse facilities (including area for future expansion); ease of construction in terms of site access, topography and slope; and the cost of the land.
5.5.5.2 Political Constraints This criterion relates to the relative ease of obtaining project approval and permits by the Joint Water Committee. If the project site is located in
137 administrative division Area A or B as defined by the Oslo Accords, project approval is typically much easier to accomplish than if the site is in
Area C.
5.5.5.3 Potential Aquifer Impacts Groundwater aquifers would be impacted negatively, resulting in a threat to public health and safety, if raw sewage were to be disposed of as a result of a failure at the wastewater treatment (e.g., either from a spill of raw sewage/seepage or from a treatment malfunction resulting in partially treated effluent discharge). This criterion was evaluated based on a vulnerability analysis. These vulnerability analyses were ranked by using a scoring range of 1 to 10 are briefly described below: 0 the negative impact on the groundwater system is EXTREME 2.5 the negative impact on the groundwater system is HIGH 5 the negative impact on the groundwater system is MODERATE
7.5 the negative impact on the groundwater system is LOW 10 the negative impact on the groundwater system is VERY LOW Vulnerability analysis ranked depending on:
Groundwater Divide
Springs Wells Wadis Recharge Zones
Pollution by advection: Advection is the process of the movement of pollutants with the influence of groundwater velocity in the saturated
138
zone. This is an important mechanism in the assessment of the impact of pollution on aquifers. The mechanism is also influenced
with the direction of groundwater movement. Karst Groundwater System Vertical movement and travel time of pollutants
5.5.5.4 Proximity of Reuse Sites This criterion relates to the availability of reuse sites within the proximity to effluent discharge at minimum pumping cost, and to the suitability of the soil for crop production.
5.5.5.5 Proximity to Existing and/or Planned Utilities This criterion relates to the relative ease of bringing in utilities, such as electricity and water, necessary for construction and operation of a treatment plant.
5.5.5.6 Flood Plain Elevation This criterion relates to potential flooding of the site during storm events. Wastewater treatment plants are usually located in low areas that could be subject to flooding. At sites within the flood plain, flood prevention measures such as realignment of the wadi channel or conveyance of flood water in a closed conduit would be necessary, significantly increasing costs. The differentiation among sites for this criterion was based on the relative difference in the width of the wadi where the proposed site is located: the narrower the site width, the higher the flooding potential.
139
5.5.5.7 Proximity to Landfill Residuals generated at wastewater treatment plants such as screenings, grit and sludge are anticipated to be disposed of in a sanitary landfill. The proximity of the wastewater treatment plant to a landfill site will affect the hauling costs.
5.5.5.8 Nuisance to Surrounding Urban Areas This criterion relates to the suitability of the site in terms of being remote from existing and future urban areas. It is preferable to locate wastewater treatment plants in non-urban areas, away from residences. Potential impacts include visibility of treatment plant facilities, obstruction of natural views, noise, odor, increased vehicular traffic, and public health and safety concerns.
5.5.5.9 Population Served This criterion relates to the number of residences and communities that can be served. The site that can serve the relatively largest number of population with reasonable length of trunk lines is preferred, as these results in the greatest benefits versus costs.
5.6 Criteria Identification The criteria were identified so that they are easy to measure and easy to evaluate and based on the above, the following criteria were selected: Demography. Water consumption / Wastewater production.
Reusing wastewater. Environmental factor.
140
Operation body. Risk for Industrial Waste.
Socio-economic factor. Geographical factor (topography, catchment). Political Issues.
141 Chapter 6 Mcda Tools Development
6.1 Normalize the Weights of Criteria Weights of the criteria were identified through the intergovernmental agencies that form the Environmental Assessment Committee (see Annex A): EQA (acting as chair of the Committee) Ministry of National Economy (MNE)
Ministry of Local Government (MoLG) Ministry of Transport (MoT) Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) Ministry of Health (MoH)
Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities (MTA) Ministry of Planning and Administrative Development (MoPAD) Palestinian Water Authority (PWA)
Palestinian Energy Authority (PEA) Ministry of Public Works and Housing (MPWH) Ministry of Labour (MoL) Palestinian Civil Defence's (PCD)
Petroleum Authority The EA Committee reviews the EA study and makes recommendations for approval or denial of the project. The weight of a criterion also comes based on the importance of 10 where
0 is not important, 5 is average importance, and 10 is very important. Each criterion weight is given a score, and then all the scores are added up. The
142 score of each attribute is divided by the total score. and equation below.
143
Table 6.1: Calculate normalize weights to each criteria Environmental Assessment Committee
MoPAD Normalize
MPWH
MoLG
MNE MTA PWA
MoH
EQA MoA
MoT MoL
PCD PEA Weights weight (from No. Criteria Petroleum (Wm) 100%) (Wm
Authority
×100/∑W)
1 Demography 5 8 8 8 9 10 8 9 9 7 10 9 8 7 8.2 12.5 Water consumption / 2 7 6 8 6 9 7 6 9 9 4 5 6 7 6 6.8 10.37 Wastewater production Reusing 3 5 4 5 3 8 2 5 5 8 6 4 5 6 4 5 7.62 wastewater Environmental 4 10 9 8 10 10 10 9 10 10 8 10 10 10 9 9.5 14.48 factor 5 Operation body 10 8 8 8 9 8 8 10 9 8 9 9 8 8 8.6 13.11 Risk for Industrial 6 7 6 6 5 7 7 5 10 7 7 5 6 4 8 6.4 9.76 Waste Socio-economic 7 10 8 10 8 9 10 8 8 9 7 9 8 8 8 8.6 13.11 factor Geographical 8 7 4 6 6 7 5 5 6 8 5 4 5 4 5 5.5 8.38 factor 9 Political Issues 6 7 8 7 8 7 7 7 9 7 6 7 6 6 7 10.67 Total 65.60 100
144 6.2 Carries a Value Rating for Each Criteria
Each alternative carries a value rating for each attribute. The rating of each alternative for each attribute indicates how well the alternative will perform as each attribute is considered. The criteria listed below, are proposed for prioritizing the projects. These criteria are based on a scoring system of 1 to 5 points.
6.2.1 Demography If the population grows, the priority of the establishment of a sewer project increases. Based on that, the highest number of projected population in 2030 between communities (Ph) is given the maximum demography score
(Ds) of 5. The formula for determining the demography scores (Ds) of all other communities is calculated as follows: Ds = 5 x P/ Ph, in which ―Ds‖ is the demography score, ―Ph‖ is the highest population, and ―P‖ is the projected population in 2030 of the community under consideration.
6.2.2 Water Consumption / Wastewater Production There is a positive relationship between water consumption (wastewater production) and priority of a sewer project. Scores are distributed according to water consumption as follows: 1 point: < 45L/day/cap
2 points: 45 - 55L/day/cap 3 points: 56 - 65L/day/cap 4 points: 66 - 90L/day/cap 5 points: > 90 L/day/cap
145
6.2.3 Reusing Wastewater This criterion relates to the suitability of the soil for crop production. To make this determination, we used value agricultural land map. See Figure 6.1 published by MoA. Scores are distributed as follows: 1 points: Low-value agricultural land 3 points: Medium -value agricultural land
5 points: High-value agricultural land
Figure 6.1: Value agricultural land
146
6.2.4 Environmental Factor Two specific impacts were taken on environmental issues. The first is hydrogeological vulnerability of groundwater to which we gave three points while the second is the presence of springs and wells in the region to which we gave two points. The installation of collection systems and centralized treatment will have a direct benefit to the environment from the discontinuation of unrestricted dumping of raw sewage and the cessation of cesspit leakage. The comparative magnitude of the resulting environmental and health improvements can be estimated by the relative hydrologic vulnerability of the wastewater system locations. Projects in communities located in aquifer recharge areas with high infiltration rates would produce a higher benefit than those that are located in less vulnerable areas. To make this determination, we used hydrological vulnerability map. See Figure 6.2 published by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in cooperation with the Palestinian Environmental Quality Authority from a study entitled Desk Study on the Environment in the Occupied Palestinian
Territories (2002).
147
Figure 6.2: Hydrogeological vulnerability of groundwater to pollution in the West
Bank Scores are distributed as follows: 1 point: No springs and wells in the region. 2 points: One or more springs or wells in the region. 1 point: Community located in a region of low hydrological
vulnerability to groundwater pollution as defined by UNEP. 2 points: Community located in a region of medium hydrological vulnerability to groundwater pollution as defined by UNEP. 3 points: Community located in a region of high hydrological
vulnerability to groundwater pollution as defined by UNEP.
148
6.2.5 Operation Body We used MoLG and Municipal Development & Lending Fund (MDLF) ranked communities. MoLG ranked communities depend on various standards such as the size of the community and the strength of the operation body. MDLF ranked communities accept ―good management‖ practices according to 12 basics. Funds are allocated based on rank; municipalities with higher rankings will be eligible for more funding than those with lower rankings. The rankings are from A to F, with A constituting the highest possible rank. They are based on 12 criteria encompassing planning, management and financial accountability as shown in Table 6.2.
Table 6.2: Municipal ranking on the basis of performance for the municipal development program (MDP) in MDLF Rank Performance Indicator Current Account Surplus (for 2 consecutive years) A Unqualified External Audit Integrated Financial Management System Operational Account Surplus B Fixed Assets Register Maintenance Plan in place Municipal Development/Investment Plan C Financial Accounting Policies & Procedures in place External Audit Capital Budget (approved and executed, properly submitted t D o MoLG) Recurrent Budget (approved and properly submitted to MoL E G) F No Budgetary Information
Scores are distributed as follows:
149
0.5 point: Village Council or Projects Committee 1 point: Rank of municipality is D.
MoLG 1.5 point: Rank of municipality is C. 2 point: Rank of municipality is B. 2.5 point: Rank of municipality is A. 0.5 point: Rank of municipality is F.
1 point: Rank of municipality is E. MDLF 1.5 point: Rank of municipality is D. 2 point: Rank of municipality is C. 2.5 point: Rank of municipality is A,B.
6.2.6 Risk for Industrial Waste There is an impact of effluents from industrial operations (stone cutting, olive press, textiles, etc) on the effectiveness of the treatment plants. It is assumed that direct connection of these wastes to the collection system will not be allowed without pre-treatment, and it is something difficult to do by the municipalities. Scores are distributed as follows: 1 point: > 15 stonecutters + olive presses + textiles
2 points: Between 10 and 15 stonecutters + olive presses + textiles
3 points: Between 5 and 10 stonecutters + olive presses + textiles 4 points: < 5 stonecutters + olive presses + textiles 5 points: No stonecutters + olive presses + textiles
6.2.7 Socio-Economic Factor The socio-economic factor assessment process will be on the basis of, first, education which gives an indication of the community acceptance of the
150 project, and secondly how economically active the citizens are which gives an indication of the ability of citizens to pay and contribute to the costs of construction, operation and maintenance costs. Scores are distributed as follows: 0.5 point: <= 5% of the population hold a bachelor degree or higher of the total population aged 10 years and over.
1.5 points: 5% to 10% of the population hold a bachelor degree or higher of the total population aged 10 years and over. 2.5 point: > 10% of the population hold a bachelor degree or higher of the total population aged 10 years and over.
0.5 points: <= 30% of the population economically active of the total population aged 10 years and over. 1.5 points: 30% to 35% of the population is economically active of the total population aged 10 years and over.
2.5 points: > 35% of the population economically active of the total population aged 10 years and over.
6.2.8 Geographical Factor (topography, catchment) The geographical factors affect the construction of sewer systems and the capital cost of sewer systems and if we need pumping station or not. Scores are distributed as follows: 0.5 point: <50% by gravity flow. 1 points: 50% to 75% by gravity flow.
1.5 points: 75% to 95% by gravity flow. 2 points: > 95% by gravity flow.
151
1 point: > 2 catchment areas. 2 points: 2 catchment areas.
3 points: 1 catchment areas.
6.2.9 Political Issues The political issues of each of these permanent features will affect the relative ease of implementation by the impact they have on Area C. The joint water committee (JWC) in PWA has indicated that projects that impact Area A and B only can get implemented much faster than those that impact Area C as it is near settlements which would delay obtaining a license. Scores
are distributed to two points according to whether or not there are Israeli settlements in the catchment area and according to the political land classifications. Areas A, B, and C can be seen as follows:
1 point: One or more Israeli settlements in the catchment area 2 points: No Israeli settlements in the catchment area. 1 points: Trunk lines and/or WWTP in Area C
2 points: Entire project in Areas A and/or B
3 points: Entire project in Areas A
152 Chapter 7 Priorities Settings 7.1 Identify Communities
We will take the towns whose population is over 10 thousand people in accordance with the directives of the PWA to resolve the problem of sanitation in the towns and villages with the population of over 10 thousand people by 2030. Based on the PCBS, we indicate the population numbers for all Palestinian communities (see Annex C Annex C ) according to the census of 1997 and 2007. Communities that are expected to have a population of more than 10,000 people in 2030 are show in Table 7.1.
From the Table 7.1, it can be seen that there are 97 communities expected to have a population of more than 10,000 people in 2030. We except 33 communities because they contain sewage systems or in the design or implementation stages. According to PWA Strategy a sanitation sector will have been developed in 33 communities, and sanitation systems for 64 communities will have been found by 2030. The total current population of
64 communities is 846,705 and is expected to be 1,483,779 person in 2030.
The following communities are classified by governorates:
153 Jenin governorate (11 communities): Silat al Harithiya, Al Yamun, Kafr
Dan, Deir Abu Da'if, Birqin, Ya'bad, Qabatiya, Arraba, Kafr Ra'I,
Meithalun, and Jaba'
Tubas governorate (2 communities): El Far'a Camp, and Tammun
Tulkarem governorate (4 communities): Qaffin, 'Attil, Deir al Ghusun,
Bal'a Nablus governorate (7 communities): 'Asira ash Shamaliya, 'Awarta,
Huwwara, Beita, Jamma'in, Aqraba, and Qabalan
Qalqiliya governorate (1 community): 'Azzun
Salfit governorate (1 community): Biddya
Ramallah & Al-Bireh governorate (6 communities): Sinjil, Shuqba, Qibya,
Al Jalazun Camp, Kharbatha al Misbah, and Beit Liqya
Jericho governorate (no communities)
Jerusalem governorate (7 communities): Ar Ram & Dahiyat al Bareed, Al
Biddu, Hizma, 'Anata, Al 'Eizariya, Abu Dis, and As Sawahira ash
Sharqiya.
Bethlehem governorate (7 communities): Al 'Ubeidiya, Husan, Nahhalin,
Za'tara, Jannatah, Tuqu', and Beit Fajjar.
Hebron governorate (18 communities):Surif, Beit Ummar, Kharas, Beit
Ula, Sa'ir, Halhul, Ash Shuyukh, Tarqumiya, Beit Kahil, Idhna, Taffuh,
154 Deir Samit, Bani Na'im, Beit 'Awwa, Dura, Yatta, Adh Dhahiriya, and As
Samu'.
155 Table 7.1 Communities that are expected to have a population of more than 10,000 people in 2030
Actual Project Projecte Projecte Actual Actual Growth- ed Locality Locality d d Population Populatio Rate Populat Note اؿُ اٌزجّغ .No Name code Populati Populati (2007- ion 2007 n 1997 on 2010 on 2020 1997) 2030 Jenin Gov. ١ؿٍَ ْخ Silat al 1 10035 9,422 7,246 2.66 10,194 13,256 17,236 Cesspits اٌذب ِعص١َِّخ Harithiya Cesspits 31,943 23,894 17,874 2.95 12,255 16,383 ا١ٌَب Al Yamun 10080 ُِْٛ 2 Cesspits 10,565 7,729 5,654 3.18 3,766 5,148 وفغ صاْ Kafr Dan 10095 3 Barta'a Treated ثغطؼخ 4 ash 10120 4,176 2,814 4.03 4,701 6,976 10,353 inside GL اٌلغل١خ Sharqiya Jenin TP 85,164 60,646 43,186 3.45 27,775 39,004 ج١ٕٓ Jenin 10180 5 Jenin Connected 14,403 12,486 10,825 1.44 8,991 10,371 ِش١ُ ج١ٕٓ 10185 6 Camp to Jenin ص٠غ أثDeir Abu ٛ 7 10215 5,572 3,897 3.64 6,203 8,869 12,681 Cesspits ض١ؼف Da'if Cesspits 10,555 8,065 6,163 2.73 4,344 5,685 ثغل١ٓ Birqin 10220 8 13,640 10,625 2.53 14,701 18,873 24,229 Cesspits ؼ٠جض Ya'bad 10265 9 Cesspits 36,465 27,588 20,873 2.83 14,524 19,197 لجبط١خ Qabatiya 10340 10 ػ 9,920 7,574 2.74 10,756 14,088 18,452 Cesspitsغاثخ Arraba 10370 11 Cesspits 12,967 10,139 7,928 2.49 5,758 7,364 وفغ عاKafr Ra'i 10465 ٟػ 12 Cesspits 13,825 10,255 7,607 3.03 5,159 6,955 ١ِضMeithalu 10520 ٍْٛ 13
156 n Cesspits 16,222 12,243 9,240 2.85 6,409 8,492 ججغ Jaba' 10605 14 Tubas Gov. ػ 6,548 4,385 4.09 7,385 11,028 16,468 Tubas TPمبثٗ Aqqaba 50535' 15 (Tayasir) Funded by 34,483 24,798 17,833 3.35 11,617 16,154 طٛثبTubas 50610 ؽ 16 AFD Collection -systm ِش١ُ El Far'a 17 50700 5,712 4,152 3.24 6,286 8,647 11,896 Discharged اٌفبعػخ Camp into Wadi Cesspits 24,642 17,212 12,022 3.65 7,540 10,795 طTammun 50755 ّْٛ 18 Tulkarem Gov. Cesspits 15,398 11,823 9,079 2.68 6,440 8,387 لف١ٓ Qaffin 100290 19 ػ 9,038 7,661 1.67 9,497 11,205 13,218 Cesspitsز١ً Attil 100480' 20 ص٠غ Deir al 21 100530 8,242 6,969 1.69 8,667 10,251 12,123 Cesspits اٌغوGhusun ْٛ Cesspits 10,614 8,635 7,026 2.08 5,373 6,604 ثؼٍب Bal'a 100570 22 10,704 5,848 3,195 6.23 1,456 2,665 إوزبثب Iktaba 100595 23 Tulkarm ِش١ُ Tulkarm 24 100635 10,641 9,948 0.68 10,858 11,615 12,424 regional TP طٌٛىغَ Camp (Funded by 91,038 70,944 55,285 2.53 39,977 51,300 طٌٛىغَ Tulkarm 100645 25 KFW ) ػ 7,329 6,032 1.97 7,770 9,441 11,471ٕجزب Anabta 100665 26 Nablus Gov.
157 ػو١غح Asira ash' 27 150820 7,556 5,724 2.82 8,212 10,841 14,310 Cesspits اٌلّب١ٌخ Shamaliya Nalus west 219,132 172,350 135,555 2.43 99,204 126,132 ٔبثNablus 150920 ؾٍ 28 TP (Funded ِش١ُ Askar' 29 150930 11,607 9,372 2.16 12,376 15,328 18,983 ػ by KFWـىغ Camp ؿ 5,062 3,749 3.05 5,539 7,479 10,099 (Implementبٌُ Salim 150955 30 ation ِش١ُ Balata 31 150960 15,247 13,014 1.60 15,989 18,732 21,946 ,(process ثالطخ Camp Nablus East TP (Feasibility 20,535 15,238 11,307 3.03 7,672 10,339 ث١ذ فٛع٠ه Beit Furik 151090 32 study, Funded by KFW) ٛػ 5,623 4,286 2.75 6,100 8,003 10,500 Cesspitsعرب Awarta 151135' 33 Cesspits 10,237 7,857 6,030 2.68 4,275 5,570 دٛاعح Huwwara 151185 34 Cesspits 19,734 14,080 10,047 3.43 6,478 9,079 ث١زب Beita 151215 35 Cesspits 14,870 10,183 6,974 3.86 4,263 6,225 جّب١ػٓ Jamma'in 151245 36 ػ 8,180 5,849 3.41 9,046 12,651 17,693 Cesspitsمغثب Aqraba 151270 37 Cesspits 13,827 10,367 7,773 2.92 5,346 7,130 لجالْ Qabalan 151335 38 Qalqiliya Gov. Treated 80,584 60,538 45,479 2.90 31,356 41,739 لٍم١ٍ١خ Qalqiliya 201040 39 inside GL Azzun 201100 ْٚؼػ 7,821 5,794 3.05 8,558 11,551 15,592 Cesspits' 40
158 Implementa tion (fund 12,927 9,270 6,647 3.38 4,314 6,016 دجٍخ Habla 201125 41 UNDP) Salfit Gov. Cesspits 16,028 11,890 8,820 3.03 5,982 8,064 ثض٠ب Biddya 251305 42 Salfit TP ؿ 8,796 7,010 2.30 9,416 11,815 14,825ٍف١ذ Salfit 251370 43 (Fund KFW) Ramallah & Al-Bireh Gov. ؿ 5,236 3,883 3.03 5,727 7,723 10,414 Cesspitsٕجً Sinjil 301500 44 Cesspits 11,177 7,523 5,064 4.04 3,027 4,497 كمجب Shuqba 301595 45 Cesspits 11,055 7,762 5,450 3.60 3,441 4,901 لج١ٗ Qibya 301605 46 Collection -systm ِش١ُ Al Jalazun 47 301700 7,813 6,064 2.57 8,430 10,862 13,994 Discharged اٌجCamp ْٚؼٍ into Wadi Al-Bireh TP 80,645 58,277 42,112 3.30 27,606 38,202 اٌج١غح Al Bireh 301790 48 Ramallah 74,613 48,313 31,284 4.44 17,781 27,460 عاَ هللا Ramallah 301810 49 Regional (Ein Jaruit) - Approved 112,050 52,694 24,780 7.84 9,293 19,761 ث١ز١ٔٛب Beituniya 301825 50 (funded by KFW) سغثضب Kharbath 51 301855 5,211 3,662 3.59 5,793 8,243 11,730 Cesspits اٌّوجبح a al
159 Misbah Cesspits 15,864 11,592 8,471 3.19 5,634 7,710 ث١ذ ٌم١ب Beit Liqya 301895 52 Jericho Gov. 'Ein as ِش١ُ ١ػٓ 53 Sultan 351865 3,160 1,451 8.09 3,991 8,692 18,929 اٌـٍطبْ Camp Jericho TP - Jericho Implementa 28,095 23,343 19,395 1.87 15,243 18,346 أع٠ذب 351920 54 (Ariha) tion ( fund Aqbat JICA) ِش١ُ ػمجخ 55 Jaber 351975 7,176 4,521 4.73 8,243 13,084 20,767 ججغ Camp Jerusalem Gov. Qalandiya Connected 17,081 12,822 9,625 2.91 6,629 8,831 ِش١ُ لٍٕض٠ب 401900 56 Camp to Ramallah 51% Collection اٌغاَ & Ar Ram -ٚ 20,359 18,719 0.84 20,878 22,708 24,697 systmضبد١خ Dahiyat al 401945 57 Discharged اٌجغ٠ض Bareed into Wadi Cesspits 16,226 11,116 7,615 3.86 4,657 6,798 ثضBiddu 401995 ٚ 58 Cesspits 13,739 9,769 6,947 3.47 4,459 6,271 دؼِب Hizma 402005 59 ػ 12,049 7,037 5.53 14,159 24,243 41,509 Cesspitsٕبرب Anata 402040' 60 Al Cesspits 37,157 26,854 19,408 3.30 12,724 17,606 اؼ١ؼٌع٠خ 402100 61 'Eizariya
160 Cesspits 16,945 13,921 11,437 1.99 8,858 10,782 أثٛ صAbu Dis 402120 ؾ٠ 62 As اٌـٛادغح Sawahira 63 402145 5,800 3,810 4.29 6,579 10,016 15,247 Cesspits اٌلغل١خ ash Sharqiya Bethlehem Gov. Collection Al systm- 22,736 16,419 11,856 3.31 7,765 10,753 اؼٌج١ض٠خ 452180 64 'Ubeidiya Discharged into Wadi ww collection 13,187 12,546 11,935 0.27- 12,079 11,758 ث١ذ جبال Beit Jala 452210 65 system Cesspits 10,952 8,150 6,065 3.00 4,131 5,551 دؿٛبْ Husan 452230 66 Bethlehe Bethlehem TP (Fund 36,004 30,866 26,461 1.55 21,660 25,266 ث١ذ ٌذُ m (Beit 452240 67 Lahm) AFD) ww ث١ذ Beit 68 452255 12,367 11,137 1.05 12,762 14,171 15,736 collection ؿبدٛع Sahur system ww collection 42,726 22,478 11,825 6.63 5,131 9,753 اٌضٚدخ Ad Doha 452265 69 system ww 23,136 15,907 10,937 3.82 6,720 9,774 اٌشضغ Al Khadr 452270 70 collection
161 system Ad Connected ِش١ُ 71 Duheisha 452275 8,736 6,803 2.53 9,417 12,092 15,528 to اٌض١٘لخ Camp Bethlehem Cesspits 16,611 11,285 7,667 3.94 4,638 6,827 ٔذب١ٌٓ Nahhalin 452325 72 ػػ 6,289 4,408 3.62 6,997 9,982 14,242 Cesspitsزغح Za'tara 452360 73 جٕبرخ )ث١ذ 74 Jannatah 452385 5,416 3,623 4.10 6,110 9,134 13,655 Cesspits فٍٛح( Cesspits 20,563 14,274 9,909 3.72 6,165 8,881 رمٛع Tuqu' 452495 75 Cesspits 23,609 16,941 12,156 3.37 7,896 11,004 ث١ذ فجبع Beit Fajjar 452525 76 Hebron Gov. Cesspits 29,016 20,714 14,787 3.43 9,541 13,365 هٛع٠ف Surif 502450 77 ww ِش١ُ Al 'Arrub 78 502530 7,941 5,933 2.96 8,667 11,600 15,526 collection اؼٌغٚة Camp system Beit Cesspits 28,091 20,458 14,900 3.22 9,867 13,548 ث١ذ أِٚغ 502540 79 Ummar 50% ww collection 12,274 9,406 7,208 2.70 5,100 6,655 سبعاKharas 502560 ؽ 80 system Cesspits 25,150 17,474 12,141 3.71 7,563 10,885 ث١ذ أٚال Beit Ula 502615 81 ١ؼؿ 18,045 13,171 3.20 19,833 27,172 37,227 Cesspitsغ Sa'ir 502620 82 Cesspits 49,025 34,690 24,547 3.52 15,658 22,128 دٍذٛي Halhul 502630 83 Cesspits 21,437 14,564 9,894 3.94 5,986 8,811 اٌلٛ١ر Ash 502635 84
162 Shuyukh Tarqumiy Cesspits 29,868 21,721 15,796 3.24 10,441 14,357 رغل١ِٛب 502640 85 a Cesspits 18,393 11,722 7,470 4.61 4,159 6,526 ث١ذ وبدً Beit Kahil 502655 86 Cesspits 41,207 29,438 21,030 3.42 13,582 19,012 إطٔب Idhna 502685 87 Cesspits 26,924 17,950 11,968 4.14 7,065 10,597 رفٛح Taffuh 502750 88 Approved Hebron ) by JWC 343,950 248,692 179,815 3.30 117,962 163,146 اٌش١ًٍ 502780 89 (Al Khalil) fund USAID) Deir Cesspits 16,205 10,699 7,064 4.24 4,118 6,237 ص٠غ ؿبِذ 502810 90 Samit Bani Cesspits 50,523 33,830 22,652 4.09 13,448 20,084 ث١ؼٔ ُٟٕ 502815 91 Na'im Beit Cesspits 16,391 12,041 8,846 3.13 5,924 8,064 ث١ذ ٛػا 502835 92 'Awwa Cesspits 72,521 48,147 31,964 4.18 18,767 28,268 صٚعا Dura 502840 93 Al Connected ِش١ُ 94 Fawwar 502905 6,544 4,784 3.18 7,189 9,834 13,451 to Hebron اٌفٛاع Camp Cesspits 113,456 78,528 54,353 3.75 33,688 48,672 ٠طب Yatta 503120 95 Adh Cesspits 63,239 44,907 31,888 3.48 20,434 28,776 اٌظب٘غ٠خ 503245 96 Dhahiriya Cesspits 42,855 30,532 21,753 3.45 13,999 19,649 اٌـّٛع As Samu' 503320 97
163 7.2 Application of MCDA Tools
MCDA tools will be applied to the communities that have been selected. First, we score for each criterion to the selected communities. Secondly, we
normalize the weights of criteria and give the score for each community.
7.2.1 Carries a Value Rating for Each Criteria
By reference to the section 6.2 we score for each community as follows:
7.2.1.1 Demography According to (PCBS, 2007) the population and score of each community are as shown in Table 7.2.
Table 7.2: Demography score of each community Projected Projected Locality Locality No. Population score No. Population score Name Name 2030 2030 Ar Ram & Silat al 1 17,236 0.76 33 Dahiyat al 24,697 1.09 Harithiya Bareed 2 Al Yamun 31,943 1.41 34 Biddu 16,226 0.72 3 Kafr Dan 10,565 0.47 35 Hizma 13,739 0.61 Deir Abu 4 12,681 0.56 36 'Anata 41,509 1.83 Da'if Al 5 Birqin 10,555 0.47 37 37,157 1.64 'Eizariya 6 Ya'bad 24,229 1.07 38 Abu Dis 16,945 0.75 As Sawahira 7 Qabatiya 36,465 1.61 39 15,247 0.67 ash Sharqiya Al 8 Arraba 18,452 0.81 40 22,736 1.00 'Ubeidiya 9 Kafr Ra'i 12,967 0.57 41 Husan 10,952 0.48 10 Meithalun 13,825 0.61 42 Nahhalin 16,611 0.73 11 Jaba' 16,222 0.71 43 Za'tara 14,242 0.63 El Far'a 12 11,896 0.52 44 Jannatah 13,655 0.60 Camp 13 Tammun 24,642 1.09 45 Tuqu' 20,563 0.91 14 Qaffin 15,398 0.68 46 Beit Fajjar 23,609 1.04
164 15 'Attil 13,218 0.58 47 Surif 29,016 1.28 Deir al Beit 16 12,123 0.53 48 28,091 1.24 Ghusun Ummar 17 Bal'a 10,614 0.47 49 Kharas 12,274 0.54 'Asira ash 18 14,310 0.63 50 Beit Ula 25,150 1.11 Shamaliya 19 'Awarta 10,500 0.46 51 Sa'ir 37,227 1.64 20 Huwwara 10,237 0.45 52 Halhul 49,025 2.16 Ash 21 Beita 19,734 0.87 53 21,437 0.94 Shuyukh 22 Jamma'in 14,870 0.66 54 Tarqumiya 29,868 1.32 23 Aqraba 17,693 0.78 55 Beit Kahil 18,393 0.81 24 Qabalan 13,827 0.61 56 Idhna 41,207 1.82 25 'Azzun 15,592 0.69 57 Taffuh 26,924 1.19 26 Biddya 16,028 0.71 58 Deir Samit 16,205 0.71 Bani 27 Sinjil 10,414 0.46 59 50,523 2.23 Na'im Beit 28 Shuqba 11,177 0.49 60 16,391 0.72 'Awwa 29 Qibya 11,055 0.49 61 Dura 72,521 3.20 Al Jalazun 30 13,994 0.62 62 Yatta 113,456 5.00 Camp Kharbatha Adh 31 11,730 0.52 63 63,239 2.79 al Misbah Dhahiriya 32 Beit Liqya 15,864 0.70 64 As Samu' 42,855 1.89
7.2.1.2 Water Consumption / Wastewater Production Scores of communities are distributed according to water consumption (PWA, 2005) as follows in Table 7.3.
Table 7.3: Water consumption score of each community Water consump Water Locality Locality scor No. tion score No. consumption Name Name e (L/day/c (L/day/cap) ap) Ar Ram Silat al & 1 111 5 33 55 2 Harithiya Dahiyat al Bareed 2 Al Yamun 77 4 34 Biddu 68 4 3 Kafr Dan 57 3 35 Hizma 67 4
165 Deir Abu 4 66 4 36 'Anata 88 4 Da'if Al 5 Birqin 78 4 37 108 5 'Eizariya 6 Ya'bad 54 2 38 Abu Dis 98 5 As Sawahira 7 Qabatiya 68 4 39 102 5 ash Sharqiya Al 8 Arraba 64 3 40 45 2 'Ubeidiya 9 Kafr Ra'i 72 4 41 Husan 45 2 10 Meithalun 58 3 42 Nahhalin 55 2 11 Jaba' 64 3 43 Za'tara 40 1 El Far'a 12 45 2 44 Jannatah 45 2 Camp 13 Tammun 82 4 45 Tuqu' 50 2 Beit 14 Qaffin 85 4 46 60 3 Fajjar 15 'Attil 90 4 47 Surif 30 1 Deir al Beit 16 96 5 48 50 2 Ghusun Ummar 17 Bal'a 76 4 49 Kharas 42 1 'Asira ash 18 65 3 50 Beit Ula 35 1 Shamaliya 19 'Awarta 83 4 51 Sa'ir 30 1 20 Huwwara 66 4 52 Halhul 35 1 Ash 21 Beita 56 3 53 45 2 Shuyukh Tarqumiy 22 Jamma'in 62 3 54 40 1 a Beit 23 Aqraba 106 5 55 50 2 Kahil 24 Qabalan 33 1 56 Idhna 45 2 25 'Azzun 140 5 57 Taffuh 30 1 Deir 26 Biddya 53 2 58 55 2 Samit Bani 27 Sinjil 46 2 59 42 1 Na'im Beit 28 Shuqba 24 1 60 25 1 'Awwa 29 Qibya 56 3 61 Dura 50 2 Al Jalazun 30 94 5 62 Yatta 30 1 Camp
166 Kharbatha Adh 31 57 3 63 55 2 al Misbah Dhahiriya 32 Beit Liqya 52 2 64 As Samu' 60 3
7.2.1.3 Reusing Wastewater Scores of communities are distributed by using value agricultural land map as follows in Table 7.4. (See Figure 6.1 published by MoA).
Table 7.4: Wastewater reuse score of each community Locality Agricultural Locality Agricultural No. score No. score Name land value Name land value Ar Ram & Silat al 1 High 5 33 Dahiyat al Low 1 Harithiya Bareed 2 Al Yamun High 5 34 Biddu Medium 3 3 Kafr Dan High 5 35 Hizma Low 1 Deir Abu 4 High 5 36 'Anata Low 1 Da'if Al 5 Birqin Medium 3 37 Low 1 'Eizariya 6 Ya'bad Medium 3 38 Abu Dis Low 1 As High + Sawahira 7 Qabatiya 4 39 Low 1 Medium ash Sharqiya High + Al 8 Arraba 4 40 Low 1 Medium 'Ubeidiya Low + 9 Kafr Ra'i 2 41 Husan Medium 3 Medium Low + 10 Meithalun Medium + 3 42 Nahhalin Medium 3 High Low + 11 Jaba' Medium 3 43 Za'tara 2 Medium El Far'a Low + 12 High 5 44 Jannatah 2 Camp Medium Low + 13 Tammun Low 1 45 Tuqu' 2 Medium Low + 14 Qaffin Medium 3 46 Beit Fajjar 2 Medium 15 'Attil High 5 47 Surif Low 1
167 Deir al Beit Low + 16 High 5 48 2 Ghusun Ummar Medium Low + 17 Bal'a 2 49 Kharas Low 1 Medium 'Asira ash 18 Low 1 50 Beit Ula Low 1 Shamaliya Low + Low + 19 'Awarta Medium + 3 51 Sa'ir 2 Medium High Low + Low + 20 Huwwara 2 52 Halhul 2 Medium Medium Low + Ash 21 Beita 2 53 Low 1 Medium Shuyukh Low + 22 Jamma'in 2 54 Tarqumiya Low 1 Medium Low + Low + 23 Aqraba 2 55 Beit Kahil 2 Medium Medium Low + 24 Qabalan 2 56 Idhna Low 1 Medium Low + Low + 25 'Azzun 2 57 Taffuh 2 Medium Medium Low + Low + 26 Biddya 2 58 Deir Samit 2 Medium Medium Low + Bani 27 Sinjil 2 59 Low 1 Medium Na'im Low + Beit Low + 28 Shuqba 2 60 2 Medium 'Awwa Medium Low + 29 Qibya 2 61 Dura Low 1 Medium Al 30 Jalazun Low + High 3 62 Yatta Low 1 Camp Low + Kharbatha Adh 31 Medium 3 63 Medium + 3 al Misbah Dhahiriya High Beit High + 32 4 64 As Samu' Low 1 Liqya Medium
7.2.1.4 Environmental Factor Scores of communities are distributed as follows in Table 7.5.
Table .
168 Table 7.5: Environmental factor score of each community Springs or Hydrological Hydrological No No Springs or wells Locality Name wells in the vulnerability to score Locality Name vulnerability to score . . in the region region Groundwater Groundwater Ar Ram & Silat al 1 No High 4 33 Dahiyat al High No 4 Harithiya Bareed 2 Al Yamun Yes Low 3 34 Biddu High No 4 3 Kafr Dan Yes Medium 4 35 Hizma High Yes 5 4 Deir Abu Da'if No High 4 36 'Anata High No 4 5 Birqin Yes Low 3 37 Al 'Eizariya Low Yes 3 6 Ya'bad Yes Medium 4 38 Abu Dis Low No 2 As Sawahira 7 Qabatiya Yes High 5 39 Low Yes 3 ash Sharqiya 8 Arraba Yes Low 3 40 Al 'Ubeidiya Low No 2 9 Kafr Ra'i No Medium 3 41 Husan High Yes 5 10 Meithalun No High 4 42 Nahhalin High Yes 5 11 Jaba' Yes High 5 43 Za'tara Low Yes 3 12 El Far'a Camp Yes High 5 44 Jannatah Medium No 3 13 Tammun Yes Low 3 45 Tuqu' High Yes 5 14 Qaffin Yes Low 3 46 Beit Fajjar High Yes 5 15 'Attil Yes Medium 4 47 Surif High No 4 16 Deir al Ghusun Yes Low 3 48 Beit Ummar High Yes 5 17 Bal'a Yes Medium 4 49 Kharas High No 4 'Asira ash 18 No High 4 50 Beit Ula Medium No 3 Shamaliya
169 19 'Awarta Yes Low 3 51 Sa'ir High Yes 5 20 Huwwara Yes Low 3 52 Halhul High Yes 5 21 Beita No Medium 3 53 Ash Shuyukh High Yes 5 22 Jamma'in No High 4 54 Tarqumiya High No 4 23 Aqraba Yes High 5 55 Beit Kahil High Yes 5 24 Qabalan No High 4 56 Idhna Low Yes 3 25 'Azzun Yes Medium 4 57 Taffuh High Yes 5 26 Biddya No High 4 58 Deir Samit Low No 2 27 Sinjil Yes High 5 59 Bani Na'im Low Yes 3 28 Shuqba Yes High 5 60 Beit 'Awwa Low No 2 29 Qibya No High 4 61 Dura High Yes 5 Al Jalazun 30 No High 4 62 Yatta Medium Yes 4 Camp Kharbatha al 31 No Low 2 63 Adh Dhahiriya Low No 2 Misbah 32 Beit Liqya Yes Medium 4 64 As Samu' Low Yes 3
170
7.2.1.5 Operation Body Scores of communities are distributed according to MoLG and MDLF ranking as follows in Table 7.6.
Table 7.6: Operation body score of each community
Name Locality Name Locality
(MDLF) (MDLF)
(MoLG) (MoLG)
Rank Rank Rank Rank
score score
No. No.
Silat al Ar Ram & 1 Harithi C C 3.5 33 Dahiyat al C C 3.5 ya Bareed Al 2 B C 4.0 34 Biddu C C 3.5 Yamun Kafr Village Village 3 C 2.5 35 Hizma C 2.5 Dan Council Council Deir Village 4 Abu C 2.5 36 'Anata C E 2.5 Council Da'if 5 Birqin C C 3.5 37 Al 'Eizariya C C 3.5 6 Ya'bad B C 4.0 38 Abu Dis C C 3.5 Qabati As Sawahira 7 B C 4.0 39 C C 3.5 ya ash Sharqiya 8 Arraba B C 4.0 40 Al 'Ubeidiya C C 3.5 Kafr Village 9 C C 3.5 41 Husan C 2.5 Ra'i Council Meithal Village 10 C C 3.5 42 Nahhalin C 2.5 un Council 11 Jaba' C C 3.5 43 Za'tara C C 3.5 Projects El Far'a 12 Commi C 2.5 44 Jannatah D C 2.0 Camp ttee Tammu 13 C C 3.5 45 Tuqu' C C 3.5 n 14 Qaffin C C 3.5 46 Beit Fajjar C C 3.5 15 'Attil C C 3.5 47 Surif C C 3.5 Deir al 16 C C 3.5 48 Beit Ummar C C 3.5 Ghusun 17 Bal'a C C 3.5 49 Kharas C C 3.5 'Asira ash 18 C C 3.5 50 Beit Ula C C 3.5 Shamal iya Village 19 'Awarta C 2.5 51 Sa'ir B C 4.0 Council
171 Huwwa 20 C C 3.5 52 Halhul B C 4.0 ra 21 Beita C C 3.5 53 Ash Shuyukh C C 3.5 Jamma' 22 C C 3.5 54 Tarqumiya C C 3.5 in Village 23 Aqraba C C 3.5 55 Beit Kahil C 2.5 Council Qabala 24 C C 3.5 56 Idhna B B 4.5 n 25 'Azzun C C 3.5 57 Taffuh C C 3.5 26 Biddya C C 3.5 58 Deir Samit C C 3.5 27 Sinjil C E 2.5 59 Bani Na'im B C 4.0 Village 28 Shuqba C 2.5 60 Beit 'Awwa C C 3.5 Council Village 29 Qibya C 2.5 61 Dura B B 4.5 Council Al Projects 30 Jalazun Commi C 2.5 62 Yatta B C 4.0 Camp ttee Kharba Village Adh 31 tha al C 2.5 63 B C 4.0 Council Dhahiriya Misbah Beit 32 C C 3.5 64 As Samu' B C 4.0 Liqya
7.2.1.6 Risk for Industrial Waste Scores of communities are distributed according to the number of industrial operations (stone cutting, olive press, textiles, etc) (PCBS, 2007) as follows in Table 7.7.
172
Table 7.7: Risk for Industrial Waste score of each community Locality Olive Stonecutt Tot Locality Olive Texti No. Textiles Score No. Stonecutters Total Score Name presses ers al Name presses les Ar Ram & Silat al 1 1 2 0 3 4 33 Dahiyat al 1 4 0 5 3 Harithiya Bareed Al 2 4 3 0 7 3 34 Biddu 2 3 0 5 3 Yamun 3 Kafr Dan 1 0 0 1 4 35 Hizma 0 5 0 5 3 Deir Abu 4 1 0 0 1 4 36 'Anata 0 11 0 11 2 Da'if Al 5 Birqin 3 0 0 3 4 37 0 0 1 1 4 'Eizariya 6 Ya'bad 2 0 0 2 4 38 Abu Dis 0 0 0 0 5 As Sawahira 7 Qabatiya 4 64 0 68 1 39 0 0 0 0 5 ash Sharqiya Al 8 Arraba 5 3 0 8 3 40 0 0 0 0 5 'Ubeidiya 9 Kafr Ra'i 5 1 0 6 3 41 Husan 0 0 0 0 5 Meithalu 10 2 2 0 4 4 42 Nahhalin 0 0 0 0 5 n 11 Jaba' 2 1 0 3 4 43 Za'tara 0 0 0 0 5
173 El Far'a 12 0 0 0 0 5 44 Jannatah 0 0 0 0 5 Camp 13 Tammun 0 5 0 5 3 45 Tuqu' 0 1 0 1 4 14 Qaffin 3 2 0 5 3 46 Beit Fajjar 0 182 0 182 1 15 'Attil 2 3 0 5 3 47 Surif 2 2 0 4 4 Deir al Beit 16 4 1 0 5 3 48 0 15 0 15 2 Ghusun Ummar 17 Bal'a 2 1 0 3 4 49 Kharas 2 2 0 4 4 'Asira ash 18 3 2 0 5 3 50 Beit Ula 1 0 0 1 4 Shamaliy a 19 'Awarta 2 0 0 2 4 51 Sa'ir 2 12 0 14 2 Huwwar 20 0 2 0 2 4 52 Halhul 0 9 0 9 3 a Ash 21 Beita 5 0 0 5 3 53 0 15 0 15 2 Shuyukh Tarqumiy 22 Jamma'in 2 30 0 32 1 54 1 5 0 6 3 a 23 Aqraba 2 2 0 4 4 55 Beit Kahil 0 0 0 0 5 24 Qabalan 3 1 0 4 4 56 Idhna 3 6 0 9 3 25 'Azzun 2 0 0 2 4 57 Taffuh 0 0 0 0 5 Deir 26 Biddya 5 0 0 5 3 58 1 0 0 1 4 Samit Bani 27 Sinjil 0 0 0 0 5 59 1 4 0 5 3 Na'im
174 Beit 28 Shuqba 1 1 0 2 4 60 0 13 0 13 2 'Awwa 29 Qibya 0 1 0 1 4 61 Dura 1 0 0 1 4 Al 30 Jalazun 0 0 0 0 5 62 Yatta 2 9 0 11 2 Camp Kharbath Adh 31 a al 2 2 0 4 4 63 2 8 0 10 2 Dhahiriya Misbah Beit 32 1 2 0 3 4 64 As Samu' 0 0 0 0 5 Liqya
7.2.1.7 Socio-Economic Factor Scores of communities are distributed according to percentages of the population holding a bachelor degree or a higher degree and the percentages of the economically active citizens of the total population aged 10 years and over (PCBS, 2007) as follows in Table 7.8.
175
Table 7.8: Socio-economic factor score of each community Total populatio Total B.Sc. % holds a Econo % Locality Higher No. n aged 10 Ph.D Master B.Sc. degree or B.Sc. or mically Economically Score Name Diploma years and higher higher active active over Silat al 1 6,640 13 27 4 356 400 6 2,042 31 3.0 Harithiya 2 Al Yamun 11,484 9 27 7 477 520 5 3,675 32 2.0 3 Kafr Dan 3,585 1 8 191 200 6 1,157 32 3.0
Deir Abu 4 3,805 10 3 162 175 5 1,334 35 2.0 Da'if 5 Birqin 4,159 6 20 4 336 366 9 1,518 36 4.0 6 Ya'bad 9,759 14 36 7 675 732 8 3,132 32 3.0 7 Qabatiya 13,446 10 45 12 703 770 6 3,494 26 2.0 8 Arraba 7,127 4 28 5 468 505 7 2,206 31 3.0 9 Kafr Ra'i 5,325 4 22 5 271 302 6 1,636 31 3.0 10 Meithalun 5,054 14 50 11 423 498 10 1,656 33 3.0 11 Jaba' 6,079 3 15 3 280 301 5 1,680 28 1.0 El Far'a 12 3,778 3 12 1 227 243 6 1,316 35 3.0 Camp 13 Tammun 7,651 7 35 4 570 616 8 2,586 34 3.0 14 Qaffin 6,041 3 15 1 267 286 5 1,840 30 1.0 15 'Attil 6,793 26 4 534 564 8 2,208 33 3.0 16 Deir al 6,079 7 47 13 583 650 11 2,052 34 4.0
176 Ghusun 17 Bal'a 4,756 3 15 2 225 245 5 1,474 31 2.0 'Asira ash 18 5,557 12 52 11 649 724 13 2,023 36 5.0 Shamaliya 19 'Awarta 3,982 8 1 193 202 5 1,292 32 2.0 20 Huwwara 3,948 3 20 3 221 247 6 1,201 30 2.0 21 Beita 6,198 6 33 2 383 424 7 1,902 31 3.0 22 Jamma'in 4,206 4 21 1 263 289 7 1,261 30 2.0 23 Aqraba 5,625 1 6 145 152 3 1,713 30 1.0
24 Qabalan 5,030 1 11 1 164 177 4 1,551 31 2.0 25 'Azzun 5,414 3 21 7 390 421 8 1,765 33 3.0 26 Biddya 5,563 5 41 2 377 425 8 1,791 32 3.0 27 Sinjil 3,459 5 12 4 139 160 5 1,129 33 2.0 28 Shuqba 2,929 1 6 1 105 113 4 1,014 35 2.0 29 Qibya 3,253 3 101 104 3 1,163 36 3.0
Al Jalazun 30 5,158 2 15 162 179 3 1,773 34 2.0 Camp Kharbatha 31 3,478 1 7 1 106 115 3 1,091 31 2.0 al Misbah 32 Beit Liqya 5,226 16 1 260 277 5 1,692 32 2.0 Ar Ram & 33 Dahiyat al 9,589 16 101 12 698 827 9 3,520 37 4.0 Bareed 34 Biddu 4,303 2 10 2 193 207 5 1,420 33 2.0 35 Hizma 3,962 9 28 5 329 371 9 1,286 32 3.0 36 'Anata 6,067 9 32 12 331 384 6 2,064 34 3.0
177 Al 37 8,703 18 53 10 464 545 6 2,873 33 3.0 'Eizariya 38 Abu Dis 6,141 28 119 22 647 816 13 2,307 38 5.0 As Sawahira 39 3,282 15 24 3 189 231 7 1,088 33 3.0 ash Sharqiya Al 40 7,142 3 10 1 287 301 4 2,205 31 2.0 'Ubeidiya 41 Husan 3,872 4 9 10 138 161 4 1,295 33 2.0 42 Nahhalin 4,542 11 21 12 314 358 8 1,442 32 3.0 43 Za'tara 4,209 5 17 9 305 336 8 1,316 31 3.0 44 Jannatah 3,572 2 2 98 102 3 1,023 29 1.0 45 Tuqu' 6,047 1 11 1 267 280 5 1,727 29 1.0 46 Beit Fajjar 7,517 2 17 3 264 286 4 2,387 32 2.0 47 Surif 9,381 8 31 13 789 841 9 2,198 23 2.0 Beit 48 9,331 25 55 12 799 891 10 3,066 33 3.0 Ummar 49 Kharas 4,526 3 17 4 254 278 6 1,298 29 2.0 50 Beit Ula 7,160 3 9 3 343 358 5 2,180 30 1.0 51 Sa'ir 12,046 9 24 17 540 590 5 3,608 30 1.0 52 Halhul 15,475 32 93 33 1290 1448 9 5,215 34 3.0 Ash 53 5,956 2 25 5 325 357 6 1,747 29 2.0 Shuyukh Tarqumiy 54 9,978 9 31 4 651 695 7 3,089 31 3.0 a
178 55 Beit Kahil 4,169 1 14 6 327 348 8 1,154 28 2.0 56 Idhna 13,062 18 47 8 759 832 6 4,045 31 3.0 57 Taffuh 6,877 1 15 1 245 262 4 2,014 29 1.0 58 Deir Samit 3,999 3 5 147 155 4 1,074 27 1.0 Bani 59 13,194 15 36 3 579 633 5 4,151 31 2.0 Na'im Beit 60 5,557 3 4 4 194 205 4 1,684 30 1.0 'Awwa 61 Dura 19,514 53 156 31 1914 2154 11 6,355 33 4.0 62 Yatta 31,541 21 60 11 1267 1359 4 9,083 29 1.0 Adh 63 19,245 14 41 25 793 873 5 6,152 32 2.0 Dhahiriya 64 As Samu' 13,116 9 33 6 734 782 6 3,447 26 2.0
179
7.2.1.8 Geographical Factor (topography, catchment) Scores of communities are distributed according to geographical factors as
follows in Table 7.9.
Table 7.9: Geographical factor score of each community
No. Name Locality % flow gravity catchments No. of Score No. Name Locality % flow gravity No. of
Score
catchments
Ar Ram & Silat al 50% to 1 2 3.0 33 Dahiyat al <50% > 2 1.5 Harithiya 75% Bareed Al 75% to 50% to 2 2 3.5 34 Biddu 2 3.0 Yamun 95% 75% 75% to 3 Kafr Dan > 95% 2 4.0 35 Hizma 2 3.5 95% Deir Abu 75% to 4 > 95% 1 5.0 36 'Anata 2 3.5 Da'if 95% 75% to Al 5 Birqin 2 3.5 37 <50% > 2 1.5 95% 'Eizariya 50% to 6 Ya'bad 2 3.0 38 Abu Dis <50% > 2 1.5 75% As Sawahira 50% to 7 Qabatiya > 95% 1 5.0 39 2 3.0 ash 75% Sharqiya Al 8 Arraba <50% > 2 1.5 40 <50% > 2 1.5 'Ubeidiya 50% to 9 Kafr Ra'i > 2 2.0 41 Husan <50% > 2 1.5 75% Meithalu 10 > 95% 1 5.0 42 Nahhalin <50% > 2 1.5 n 75% to 50% to 11 Jaba' 2 3.5 43 Za'tara 2 3.0 95% 75% El Far'a 12 > 95% 1 5.0 44 Jannatah <50% > 2 1.5 Camp 50% to 13 Tammun 2 3.0 45 Tuqu' > 95% 2 4.0 75%
180 50% to 14 Qaffin > 95% 2 4.0 46 Beit Fajjar 2 3.0 75% 50% to 15 'Attil > 95% 2 4.0 47 Surif 2 3.0 75% Deir al 50% to Beit 16 2 3.0 48 <50% > 2 1.5 Ghusun 75% Ummar 75% to 17 Bal'a > 2 2.5 49 Kharas > 95% 1 5.0 95% 'Asira ash 50% to 50% to 18 Shamaliy 2 3.0 50 Beit Ula > 2 2.0 75% 75% a 50% to 19 'Awarta 2 3.0 51 Sa'ir <50% > 2 1.5 75% 75% to 20 Huwwara > 95% 1 5.0 52 Halhul > 2 2.5 95% Ash 75% to 21 Beita > 95% 2 4.0 53 2 3.5 Shuyukh 95% 50% to 22 Jamma'in 2 3.0 54 Tarqumiya <50% > 2 1.5 75% 50% to 50% to 23 Aqraba 2 3.0 55 Beit Kahil 2 3.0 75% 75% 24 Qabalan > 95% 2 4.0 56 Idhna <50% > 2 1.5 50% to 25 'Azzun > 95% 2 4.0 57 Taffuh 2 3.0 75% 50% to 75% to 26 Biddya 2 3.0 58 Deir Samit > 2 2.5 75% 95% 27 Sinjil > 95% 2 4.0 59 Bani Na'im <50% > 2 1.5 50% to Beit 50% to 28 Shuqba > 2 2.0 60 > 2 2.0 75% 'Awwa 75% 75% to 29 Qibya <50% > 2 1.5 61 Dura > 2 2.5 95% Al 75% to 50% to 30 Jalazun 2 3.5 62 Yatta > 2 2.0 95% 75% Camp Kharbath 50% to Adh 31 a al 2 3.0 63 <50% > 2 1.5 75% Dhahiriya Misbah Beit 75% to 32 > 95% 1 5.0 64 As Samu' 2 3.5 Liqya 95%
182
7.2.1.9 Political Issues Scores of communities are distributed according to political issues as
follows in Table 7.10.
Table 7.10: political issues score of each community
No. Name Locality area catchment the in Settlement classifications land Political Score No. Name Locality area catchment the in Settlement classifications land Political Score
Ar Ram & Silat al 1 NO A+B 4.0 33 Dahiyat al YES B+C 2.0 Harithiya Bareed 2 Al Yamun NO A+B 4.0 34 Biddu YES B+C 2.0 3 Kafr Dan NO A+B 4.0 35 Hizma YES B+C 2.0 Deir Abu 4 NO A+B 4.0 36 'Anata YES B+C 2.0 Da'if Al 5 Birqin NO B 4.0 37 YES B+C 2.0 'Eizariya 6 Ya'bad YES B+C 2.0 38 Abu Dis YES B+C 2.0 As Sawahira 7 Qabatiya NO B 4.0 39 YES B+C 2.0 ash Sharqiya A+B Al 8 Arraba NO 3.0 40 NO A+C 3.0 +C 'Ubeidiya 9 Kafr Ra'i NO A 5.0 41 Husan NO B+C 3.0 10 Meithalun NO A 5.0 42 Nahhalin YES B+C 2.0 A+B 11 Jaba' NO B 4.0 43 Za'tara NO 3.0 +C El Far'a 12 NO A 5.0 44 Jannatah NO B+C 3.0 Camp 13 Tammun NO A+B 4.0 45 Tuqu' YES B+C 2.0 14 Qaffin NO B+C 3.0 46 Beit Fajjar NO B 4.0 15 'Attil NO B+C 3.0 47 Surif NO B+C 3.0 Deir al Beit 16 NO B+C 3.0 48 YES B+C 2.0 Ghusun Ummar A+B 17 Bal'a NO 3.0 49 Kharas NO B 4.0 +C 'Asira ash 18 NO A+B 4.0 50 Beit Ula NO B 4.0 Shamaliya
182 19 'Awarta YES B+C 2.0 51 Sa'ir NO B+C 3.0 20 Huwwara NO B+C 3.0 52 Halhul NO B+C 3.0 Ash 21 Beita NO B+C 3.0 53 NO B+C 3.0 Shuyukh Tarqumiy 22 Jamma'in NO B+C 3.0 54 YES B+C 2.0 a 23 Aqraba NO B+C 3.0 55 Beit Kahil NO B+C 3.0 24 Qabalan NO B 4.0 56 Idhna NO B+C 3.0 25 'Azzun YES B+C 2.0 57 Taffuh NO A+B 4.0 Deir 26 Biddya YES B+C 2.0 58 NO B+C 3.0 Samit A+B Bani A+B 27 Sinjil NO 3.0 59 NO 3.0 +C Na'im +C Beit 28 Shuqba NO B+C 3.0 60 YES B+C 2.0 'Awwa 29 Qibya NO B+C 3.0 61 Dura NO A+B 4.0 Al Jalazun 30 YES B+C 2.0 62 Yatta NO A+B 4.0 Camp Kharbatha Adh 31 NO B+C 3.0 63 NO A+B 4.0 al Misbah Dhahiriya 32 Beit Liqya NO B+C 3.0 64 As Samu' NO A+B 4.0
7.2.2 Evaluation Measure for Each Community
According to the previous section and normalized weight in section 6.1 we calculate the evaluation measure for each community as shown in Table 7.11.
183 Table 7.11: Calculate evaluation measure for each community Criteria Score for each community
Environmenta
consumption
Geographical Geographical
Demography
Wastewater
wastewater
production
Operation
economic
Industrial
Political Political
Reusing
Risk for Riskfor
l factor l
Waste
Water Water
Socio
Issues factor factor Score for No body Criteria Score × Locality Name each . Normalize
-
community weight (500)
/ (100)
Normalize weight 12.5 10.37 7.62 14.48 13.11 9.76 13.11 8.38 10.67 Silat al 1 0.76 5 5 4 3.5 4 3.0 3 4.0 349.5 69.9 Harithiya 2 Al Yamun 1.41 4 5 3 4 3 2.0 4 4.0 320.5 64.1 3 Kafr Dan 0.47 3 5 4 2.5 4 3.0 4 4.0 320.5 64.1 4 Deir Abu Da'if 0.56 4 5 4 2.5 4 2.0 5 4.0 323.5 64.7 5 Birqin 0.47 4 3 3 3.5 4 4.0 4 4.0 323 64.6 6 Ya'bad 1.07 2 3 4 4 4 3.0 3 2.0 292 58.4 7 Qabatiya 1.61 4 4 5 4 1 2.0 5 4.0 320.5 64.1 8 Arraba 0.81 3 4 3 4 3 3.0 2 3.0 297.5 59.5 9 Kafr Ra'i 0.57 4 2 3 3.5 3 3.0 2 5.0 308.5 61.7 10 Meithalun 0.61 3 3 4 3.5 4 3.0 5 5.0 322.5 64.5 11 Jaba' 0.71 3 3 5 3.5 4 1.0 4 4.0 305.5 61.1 12 El Far'a Camp 0.52 2 5 5 2.5 5 3.0 5 5.0 337 67.4 13 Tammun 1.09 4 1 3 3.5 3 3.0 3 4.0 288.5 57.7 14 Qaffin 0.68 4 3 3 3.5 3 1.0 4 3.0 283 56.6 15 'Attil 0.58 4 5 4 3.5 3 3.0 4 3.0 325 65
184 16 Deir al Ghusun 0.53 5 5 3 3.5 3 4.0 3 3.0 325 65 17 Bal'a 0.47 4 2 4 3.5 4 2.0 3 3.0 314.5 62.9 'Asira ash 18 0.63 3 1 4 3.5 3 5.0 3 4.0 313 62.6 Shamaliya 19 'Awarta 0.46 4 3 3 2.5 4 2.0 3 2.0 271 54.2 20 Huwwara 0.45 4 2 3 3.5 4 2.0 5 3.0 287 57.4 21 Beita 0.87 3 2 3 3.5 3 3.0 4 3.0 280.5 56.1 22 Jamma'in 0.66 3 2 4 3.5 1 2.0 3 3.0 251.5 50.3 23 Aqraba 0.78 5 2 5 3.5 4 1.0 3 3.0 317.5 63.5 24 Qabalan 0.61 1 2 4 3.5 4 2.0 4 4.0 278.5 55.7 25 'Azzun 0.69 5 2 4 3.5 4 3.0 4 2.0 312.5 62.5 26 Biddya 0.71 2 2 4 3.5 3 3.0 3 2.0 263.5 52.7 27 Sinjil 0.46 2 2 5 2.5 5 2.0 4 3.0 287.5 57.5 28 Shuqba 0.49 1 2 5 2.5 4 2.0 2 3.0 267.5 53.5 29 Qibya 0.49 3 2 4 2.5 4 3.0 2 3.0 283 56.6 Al Jalazun 30 0.62 5 3 4 2.5 5 2.0 4 2.0 299 59.8 Camp Kharbatha al 31 0.52 3 3 2 2.5 4 2.0 3 3.0 244.5 48.9 Misbah 32 Beit Liqya 0.70 2 4 4 3.5 4 2.0 5 3.0 299.5 59.9 Ar Ram & 33 Dahiyat al 1.09 2.00 1.00 4.00 3.50 3.00 4.00 1.50 2.00 278 55.6 Bareed 34 Biddu 0.72 4.00 3.00 4.00 3.50 3.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 279 55.8 35 Hizma 0.61 4.00 1.00 5.00 2.50 3.00 3.00 3.50 2.00 281 56.2
185 36 'Anata 1.83 4.00 1.00 4.00 2.50 2.00 3.00 3.50 2.00 272 54.4 37 Al 'Eizariya 1.64 5.00 1.00 3.00 3.50 4.00 3.00 1.50 2.00 298.5 59.7 38 Abu Dis 0.75 5.00 1.00 2.00 3.50 5.00 5.00 1.50 2.00 308.5 61.7 As Sawahira 39 0.67 5.00 1.00 3.00 3.50 5.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 292 58.4 ash Sharqiya 40 Al 'Ubeidiya 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.50 5.00 2.00 1.50 3.00 252 50.4 41 Husan 0.48 2.00 3.00 5.00 2.50 5.00 2.00 1.50 3.00 291 58.2 42 Nahhalin 0.73 2.00 3.00 5.00 2.50 5.00 3.00 1.50 2.00 296.5 59.3 43 Za'tara 0.63 1.00 2.00 3.00 3.50 5.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 268 53.6 44 Jannatah 0.60 2.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 5.00 1.00 1.50 3.00 249.5 49.9 45 Tuqu' 0.91 2.00 2.00 5.00 3.50 4.00 1.00 4.00 2.00 272.5 54.5 46 Beit Fajjar 1.04 3.00 2.00 5.00 3.50 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 281.5 56.3 47 Surif 1.28 1.00 1.00 4.00 3.50 4.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 260 52 48 Beit Ummar 1.24 2.00 2.00 5.00 3.50 2.00 3.00 1.50 2.00 279.5 55.9 49 Kharas 0.54 1.00 1.00 4.00 3.50 4.00 2.00 5.00 4.00 261.5 52.3 50 Beit Ula 1.11 1.00 1.00 3.00 3.50 4.00 1.00 2.00 4.00 275.5 55.1 51 Sa'ir 1.64 1.00 2.00 5.00 4.00 2.00 1.00 1.50 3.00 265 53 52 Halhul 2.16 1.00 2.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 2.50 3.00 316 63.2 53 Ash Shuyukh 0.94 2.00 1.00 5.00 3.50 2.00 2.00 3.50 3.00 265.5 53.1 54 Tarqumiya 1.32 1.00 1.00 4.00 3.50 3.00 3.00 1.50 2.00 257.5 51.5 55 Beit Kahil 0.81 2.00 2.00 5.00 2.50 5.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 283.5 56.7 56 Idhna 1.82 2.00 1.00 3.00 4.50 3.00 3.00 1.50 3.00 283.5 56.7 57 Taffuh 1.19 1.00 2.00 5.00 3.50 5.00 1.00 3.00 4.00 288.5 57.7 58 Deir Samit 0.71 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.50 4.00 1.00 2.50 3.00 241.5 48.3 59 Bani Na'im 2.23 1.00 1.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.50 3.00 258.5 51.7
186 60 Beit 'Awwa 0.72 1.00 2.00 2.00 3.50 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 210 42 61 Dura 3.20 2.00 1.00 5.00 4.50 4.00 4.00 2.50 4.00 371.5 74.3 62 Yatta 5.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 4.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 4.00 299.5 59.9 63 Adh Dhahiriya 2.79 2.00 3.00 2.00 4.00 2.00 2.00 1.50 4.00 277.5 55.5 64 As Samu' 1.89 3.00 1.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 2.00 3.50 4.00 305 61
187
7.3 Setting Priorities Communities were arranged based on the score of each community as shown in Table 7.12.
Table 7.12: Setting priorities for communities
No. Name y Localit Score No. Name y Localit Score No. Name y Localit Score
Al Jalazun Adh 1 Dura 74.3 23 59.8 45 55.5 Camp Dhahiriya Silat al 2 69.9 24 Al 'Eizariya 59.7 46 Beit Ula 55.1 Harithiya El Far'a 3 67.4 25 Arraba 59.5 47 Tuqu' 54.5 Camp 4 'Attil 65 26 Nahhalin 59.3 48 'Anata 54.4 Deir al 5 65 27 Ya'bad 58.4 49 'Awarta 54.2 Ghusun Deir Abu As Sawahira 6 64.7 28 58.4 50 Za'tara 53.6 Da'if ash Sharqiya 7 Birqin 64.6 29 Husan 58.2 51 Shuqba 53.5 Ash 8 Meithalun 64.5 30 Tammun 57.7 52 53.1 Shuyukh 9 Al Yamun 64.1 31 Taffuh 57.7 53 Sa'ir 53 10 Kafr Dan 64.1 32 Sinjil 57.5 54 Biddya 52.7 11 Qabatiya 64.1 33 Huwwara 57.4 55 Kharas 52.3 12 Aqraba 63.5 34 Beit Kahil 56.7 56 Surif 52 13 Halhul 63.2 35 Idhna 56.7 57 Bani Na'im 51.7 14 Bal'a 62.9 36 Qaffin 56.6 58 Tarqumiya 51.5 'Asira ash 15 62.6 37 Qibya 56.6 59 Al 'Ubeidiya 50.4 Shamaliya 16 'Azzun 62.5 38 Beit Fajjar 56.3 60 Jamma'in 50.3 17 Kafr Ra'i 61.7 39 Hizma 56.2 61 Jannatah 49.9 Kharbatha al 18 Abu Dis 61.7 40 Beita 56.1 62 48.9 Misbah 19 Jaba' 61.1 41 Beit Ummar 55.9 63 Deir Samit 48.3 20 As Samu' 61 42 Biddu 55.8 64 Beit 'Awwa 42 21 Beit Liqya 59.9 43 Qabalan 55.7 Ar Ram & 22 Yatta 59.9 44 Dahiyat al 55.6 Bareed
188
7.4 Sensitivity and Certainty Analysis
Weights of the criteria in this research work were identified through qualitative interview with the intergovernmental agencies that form what so called the Environmental Assessment Committee. These weights were subjected to change of time and space due to various socio-economic political and developmental changes and conditions. In order to conduct sensitivity and certainty analysis of data related, a specific case, an excel program relating the assigned criteria, and priorities were developed. Program output would rearrange priorities according to the changes occurred in the assigned criteria. Figure 7.1 shows the program structure.
Program Structure (Excel Program)
Rating each Normalize Evaluation Setting criteria Sheet d weights measure up Sheet Sheet priorities
Arranging Show the Evaluation the rating for Show the measures for communiti each criterion normalized each es based weights community on the based on Adjustable rating for each Adjustable
Figure 7.1: Program Structure (Excel Program) The program consists of four sheets, first rating for each criteria, second normalized weights sheet which is input data for the program and it is an adjustable sheet, the third and the fourth sheets are output data of the program which represent the results.
189 7.4.1 Program Implementation (Case Study): For the sensitivity analysis a fewer alternatives were assumed, with four main assumptions as follow: A. Political Solution Occurred: The political conflict will affect the ease of implementation of sanitation projects. Projects in areas which are classified as (A and B only can get relatively faster implementation process than those areas which classified as (C) since they are near settlements which would delay obtaining permits from the Israeli side. Occurrence of a political solution thus becomes a political factor without significance. B. An Increase in Water Consumption: There is a positive relationship between water consumption (therefore wastewater production) and the priority of a sewer project. In this alternative the assumption of an increase in water consumption was taken, by finding new water sources (wells, additional quantities from Mekerot, seawater desalination plants, brackish water desalination in Jordan Valley, etc.) then equitable distribution of water quantities between the localities, thus the water consumption /wastewater production becomes as a factor without significance. C. Capacity Building: Sanitation projects need a strong and effective operation body to manage such projects, due to the sensitivity of sanitation projects and, high capital cost, operation and maintenance costs and efforts.
In this alternative the assumption that PWA, stakeholders and donors will conduct capacity building for the municipalities benefiting from projects and find qualified staffs in municipalities to manage sanitation projects was taken. Thus this factor of operation body becomes without significance.
190 D. Control of Industrial Wastes: There is an impact of effluents from industrial operations (stone cutting, olive press, textiles, etc) on the effectiveness of the sanitation projects specifically on treatment plants. It is assumed that direct connection of these wastes to the collection system will not be allowed without a pre-treatment. In this alternative the assumption that a control of industrial wastes was obtained by enactment of laws and find mitigation measures to reduce the negative effect of industrial waste to sanitation projects. Thus this factor of risk from industrial wastes becomes without significance. The sensitivity program was run for the selected alternative criteria as listed in Annex B. Table 7.13.below shows the setting of priorities for the top ten communities.
Table 7.13: Setting priorities for the top ten communities according to four various alternatives No. of Alternatives Setting priorities for A B C D communities 1 Dura Dura Dura Dura Silat al 2 El Far'a Camp El Far'a Camp Qabatiya Harithiya Silat al Silat al 3 'Attil Halhul Harithiya Harithiya Deir al Silat al Deir Abu 4 'Attil Ghusun Harithiya Da'if 5 'Azzun Meithalun Kafr Dan Deir al Ghusun 6 Abu Dis Yatta 'Attil Al Yamun Deir al 7 Aqraba Kafr Dan El Far'a Camp Ghusun El Far'a 8 'Attil Birqin Halhul Camp 9 Halhul Deir Abu Da'if Meithalun Deir Abu Da'if 10 Bal'a 'Asira ash Aqraba Birqin
191 Shamaliya
The sensitivity program results shows that the setting priorities for communities are changed when we changed the alternative criteria
(political solution occurred, increase in water consumption, capacity building, and control of industrial wastes). Therefore PWA and interested/related stakeholders need to expect future changes in identified priorities depending on changes in alternative criteria (See Table ).
192 Chapter 8 Conclusione and Recommendayions
8.1 Conclusions In light of the results, observations and outcomes from research, the following are the main conclusions: The current way they are selecting target areas to sanitation projects are either based on the policies of the donor or on a non-scientific
method. So they do not take all the right criteria to make the right decision. Research shows that almost 56% of the population suffers from problems of wastewater. The 78% believed that sanitation projects
would ease the financial burden resulting from the disposal of wastewater. As evidenced by the research, citizens prefer to use sewage networks
to discharge wastewater and they are willing to contribute to the costs of creating sewage systems at a reasonable cost. Also, as demonstrated in the research, 8% of citizens support the use of treated wastewater in agriculture compared to 37% and 48% who
agree but with some preventive measures. Communities that are expected to have a population of more than 10,000 people in 2030 are 97 communities. There are 33 community containing sewage systems or in the design or implementation stage.
According to PWA Strategy, a sanitation sector will have been
193
developed in 33 communities and sanitation systems to 64 communities will have been found by 2030.
Multi-criteria decision analysis is an important tool in environmental decision-making for formalizing and addressing the problem of competing decision objectives. Characterized the MCDA undemanding and accuracy method.
The criteria that affect the decision-making process in the sanitation sector the most are: Demography, Water consumption / Wastewater production, Reusing wastewater, Environmental factor, Operation body, Risk of Industrial Waste, Socio-economic factor, Geographical
factor, and Political Issues. The top ten communities which most need to solve the problem of sewage, ordered according to importance, are: Dura, Silat al Harithiya, El Far'a Camp, 'Attil, Deir al Ghusun, Deir Abu Da'if,
Birqin, Meithalun, Al Yamun, Kafr Dan, and Qabatiya
8.2 Recommendations The recommendations listed herein support the future studies and address the following issues regarding the management of the sanitation sector:
The Palestinian Water Authority should start to identify target areas to sanitation projects by taking all the right criteria to make right decision and oblige donors on it. We recommend the Palestinian Water Authority use the MCDA
method to Identify the Setting Priorities of the Sanitation Sector in the West Bank
194
The Palestinian Water Authority should benefit from the mathematical relationships and MCDA that have been working in
this research in order to set priorities of the sanitation sector. The Palestinian Water Authority should start to plan to develop sanitation sectors in 33 communities and find sanitation systems to 64 communities by 2030.
The Palestinian Water Authority should start putting a long-term plan and a five-year plan that would include serving 20 communities whose population is of more than 10 thousand people every 5 years. The Palestinian Water Authority should start preparing feasibility
studies and master plans that contain estimated costs to the communities whose population is more than 10 thousand people and do not contain sewage systems.
195 Referances – Accorsi R, Apostolakis GE, Zio E. 1999a. Prioritizing stakeholder
concerns in environmental risk management. Journal of Risk Research 2:11–29. – Accorsi R, Zio E, Apostolakis GE. 1999b. Developing utility functions for environmental decision-making. Prog Nucl Energy
34:387–411. – Alawneh, M. and Al-Sa’ed, R. M. (1997). Review on water quality in Palestine. Groundwater and surface water. Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Energy and Environment, An-Najah University,
Nablus, Palestine. – Al-Rashdan D, Al-Kloub B, Dean A, Al-Shemmeri T. 1999. Theory
and methodology environmental impact assessment and ranking the environmental projects in Jordan. European Journal of Operational
Research 118:30–45. – Ananda J, Herath G. 2003. Incorporating stakeholder values into regional forest planning: A value function approach. Ecological
Economics 45:75–90.
– Apostolakis GE. 2001. Assessment and management of environmental risks. In: Linkov I, Palma-Oliveira J, editors. Assessment and management of environmental risks. Boston (MA), USA: Kluwer. p 211–220.
– Arvai J, Gregory R. 2003. Testing alternative decision approaches for identifying cleanup priorities at contaminated sites. Environ Sci
196
Technol 37:1469–1476.
– Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Razavieh, A., 1996, Introduction to research
in education. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers. – Baker D, Bridges D, Hunter R, Johnson G, Krupa J, Murphy J, Sorenson K. 2001. – Bardos P, Lewis A, Nortcliff S, Matiotti C, Marot F, Sullivan T. 2002.
CLARINET report: Review of decision support tools for contaminated land management, and their use in Europe. Vienna: Austrian Federal Environment Agency. – Bartlett, J., Kotrlik, J., & Higgins, C., Information Technology,
Learning, and Performance Journal, Vol. 19, No. 1, Spring 2001. – Bell M, Hobbs BF, Ellis H. 2003. The use of multi-criteria decision- making methods in the integrated assessment of climate change: Implications for IA practitioners. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences
37:289–316. – Belton V, Steward T. 2002. Multiple criteria decision analysis: An integrated approach. Boston (MA), USA: Kluwer.
– Belton, V. and Stewart, T., 2002. Multiple Criteria Decision
Analysis: An Integrated Approach. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston/Dordrecht/London. – Bonano EJ, Apostolakis GE, Salter PF, Ghassemi A, Jennings S. 2000.
Application of risk assessment and decision analysis to the evaluation, ranking and selection of environmental remediation alternatives. J Hazard Mater 71:35–57.
197
– Bose U, Davey AM, Olson DL. 1997. Multi-attribute utility methods in group decision-making: Past applications and potential for
inclusion in GDSS. – Brown B, Neil-Adger W, Tompkins E, Bacon P, Shim D, Young K. 2001. Trade-off analysis for marine protected area management. Ecological Economics 37:417–434.
– Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (CRESP). 1999. Peer review of the U.S. Department of Energy use of risk in its prioritization process. – Corporate Project 7 Team. 2003. Assessment report. Corporate project
7: A cleanup program driven by risk-based end states. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Energy. – Deschaine LM, Breslau B, Ades MJ, Selg RA, Saaty TL. 1998. Decision support software to optimize resource allocation: Theory
and case history. Society for Computer Simulation, Simulators International XV. Boston (MA), USA: Society for Modeling Simulations. p 139–144.
– Dodgson, John, Michael Spackman Alan Pearman, and Lawrence
Phillips, 2000. Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions, (DTLR). ―Multicriteria Analysis Manual.‖ National Economic Research Associates, London. December, 2000. Available on line at http://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1142253.
Viewed November 18, 2006.
– Doumpos, Michael, 2002. Multicriteria Decision Aid Classification
198
Methods. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Secaucus, NJ.
– Edwards W. 1977. How to use multi-attribute utility measurement
for social decision-making. IEEE (Inst Electr Electron Eng) Trans Biomed Eng 7:326–340. – Ehrhardt J, Shershakov VM. 1996. Real-time on-line decision
support systems (RODOS) for off-site emergency management
following a nuclear accident. – Final Report. Luxemburg: European Commission. – Florig HK, Morgan MG, Morgan KM, Jenni KE, Fischoff B, Fischbeck PS, DeKay ML. 2001. A deliberative method for ranking
risks (I): Overview and test bed development. Risk Analysis 21:913– 922. – Focht W, DeShong T, Wood J, Whitaker K. 1999. A protocol for the
elicitation of stakeholders’ concerns and preferences for incorporation into policy dialogue. – Gijzen H.J. (2001a). Aerobes, anaerobes and phototrophs: a winning team for wastewater management. Water Science and Technology,
44(8): 123-132.
– Gomez-Limon JA, Arriaza M, Riesgo L. 2003. An MCDM analysis of
agricultural risk aversion. European Journal of Operational Research 151:569–585. – Gregory R, Failing L. 2002. Using decision analysis to encourage
sound deliberation: Water use planning in British Columbia, Canada. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 21:492–499.
199
– Gregory R, Fischhoff B, Thorne S, Butte G. 2003. A multi-channel stakeholder consultation process for transmissionderegulation.
Energy Policy 31:1291–1299. – Gregory R, Keeney RL. 1994. Creating policy alternatives using stakeholder values. Management Science 40:1035–1048. – Gregory R, McDaniels T, Fields D. 2001. Decision aiding, not dispute
resolution: Creating insights through structured environmental decisions. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 20:415–432. – Gregory R, Wellman K. 2001. Bringing stakeholder values into environmental policy choices: A community-based estuary case
study. Ecological Economics 39:37–52. – Grelk B, Kloeber JM, Jackson JA, Deckro RF, Parnell GS. 1998.
Quantifying CERCLA using site decision maker values. Remediation 8:87–105.
– Grelk BJ. 1997. A CERCLA-based decision support system for environmental remediation strategy selection [thesis]. Colorado Springs (CO): U.S. Department of the Air Force, Air University, Air
Force Institute of Technology.
– Guidebook to decision-making methods. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Energy. WSRC-IM-2002-00002. – Haimes, Yacov Y., 2005. Risk Modeling, Assessment, and Management. John Wiley & Sons Incorporated, Hoboken, NJ.
– Hamalainen RP, Kettunen E, Ehtamo H. 2001. Evaluating a
framework for multistakeholder decision support in water resources
200
management. Group Decision and Negotiation 10:331–353.
– Hamalainen RP, Lindstedt M, Sinkko K. 2000. Multi-attribute risk
analysis in nuclear emergency management. Risk Analysis 20:455– 468.
– Hartman DH, Goltz MN. 2001. Application of the analytic hierarchy
process to select characterization and risk-based decision-making and management methods for hazardous waste sites. Environmental Engineering and Policy 3:1–7. – Hayashi K. 2000. Multi-criteria analysis for agricultural resource management: A critical survey and future perspectives. European
Journal of Operational Research 122:486–500. – Hobbs BF, Meier P. 2000. Energy decisions and the environment: A guide to the use of multi-criteria methods. Boston (MA), USA: Kluwer.
– In: Proceedings of the third workshop in the environmental policy and economics workshop series: Economic research and policy concerning water use and watershed management.Washington DC:
Environmental Law Institute. p 1–24.
– International Journal of Management Sciences 25:691–706. – Janssen R. 2001. On the use of multi-criteria analysis in environmental impact assessment in the Netherlands. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 10:101–109.
– Janssen, R. (1992). Multiobjective Decision Support for
201
Environmental Management. Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
– Jenni KE, Merkhofer MW, Williams C. 1995. The rise and fall of a
risk-based priority system: Lessons from DOE’s environmental restoration priority system. Risk Analysis 15:397–410. – Joerin F, Musy A. 2000. Land management with GIS and multi-
criteria analysis. International Transactions in Operational Research 7:67–78. – Kane Driscoll SB, Wickwire WT, Cura JJ, Vorhees DJ, Butler CL, Moore DW, Bridges TS. 2002. A comparative screening-level
ecological and human health risk assessment for dredged material management alternatives in New York /New Jersey Harbor. International Journal of Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 8:603–626.
– Kangas J, Kangas A, Leskinen P, Pykalainen J. 2001. MCDM methods
in strategic planning of forestry on state-owned lands in Finland: Applications and experiences. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision
Analysis 10:257–271.
– Keefer D, Kirkwood CW, Corner JL. 2002a. Perspective on decision analysis applications, 1990–2001. Decision Analysis 1: (online supplement). – Keefer D, KirkwoodCW, Corner JL. 2002b. Summary of decision
analysis applications in the operations research literature, 1990– 2001. Tucson (AZ), USA: Technical Report Department of Supply
202
Chain Management, Arizona State University.
– Keisler JM, Sundell RC. 1997. Combining multi-attribute utility and
geographic information for boundary decisions: An application to park planning. Journal of Geographic Information and Decision Analysis 1:101–118. – Kwak SJ, Yoo SH, Kim TY. 2001. A constructive approach to air-
quality valuation in Korea. Ecological Economics 38:327–344. – Lahdelma, R., P. Salminen, et al. (2000). "Using Multicriteria Methods in Environmental Planning and Management." Environmental Management 26(6): 595–605.
– Larichev OI, Olson DI. 2001. Multiple criteria analysis in strategic siting problems. Boston (MA), USA: Kluwer. Levy J, Hipel K, Kilgour DM. 2000. Using environmental indicators to quantify the robustness of policy alternatives to uncertainty. Ecol Model 130:79–
86.
– Linkov I, Sahay S, Seager TP, Kiker G, Bridges T. 2005. Multi-
criteria decision analysis: Framework for applications in remedial planning for contaminated sediments. In: Proth JM, Levner E, Linkov I, editors. Strategic management of marine ecosystems. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Kluwer. – Linkov I, Varghese A, Jamil S, Seager TP, Kiker GA, Bridges TS. 2004. Multi-criteria decision analysis: Framework for applications
in remedial planning for contaminated sites. In: Linkov I, Ramadan
203
A, editors. Comparative risk assessment and environmental decision making. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Kluwer. p 15–54.
– Linkov, I., F. K. Satterstrom, et al. (2006). "From comparative risk
assessment to multi criteria decision analysis and adaptive management: Recent developments and applications." Environment International 32: 1072–1093.
– Linkov, I., Satterstrom, F.K., Kiker, G., Seager, T.P., Bridges. T., Gardner, K.H., Rogers, S.H., Belluck, D.A., Meyer, A., 2006.
“Multicriteria Decision Analysis: A Comprehensive Decision Approach for Management of Contaminated Sediments.” Risk
Analysis, Vol. 26, No. 1. – Mahmoud N, Zimmo O., Zeeman G., Lettinga G. and Gijzen H (2004).
Perspectives for Integrated Sewage Management in Palestine/ the Middle East. Water 21.
– Mahmoud N. (2002). Anaerobic pre-treatment of sewage under low
temperature (15oC) conditions in an integrated UASB-digester system. PhD. Thesis, Wageningen University, The Netherlands. – Mahmoud N., Amarneh M., Al-Sa’ed R., Zeeman G., Gijzen H. And
Lettinga G. (2003). Sewage characterization as a tool for the application of anaerobic treatment in Palestine. Environmental Pollution, 126(1): 115-122.
204
– Males RM. 2002. Beyond expected value: Making decisions under risk and uncertainty. RMM Technical Services, under contract to
Planning and Management Consultants Ltd. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources. IWR Report 02-R- 4. www.iwr.usace.army.mil/ iwr/pdf/02r4bey_exp_val.pdf. Accessed 24 December 2012.
– Marttunen M, Hamalainen RP. 1995. Decision analysis interviews in environmental impact assessment. European Journal of Operational Research 87:551–563. – Matsatsinis NF, Samaras AP. 2001. MCDA and preference
disaggregation in group decision support systems. European Journal of Operational Research 130:414–429. – McDaniels TL, Gregory RS, Fields D. 1999. Democratizing risk
management: Successful public involvement in local water management decisions. Risk Analysis 19:497–510. – McDaniels TL, Roessler C. 1998. Multi-attribute elicitation of wilderness preservation benefits: A constructive approach.
Ecological Economics 27:299–312.
– McDaniels TL. 1995. Using judgment in resource management: A multiple objective analysis of a fisheries management decision. Operations Research 43:415–426. – Mendoza GA, Anderson AB, Gertner GZ. 2002. Integrating multi-
criteria analysis and GIS for land condition assessment: Part 2— Allocation of military training areas. Journal of Geographic
205
Information and Decision Analysis 6:17–30.
– Miettinen P, Hamalainen RP. 1997. How to benefit from decision
analysis in environmental life cycle assessment (LCA). European Journal of Operational Research 102:279–294. – Morgan MG, Fischhoff B, Bostrom A, Atman C J. 2002. Risk communication. Boston (MA), USA: Cambridge University Press.
– Morgan MG, Florig HK, DeKay ML, Fischbeck PS. 2000. Categorizing risks for risk ranking. Risk Analysis 20:49–58. – National Research Council [NRC]. 1999. New directions in water resources planning for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Washington DC: National Academy Press. – New Brunswick (NJ), USA: CRESP.
– Niemczynowics J. (1997). The water profession and agenda 21. Wat. Qual. Int. 2: 9-11.
– Palestinian Environmental Law (7), (1999). – Palestinian National Authority (1999) Environmental Law Number 7. Palestine Liberation Organization, PNA, Albireh, Palestine.
– Palestinian Water Authority (2003), WasteWater Management Plan.
– Palestinian Water Law (3), 2002. – Palestinian-Israeli Agreements (2003). – Parnell GS, Frimpon M, Barnes J, Kloeber JM Jr, Deckro RF, Jackson JA. 2001.
– Pavlikakis GE, Tsihrintzis VA. 2003. A quantitative method for
206
accounting human opinion, preferences, and perceptions in ecosystem management. J Environ Manag 68:193–205.
– PCBS, Palestinian Central Bureau for Statistics (2007). Population census for Palestine, Albireh, West Bank, Palestine – PECDAR, (2001) Palestinian Water Strategic Planning Study. – Pereira AG, Quintana SC. 2002. From technocratic to participatory
decision support systems: Responding to the new governance initiatives. Journal of Geographic Information and Decision Analysis 6:95–107. – Peterson D, Silsbee D, Schmoldt D. 1994. A case study of resources
management planning with multiple objectives and projects. Environ Manag 18:729–742. – Prato T. 2003. Multiple-attribute evaluation of ecosystem management for the Missouri River system. Ecological Economics
45:297–309. – PWA data, 2012 – PWA, (2000) National Water Plan.
– Ralston BE, Jackson JA, Kloeber JM Jr, Deckro RF. 1996.
Development of a decision support system for the Department of Energy selection of waste remediation technologies. Wright Patterson Air Force Base, USA: Center for Modeling, Simulation, and Analysis. Technical report 96-02:1–123.
– Ramanathan R. 2001. A note on the use of the analytical hierarchy process for environmental impact assessment. J Environ Manag
207
63:27–35.
– Rauscher HM, Lloyd FT, Loftis DL, Twery MJ. 2000. A practical
decision-analysis process for forest ecosystem management. Comput Electron Agric 27:195–226. – Regan, H. M., F. W. Davis, et al. (2007). "Comprehensive criteria for biodiversity evaluation in conservation planning." Biodiversity
Conservation 16: 2715–2728. – Rogers M, Bruen M. 1998. Choosing realistic values of indifference,
preference and veto thresholds for use with environmental criteria within ELECTRE. European Journal of Operational Research
107:542–551. – Saaty, & Thomas L. (1996). Mathematics and Multicriteria Decision Making. Mathematics Awareness week. University of Pittsburgh. – Safety risk analysis of an innovative environmental technology. Risk
Analysis 21:143–155. – Schmoldt D, Peterson D, Silsbee D. 1994. Developing inventory and monitoring programs based on multiple objectives. Environ Manag
18:707–727.
– Schmoldt D, Peterson D. 2001b. Strategic and tactical planning for managing national park resources. In: Name, editors. The analytical hierarchy process in natural resource and environmental decision- making. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Kluwer. p 67–79.
– Schmoldt DL, Kangas J, Mendoza GA, Pesonen M. 2001. The
analytic hierarchy process in natural resource and environmental
208
decision making. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
– Schmoldt DL, Peterson DL. 2001a. Efficient group decision making
in workshop settings. In: Name, editors. The analytical hierarchy process in natural resource and environmental decision-making. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Kluwer. P 97–114.
– Seppala J, Basson L, Norris GA. 2002. Decision analysis frameworks
for life-cycle impact assessment. J Ind Ecol 5:45–68. – Sharifi MA, van den Toorn W, Rico A, Emmanuel M. 2003.
Application of GIS and multicriteria evaluation in locating sustainable boundary between Tunari National Park and Cochabamba City (Bolivia). Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 11:151–164. – Siddiqui M, Everett J, Vieux B. 1996. Landfill siting using geographic information systems: A demonstration. Journal of
Environmental Engineering 122:515–523.
– Simon M, Pascoe S. 1999. A review of applications of multiple criteria decisionmaking techniques to fisheries. Marine Resource
Economics 14:41–63.
– Stahl CH, Cimorelli AJ, Chow AH. 2002. A new approach to
environmental decision analysis: Multi-criteria integrated resource assessment (MIRA). Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society
22:443–459.
209
– Stahl CH. 2003. Multi-criteria integrated resource assessment
(MIRA): A new decision analytic approach to inform environmental policy analysis [thesis]. Wilmington (DE), USA: University of Delaware. – Steiguer JE, Liberti L, Schuler A, Hansen B. 2003. Multi-criteria
decision models for forestry and natural resources management: An annotated bibliography. – Store R, Kangas J. 2001. Integrating spatial multi-criteria evaluation and expert knowledge for GIS-based habitat suitability modeling. Landsc Urban Plann 55:79–93.
– Timmerman TJ, Kloeber JM Jr, Jackson JA, Deckro RF. 1996.
Selecting remediation technologies through a technical risk index: An application of multi-attribute utility theory. Wright Patterson Air Force Base, USA: Center for Modeling, Simulation, and Analysis.
Technical report 96–01. – Tran L, Knight CG, O’Neill R, Smith E, Ritters K, Wickham J. 2002.
Environmental assessment fuzzy decision analysis for integrated environmental vulnerability assessment of the mid-atlantic region.
Environ Manag 29:845–859. – U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1983. The economic and
environmental principles and guidelines for water and related land resources implementation. Engineering Regulation (ER) 105-2-100.
210
– U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2003a. Environmental operating principles and implementation guidance. www.hq.usace.
army.mil/CEPA/7%20Environ%20Prin%20web%20site/Page1.html. Accessed 20 December 2012. – U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2003b. Planning civil works projects under the environmental operating principles.
Circular 1105-2-404. www.usace.army.mil/inet/usace-docs/eng- circulars/ec1105-2-404/entire.pdf. Accessed 18 December 2012. – U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE). 1998. Guidelines for risk- based prioritization of DOE Activities. Washington, DC: USDOE.
DOE-DP-STD-3023–98. – U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE). 2003. Washington, DC: USDOE-RESRAD Environmental Assessment Division. http://web.ead.anl.gov/resrad/home2. Accessed 14 December 2012.
– U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2000. Framework
for responsible environmental decision-making (FRED): Using life cycle assessment to evaluate preferability of products. Washington,
DC: USEPA. EPA/600/R-00/095.
– U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2002. Consistency
and transparency in determination of USEPA anticipated ozone designations. Special Review. Washington, DC: USEPA, Office of Inspector General. Report 2002-S-00016.
– UNEP/GPA (2000). Strategy options for sewage management to protect the marine environment. Report produced by IHE-Delft for
211
UNEP/GPA, November 2000. pp102.
– Vaillancourt K, Waaub JP. 2002. Environmental site evaluation of
waste management facilities embedded into EUGENE model: A multi-criteria approach. European Journal of Operational Research 139:436–448. – Voogd, H. (1983). Multicriteria Evaluation for Urban Regional
Planning. Great Britain, London. – Wakeman JS. 2003. Milltown reservoir sediment/Clark Fork River superfund sitefocused feasibility study. ww.epa.gov/region8/superfund/sites/mt/milltowncfr/home.html.
Accessed 24 December 2012. – Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. General technical report NE-307. – Wastewater Departments in PWA data, 2012
– Whitaker K, Focht W. 2001. Expert modeling of environmental impacts. OPS Special Issue: Environmental Policy in Oklahoma 10:179–186.
– WHO (1996). Water supply and sanitation sector monitoring. Report
1996: ―Sector status as of 31 December 1994‖. In WHO/EOS/96.15. Geneva, Switzerland. – WHO, (2006). Guideline for drinking-water quality. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 1: 52-53.
– Yatsalo, B., G. A. Kiker, et al. (2007). "Application of Multicriteria
Decision Analysis Tools to Two Contaminated Sediment Case
212
Studies." Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 3(2): 223–233.
– Yoe C. 2002. Trade-off analysis planning and procedures guidebook. http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/iwr/pdf/tradeoff.pdf. Accessed 24 December 2012.
213
ANNEX
214 ANNEX A
CITIZENS QUESTIONNAIRE
215 بسم هللا الرحمن الرحيم اؿزج١بْ ٌٍّٛ ٍّٟػاط١ٕٓ دٛي ِٛضٛع ا١ٌّبٖ اؼٌبصِخ ٚاٌوغف اٌوذٟ فٟ اٌضفخ اٌغغث١خ
٠مَٛ اٌجبدش )ثغاء جغاعػٗ( ثؼًّ عؿبٌخ ِبجـز١غ ٌٍذوٛي ٍٝػ كٙبصح اٌّبجـز١غ فٟ ٕ٘ضؿخ ا١ٌّبٖ ٚاٌج١ئخ ِٓ جبؼِخ إٌجبح
اٌٛط١ٕخ ٚثبٌزؼبْٚ ِغ ؿٍطخ ا١ٌّبٖ اٌفٍـط١ٕ١خ، د١ش رزضّٓ اٌغؿبٌخ )رذ١ًٍ اٌمغاعاد ِزؼضصح اؼٌّب١٠غ )MCDA( ٌزذض٠ض
أ٠ٌٛٚبد ٚضغ لطبع اٌوغف اٌوذٟ فٟ اٌضفخ اٌغغث١خ( ثئكغاف اٌضوزٛع ِغٚاْ دضاص، ٍٝػ أًِ أْ رـبُ٘ ٘ظا اٌغؿبٌخ فٟ
دً ٚرشف١ف ِلبوً ا١ٌّبٖ اؼٌبصِخ فٟ فٍـط١ٓ، ٌظا ٔزّٕٝ اإلجبثخ ػٓ ج١ّغ األؿئٍخ اٌزؿ ٟزطغح فٟ ٘ظا االؿزج١بْ ثىً صلخ
ٌٚىُ ج٠ؼً اٌلىغ.
1. اؼٌّغ:...... 2. ِىبْ اٌـىٓ ...... 3. اٌجؾٕ: طوغ
أٔضٝ
4. اٌذبٌخ االجزّب١ػخ: أؼػة ِزٚؼط أسغػ .5 ٜضص أفغاص األؿُغح اٌزٟ ر١ؼق فٙ١ب:
......
6. اٌذبٌخ اٌز١ّ١ٍؼخ: أُِٟ ر١ٍؼُ اثزضائٟ إػضاصٚ ٞصبٞٛٔ و١ٍخ أٚ جبؼِخ كٙبصاد
١ٍػب
7. اػ :ًّؼٌبطً ػٓ اؼًٌّ اٌوٕبػخ ٚاٌذغف اؼٌعاػخ ِٛظف عثخ ث١ذ
غ١غ طٌه
8. اٌٛضغ االلزوبصؼٌٍ ٞبئٍخ: ١ؿئ ِزؿٛظ ج١ض ؼِبعى اٌغلُ األؿئٍخ ِٛافك جضا ِٛافك ال عأؼِ ٞبعى ثلضح انًحور األول: انوضغ انًائي ِمضاع ا١ٌّبٖ اٌّزبدخ ٌه ِٓ ا١ٌّبٖ 1.1 وبف١خ ٌىبفخ اؿزشضاِبرىُ ِمضاع ا١ٌّبٖ اٌّشووخ ِٓ أجً 1.2 اإلؿزشضاَ اٌٟؼٌّٕ وبف١خ ٚرـض دبجبرىُ ِمضاع ا١ٌّبٖ اٌّشووخ ِٓ أجً 1.3 اؼٌعاػخ وبف١خ ِمضاع ا١ٌّبٖ اٌّشووخ ِٓ أجً 1.4 اإلؿزشضاِبد اٌوٕب١ػخ ٚاٌزجبع٠خ وبف١خ أٔذ عاى ػٓ سضِبد ا١ٌّبٖ اٌّمضِخ 1.5 ٌه 1.6 ثلىً رمغ٠جٟ ِمضاع إؿزٙالن ١ٌٍّبٖ فٟ اٌو١ف ------ٚ 3َفٟ اٌلزبء ------3َ
216 )ٌىً كٙغ(. ِب ٟ٘ ِالدظبرىُ ٍٝػ ِوبصع ا١ٌّبٖ اٌّزبدخ ٌه دب١ٌب:...... 1.7 ...... انًحور انثاني: انوضغ انحاني نهًياه انؼادية ورضا انًواطنين رمَٛ ثزوغ٠ف ا١ٌّبٖ اؼٌبصِخ فٟ 2.1 كجىبد اٌوغف اٌوذٟ أٔذ عاى ػٓ سضِبد اٌوغف 2.2 اٌوذٟ اٌّمضِخ ٌه لطبع اٌوغف اٌوذٟ ج١ض فٟ 2.3 ِٕطمزه رشضغ ١ٍّػبد اٌزشٍن ِٓ ا١ٌّبٖ 2.4 اؼٌبصِخ ألٛٔ ٞع ِٓ اٌغلبثخ ِب ٟ٘ ِالدظبرىُ ١ٍّػ ٍٝػبد روغ٠ف ا١ٌّبٖ اؼٌبصِخ اٌزٟ رمَٛ ثبؿزشضاِٙب:...... 2.5 ...... انًحور انثانث: آثر انًياه انؼادية ػهى انًواطنين ؿجك ٚأْ رضغعد ِٓ ا١ٌّبٖ اؼٌبصِخ 3.1 ثلىً ِجبكغ رؼبْٛٔ ِٓ ا١ٌّبٖ اؼٌبصِخ اٌمبصِخ ِٓ 3.2 اٌّـزٛطٕبد اإلؿغائ١ٍ١خ رؼزمض أْ ١ٍّػخ اٌزشٍن ِٓ ا١ٌّبٖ اؼٌبصِخ ثؼض رفغ٠غ اٌذفغ االِزوبه١خ 3.3 أٚ كجىبد اٌوغف اٌوذٟ رزُ ثلىً هذ١خ ٠زُ اٌزشٍن ِٓ ا١ٌّبٖ اؼٌبصِخ ثبٌمغة 3.4 ِٓ اٌّغاٟػ فٟ ِٕطمزه ٠زُ اٌزشٍن ِٓ ا١ٌّبٖ اؼٌبصِخ ثبٌمغة 3.5 ِٓ األكجبع ٚإٌجبربد فٟ ِٕطمزه أٞ ِٓ اٌّلبوً اٌزب١ٌخ رؼبِٕٙ ٟٔب ثـجت ا١ٌّبٖ اؼٌبصِخ )اٌّجبعٞ(: رٍٛس ١ِبٖ اٌلغة. أزلبع األِغاى ٚسوٛهب ا٠ٛؼٌّخ ِٕٙب. عٚائخ وغٙ٠خ. دلغاد ضبعح. 3.6 فئغاْ ٚجغطاْ. ف١ضبْ ا١ٌّبٖ اؼٌبصِخ ٚجغ٠بٙٔب فٟ اٌلٛاعع. ال ٛ٠جض ِلبوً. غ١غ طٌه: ...... و١ف رغٚ ٜضغ ِٕطمزىُ اٌوذٟ ِٓ ٔبد١خ ِلىٍخ ا١ٌّبٖ اؼٌبصِخ:...... 3.7 ...... انًحور انرابغ: اننواحي االقتصادية واالجتًاػية رىٍفخ اٌّزغ اٌّىؼت ِٓ ا١ٌّبٖ فٟ 4.1 ِٕطمزه ج١ض ٛ٠جض صٛ٠ْ ِزغاوّخ ١ٍػه ٔز١جخ 4.2 ر٠ٚؼضن ثب١ٌّبٖ رىٍفخ رشٍوه ِٓ ا١ٌّبٖ اؼٌبصِخ فٟ 4.3 ِٕطمزه ج١ضح ٛ٠جض صٛ٠ْ ِزغاوّخ ١ٍػه ٔز١جخ 4.4 رشٍوه ِٓ ا١ٌّبٖ اؼٌبصِخ
217 ٌضٞ إؿزؼضاص إلؿزشضاَ ا١ٌّبٖ اؼٌّبٌجخ 4.5 فٟ اؼٌعاػخ ِمبثً عٛؿَ أدضصذ ا١ٌّبٖ اؼٌبصِخ ٚطغق اٌزشٍن ِٕٙ 4.6ب ِلبوً اجزّب١ػخ ث١ٓ اٌّٛاط١ٕٓ فٟ ِٕطمزه أدضصذ ا١ٌّبٖ اؼٌبصِخ ٚطغق اٌزشٍن 4.7 ِٕٙب ِلبوً ث١ٓ اٌّٛاط١ٕٓ ٚاٌجٍض٠خ انًحور انخايس: وػي انًواطنين، وحًالت انتوػية ا١ٌّبٖ اؼٌبصِخ رؼزجغ ِٓ أوضغ 5.1 اٌّٛاض١غ دـب١ؿخ ٌٍّجزّغ دً ِلىٍخ ا١ٌّبٖ اؼٌبصِخ ٛؿف ٠ؼ٠ض 5.2 ِٓ عفب١٘خ اٌـىبْ ٠ٚغفغ ِـزٜٛ ١ؼِلزُٙ دً ِلىٍخ ا١ٌّبٖ اؼٌبصِخ ٛؿف ٠ىْٛ 5.3 ٌٗ آصغ ث١ئٚ ٟهذٚ ٟإجزّبٟػ إ٠جبثٍٝػ ٟ اٌّٛاط١ٕٓ رُ ػمض ٔضٚاد أٚ ِذبضغاد ػٓ 5.4 ا١ٌّبٖ اؼٌبصِخ رُ ر٠ػٛغ ٔلغاد أٚ ثؿٛزغاد رزذضس 5.5 ػٓ ا١ٌّبٖ اؼٌبصِخ ِٚلبوٍٙب دضغد فٍُ ٚصبئمٟ أٚ إػالْ 5.6 رٍفػ ٟٔٛ٠ؼٓ ا١ٌّبٖ اؼٌبصِخ ِٚلبوٍٙب ٚطغق ؼِبٌجزٙب انًحور انسادس: القضايا المؤسساتية ٕ٘بن ا٘زّبَ ِٓ لجً اٌّؤؿـبد 6.1 اٌذى١ِٛخ ثمطبع ا١ٌّبٖ اؼٌبصِخ ٕ٘بن رضاسً فٟ اٌّٙبَ ٚاٌٛظبئف فٟ 6.2 اٌّؤؿـبد اٌذى١ِٛخ ٕ٘بن ا٘زّبَ ِٓ لجً اٌّؤؿـبد اٌغ١غ 6.3 دى١ِٛخ ٚإٌّظّبد األ١ٍ٘خ ثمطبع ا١ٌّبٖ اؼٌبصِخ ٕ٘بن رضاسً فٟ اٌّٙبَ ٚاٌٛظبئف ث١ٓ 6.4 اٌّؤؿـبد اٌذى١ِٛخ ٚإٌّظّبد األ١ٍ٘خ أٔزُ عاضػ ْٛٓ أصاء ِمضِٟ سضِبد روغ٠ف ا١ٌّبٖ اؼٌبصِخ فٟ ِٕطمزه 6.5 )ثٍض٠بد، ِجبؾٌ لغ٠ٚخ، ِجبؾٌ سضِبد ِلزغوخ، ....(
218
المحور السابع: المشاركة باتخاذ القرارات
أ( طرق تصريف المياه العادمة ومعالجتها وإعادة استخدامها:
أٞ األِٛع اٌزب١ٌخ رفضً ٌذً ِلىٍخ ا١ٌّبٖ اؼٌبصِخ: كجىبد هغف هذٟ دفغ اِزوبه١خ
ِذطبد ؼِبٌجخ ١ٌؼِٕخ غ١غ طٌه:
......
ً٘ رؤ٠ض روغ٠ف ١ِبٖ األِطبع: ِغ كجىبد اٌوغف اٌوذٟ. كجىبد ِـزمٍخ ٌزوغ٠فٙب. أْ
ال ٠زُ روغ٠فٙب. ال أػٍُ.
ِب ٛ٘ عأ٠ه ف١ٍّػ ٟخ إػبصح اؿزشضاَ ا١ٌّبٖ اؼٌبصِخ فٟ اؼٌعاػخ ثؼض ؼِبٌجزٙب: أٚافك ثلضح أٚافك
أػبعى ٚطٌه
......
......
ب( التكاليف:
ً٘ اؼٌبئٍخ ِـزؼضح ٌٍّـبّ٘خ فٟ دً ِلىٍخ ا١ٌّبٖ اؼٌبصِخ )رىٍفخ إٔلبء كجىبد هغف هذٚ ِٟذطبد
ؼِبٌجخ( ؼُٔ، ِمضاع اٌّـبّ٘خ: ...... ال، ٚطٌه ثـجت
......
ً٘ اؼٌبئٍخ ِـزؼضح ٌٍّـبّ٘خ فٟ صفغ وٍفخ اٌو١بٔخ ٚاٌزلغ١ً ٌلجىبد اٌوغف اٌوذٚ ِٟذطبد اؼٌّبٌجخ:
ؼُٔ، ِمضاع اٌّـبّ٘خ: ...... / كٙغ ال، ٚطٌه ثـجت
......
ِب ٟ٘ أفضً اٌطغق اٌزٟ ٠ّىٓ إرجبٙػب ِٓ أجً رغط١خ رىب١ٌف رلغ١ً كجىبد ِٚذطبد اٌوغف اٌوذٟ:
......
......
......
219
ج( إدارة قطاع المياه العادمة:
أٞ ِٓ ا٢رٟ رفضً أْ ٠مَٛ ثئصاعح لطبع اٌوغف اٌوذؿ :ٍٟطخ ا١ٌّبٖ ؿٍطخ جٛصح اٌج١ئخ
ػٚاعح اٌذىُ اٌّذػٚ ٍٟاعح اٌوذخ ٌجٕخ ِلزغوخ ِٓ اػٌٛاعاد، ٌّٚبطا:
......
......
......
أٞ ِٓ ا٢رٟ رفضً أْ ٠مَٛ ثزمض٠ُ سضِبد روغ٠ف ا١ٌّبٖ اؼٌبصِخ: اٌّجبؾٌ اٌمغ٠ٚخ ٚاٌجٍض٠بد
ِجبؾٌ سضِبد ِلزغوخ كغوبد ٚاٌمطبع اٌشبم ؿٍطخ ا١ٌّبٖ ؿٍطخ جٛصح اٌج١ئخ
ػٚاعح اٌذىُ اٌّذٍٟ ٌجٕخ ِذ١ٍخ، ٌّٚبطا: .....
......
......
ِب ٟ٘ األِٛع ٚاإلجغاءاد اٌزٟ رفضً إرجبٙػب ػٕض إصاعح ا١ٌّبٖ اؼٌبصِخ:
......
......
...... د( اقتراحات:
الزغادبد رذجْٛ أْ رؤسظ ث١ؼٓ االػزجبع ٌذً ِلىٍخ ا١ٌّبٖ اؼٌبصِخ ِٓ ٔبد١خ إصاع٠خ ٚرٕظ١ّ١خ
......
......
......
الزغادبد رذجْٛ أْ رؤسظ ث١ؼٓ االػزجبع ٌذً ِلىٍخ ا١ٌّبٖ اؼٌبصِخ فٟ فٍـط١ٓ ثلىً ػبَ
......
......
......
220 ANNEX B
EQA TERMS OF REFERENCE (TOR)
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231 ANNEX C
POPULATION PROJECTION
232
Actual Growth Actual Growth
No. ofNo. Buildings
Population 2007 Population 1997 Population 2010 Population 2020 Population 2030
No. ofNo. Housing
CommentNo.*
Establishments
Locality Name
of Householdof
AverageSize
Localitycode
(2007 (2007
Households
Projected Projected Projected
اؿُاٌزجّغ
Female
Actual Actual
No. of No. of No.
Units
Total
Male
- -
1997) 1997)
- -
Rate Rate
Jenin Gov. 1,93 ػَ 1,934 1,564 2.15 2.15 2,061 2,549 3,152ثُٛثٗ Zububa 10005 958 976 425 406 62 5.4 359 َ 4 Rumma 1,61 1,52 3,14 5,388 4,261 3,369 2.38 2.38 2,483 3,140 ُعِب َٔخ 596 5.3 68 579 642 10010 َّ na 2 8 0 1,00 1,642 1,324 1,067 2.18 2.18 806 1,000 رؼ ِّٕه Ti'innik 10015 477 523 216 192 23 5.6 178 ِ ِ 0 At 1,11 1,04 2,15 3,447 2,810 2,291 2.06 2.06 1,757 2,155 اٌ َط ١ْجخ 416 5.2 72 477 487 10020 َ Tayba 1 4 5 Arabbu ػَ 810 630 2.54 2.54 873 1,123 1,444غثُّٛ َٔخ 160 5.1 40 168 186 810 400 410 10025 َ na Al 1,03 1,02 2,06 3,217 2,650 2,183 1.96 1.96 1,697 2,060 اٌج ٍَّخ 413 5 84 402 490 10030 َ َ Jalama 4 6 0 Silat al ١ؿ ٍَ ْخ 1,86 9,42 4,54 4,87 Harithi 10035 1,600 244 5.6 1,669 9,422 7,246 2.66 2.66 10,194 13,256 17,236 اٌذبعص١َّخ 7 2 5 7 ِ ِ ya As 79 75 71 0.50 2.90- 94 70 اٌـؼب٠ َضح 13 5.4 5 21 14 70 38 32 10040 َ ِ Sa'aida 1,93 1,75 3,69 ػَ 3,691 2,739 3.03 3.03 4,037 5,440 7,330ب١ٔٓ Anin 10045 793 565 93 5.6 658' ِ 1 7 4
233 1,03 1,99 ػَ 1,996 1,579 2.37 2.37 2,141 2,707 3,422 َّغا َٔخ Arrana 10050 959 415 397 70 5.4 367' 7 6 Deir ص٠غ Ghazal 10055 456 439 895 203 175 51 5.1 177 ِ 895 629 3.59 3.59 995 1,416 2,014 َغؼا ٌَخ a 1,77 1,69 3,46 6,517 4,953 3,764 2.78 2.78 1 2,635 3,467 َف ُّمػَ ٛخ Faqqu'a 10060 753 716 145 5 689 2 5 7 س ْغثخ Khirbet 165 103 64 4.81 4.81 35 56 ِ َ 9 6.2 9 19 9 56 24 32 10070 ؿُ ُغٚط Suruj Al 8,30 8,08 16,3 3,50 16,38 12,25 31,943 23,894 17,874 2.95 2.95 ا١ٌبِْٛ 2,965 5.5 485 2,672 10080 Yamun 2 1 83 1 ُ َ 3 5 Umm أَ ar 10085 197 173 370 76 66 3 5.7 65 370 275 3.01 3.01 404 544 732 اٌغ٠ذبْ Rihan Kafr 2,65 2,49 5,14 1,08 10,565 7,729 5,654 3.18 3.18 3,766 5,148 وفغ صاْ 981 5.2 188 1,048 10095 Dan 1 7 8 7 Khirbet سغثخ 'Abdall ػ 138 104 2.87 2.87 150 199 264جض هللا 33 4.2 1 40 32 138 54 84 10105 ah al اؾٔٛ١ٌ Yunis Dhaher ظٙغ al 10115 115 83 198 40 45 14 5 40 198 160 2.15 2.15 211 261 323 اٌّبٌخ Malih Barta'a ثغطؼخ ash 2,19 1,97 4,17 10120 873 894 440 5.1 817 4,176 2,814 2 4.03 4.03 4,701 6,976 10,353 اٌلغل١خ Sharqiy 7 9 6 a Al 1,12 1,03 2,16 4,546 3,290 2,381 3.29 3.29 1,564 2,161 اؼٌغلخ 367 5.9 70 387 431 10125 'Araqa 9 2 1 47 40 34 1.71 1.71 27 32 اٌج١ّال Al 10135 18 14 32 5 3 0 6.4 5
234 د Jameela t Beit 1,44 3,424 2,355 1,619 3.82 3.82 3 995 1,447 ث١ذ لبص 265 5.5 71 308 296 716 731 10140 Qad 7 Tura al طٛعح Gharbi 10145 491 427 918 245 272 60 4.7 197 918 817 1.17 1.17 951 1,068 1,200 اٌغغث١خ ya Tura طٛعح ash 10150 84 90 174 37 43 14 5 35 174 133 2.72 2.72 189 247 323 اٌلغل١خ Sharqiy a Al 1,05 2,712 1,796 1,189 4.21 4.21 696 1,051 اٌٙبك١ّخ Hashim 10155 519 532 205 202 17 5.7 186 1 iya Nazlat ؼٌٔخ ash 1,312 1,001 764 2.74 2.74 537 704 اٌل١ز 119 5.9 24 135 164 704 333 371 10165 Sheikh ٠ػض Zeid At 627 498 395 2.33 2.33 293 369 اٌطغَ 70 5.3 10 78 83 369 185 184 10170 Tarem Khirbet al سغثخ Muntar 25 23 22 0.50 1.27- 25 22 إٌّطبع 6 3.7 2 6 6 22 11 11 10175 al اٌغغث١خ Gharbi ya 19,7 19,2 39,0 9,21 3,1 39,00 27,77 85,164 60,646 43,186 3.45 3.45 4 ج١ٕٓ Jenin 10180 5,392 5.1 7,609 66 38 04 5 00 4 5 10,37 ِش١ُ Jenin 5,10 5,26 10,3 2,31 10185 1,196 262 5.1 2,039 8,991 1.44 1.44 10,825 12,486 14,403 1 ج١ٕٓ Camp 4 7 71 8
235 1,22 1,16 2,39 4,383 3,367 2,587 2.67 2.67 1,836 2,390 جٍجJalbun 10190 523 500 157 5.2 463 ْٛ 5 5 0 ػ 204 122 5.28 5.28 238 398 666بثب Aba 10195 105 99 204 37 36 7 5.7 36'
سغثخ ِـٛؼص Khirbet 10200 26 21 47 14 11 0 4.3 11 47 46 0.22 0.22 47 48 49 )ػغاق Mas'ud اٌضٚاع( Khirbet al سغثخ Muntar 8 7 7 0.50 6.00- 13 7 إٌّطبع 2 3.5 2 5 9 7 4 3 10205 ash اٌلغل١خ Sharqiy a Kafr 1,14 2,712 1,863 1,279 3.83 3.83 5 785 1,143 وفغ لٛص 215 5.3 49 211 239 612 531 10210 Qud 3 Deir ص٠غ أثٛ 1,05 5,57 2,79 2,77 Abu 10215 1,101 338 6 935 5,572 3,897 3.64 3.64 6,203 8,869 12,681 ض١ؼف 0 2 5 7 Da'if 2,86 2,82 5,68 1,25 10,555 8,065 6,163 2.73 2.73 4,344 5,685 ثغل١ٓ Birqin 10220 1,001 271 5.1 1,115 3 2 5 9 Umm 1,015 782 602 2.65 2.65 429 557 أَ صاع 108 5.2 41 138 115 557 280 277 10225 Dar Al 1,144 804 566 3.58 3.58 358 509 اٌشٍجبْ 88 5.8 45 113 99 509 250 259 10230 Khuljan ٚاصWad ad ٞ 10235 213 198 411 72 71 3 6 69 411 272 4.21 4.21 465 703 1,062 اٌضجغ 'Dabi Dhaher ظٙغ al 10240 189 174 363 67 71 5 5.6 65 363 273 2.89 2.89 395 526 699 اؼٌجض 'Abed ػ 944 711 6 2.88 2.88 1,028 1,365 1,812ثضح Zabda 10245 487 457 944 194 174 14 5.1 184
236 6,86 6,77 13,6 3,01 13,64 10,62 2.53 2.53 14,701 18,873 24,229 ؼ٠جض Ya'bad 10265 2,284 499 5.5 2,486 1 9 40 7 0 5 1,24 1,15 2,40 4,684 3,506 2,624 2.94 2.94 1,801 2,406 وف١غد Kufeirit 10275 528 409 84 5.6 433 8 8 6 839 623 463 3.02 3.02 314 423 إِغ٠ذخ Imreiha 10285 199 224 423 87 94 13 5 85
Umm 1,939 1,447 1,080 2.97 2.97 738 989 أَ اٌزٛد 169 5.9 35 182 195 989 494 495 10295 at Tut Ash 1,74 3,579 2,621 1,919 3.17 3.17 1,280 1,748 اٌلٙضاء Shuhad 10300 865 883 363 344 92 5.5 319 8 a Jalqam 1,00 1,99 4,673 3,225 2,226 3.78 3.78 1,375 1,992 جٍمؽّٛ 343 5.8 74 362 391 991 10305 us 1 2 Al 1,23 1,19 2,42 5,848 3,985 2,715 3.91 3.91 1,649 2,420 اٌّغ١غ Mugha 10310 478 393 58 6 404 0 0 0 yyir Al 783 512 335 4.33 4.33 193 295 اٌّطٍخ 57 5.2 12 57 57 295 147 148 10315 Mutilla ث١غ Bir al 1,30 10320 692 615 260 232 14 6 217 1,307 962 3.11 3.11 1,433 1,947 2,645 اٌجبكب Basha 7 اٌذف١غح Al 60 59 58 0.17 0.17 57 58 )دف١غح 13 4.5 0 13 15 58 28 30 10335 Hafira ػغاثٗ( Qabatiy 9,73 9,45 19,1 3,90 19,19 14,52 36,465 27,588 20,873 2.83 2.83 7 لجبط١خ 3,495 5.5 679 3,393 10340 a 9 8 97 5 7 4 4,96 4,95 9,92 2,06 ػ 9,920 7,574 8 2.74 2.74 10,756 14,088 18,452غاثخ Arraba 10370 1,669 407 5.5 1,811 6 4 0 6 1,128 573 292 7.00 7.00 9 121 238 رٍف١ذ Telfit 10385 119 119 238 74 41 32 4.1 58 1,61 3,533 2,511 1,785 3.47 3.47 1,145 1,611 ِغوخ Mirka 10395 825 786 288 251 52 5.7 284 1 ٚ 123 87 3.52 3.52 136 193 273اصWadi 10400 63 60 123 21 26 2 7.2 17 ٞ
237 صٛػق Du'oq Fahma فذّخ al 10401 179 190 369 71 77 8 5.7 65 369 258 3.64 3.64 411 588 840 اٌجض٠ضح Jadida 1,57 1,56 3,14 1 6,657 4,805 3,468 3.31 3.31 2,270 3,145 عاثب Raba 10405 598 558 140 5.7 548 9 6 5 0 Al إٌّوٛ Mansur 10410 94 79 173 31 36 1 6 29 173 111 4.54 4.54 198 308 480 عح a 1,23 1,15 2,38 5,527 3,837 2,664 3.72 3.72 1,658 2,388 ِـ١ٍخ Misliya 10415 491 429 79 5.4 440 2 6 8 Al 90 77 66 1.55 1.55 54 63 اٌجغثب 13 4.8 10 19 15 63 30 33 10430 Jarba Az 1,89 1,77 3,66 1,31 6,568 5,096 3,955 2.57 2.57 2,844 3,665 اؼٌثبثضح Zababi 10435 844 268 4.4 826 1 4 5 0 da 1,28 1,20 2,48 5,251 3,794 2,741 3.30 3.30 1,796 2,486 فذّخ Fahma 10445 440 451 66 5.8 432 5 1 6 Az 1,925 1,292 868 4.06 4.06 517 770 اؼٌا٠ٚخ 111 6.9 15 140 136 770 366 404 10460 Zawiya وفغ Kafr 3,70 3,66 7,36 1,55 10465 1,296 228 5.3 1,385 7,364 5,758 2.49 2.49 7,928 10,139 12,967 عاRa'i 4 0 4 9 ٟػ Al 48 46 44 0.50 1.09- 48 43 اٌىف١غ 8 5.4 2 22 20 43 22 21 10485 Kufeir 1 1,293 1,017 800 2.43 2.43 585 744 ه١غ Sir 10495 377 367 744 179 192 22 5.4 137 1 2,58 2,47 5,05 ػ 5,055 3,790 2.92 2.92 5,511 7,351 9,804جخ Ajja 10500 998 875 178 5.6 897' 3 2 5 1,87 ؼٕػ 1,873 1,477 2.40 2.40 2,011 2,551 3,234ح Anza 10505 941 932 499 476 53 4.7 395' 3
238 2,07 1,99 4,06 7,379 5,695 4,396 2.62 2.62 3,139 4,067 هبٛٔع Sanur 10510 832 735 119 5.8 698 4 3 7 Ar 2,272 1,565 1,078 3.80 3.80 664 964 اٌغاِخ 172 5.6 14 181 206 964 468 496 10515 Rama Meithal 3,59 3,35 6,95 1,43 13,825 10,255 7,607 3.03 3.03 5,159 6,955 ١ِضٍْٛ 1,258 5.5 249 1,258 10520 un 6 9 5 2 Al 2,37 2,36 4,73 1,01 8,958 6,791 5,148 2.81 2.81 3,592 4,738 اٌجض٠ضح 923 5.1 157 953 10565 Judeida 7 1 8 7 اؼٌوبal ػ 10585 232 232 464 62 57 7 7.3 64 464 343 3.07 3.07 508 687 930 هخ Asa'asa' Al 1,15 2,799 1,908 1,300 3.91 3.91 790 1,159 اؼٌطبعح 199 5.8 36 228 228 551 608 10590 'Attara 9 2,49 2,39 4,88 ١ؿ 4,886 3,714 2.78 2.78 5,305 6,979 9,181غSiris 10600 939 800 123 6 812 ؾ٠ 3 3 6 4,31 4,18 8,49 1,76 16,222 12,243 9,240 2.85 2.85 6,409 8,492 ججغ Jaba' 10605 1,485 293 5.7 1,498 1 1 2 4 Al اٌفٕضلِٛ 3,40 1,65 1,74 Fandaq 10615 689 556 88 5.7 596 3,401 2,476 3.23 3.23 3,741 5,138 7,058 ٠خ 1 2 9 umiya Silat ١ؿٍخ 1,22 5,79 2,85 2,93 adh 10625 996 265 6.1 946 5,794 4,609 2.31 2.31 6,206 7,801 9,807 اٌظٙغ 3 4 7 7 Dhahr يجًوع Total 130, 126, 256, 55,2 44,35 11, 47,43 256,6 192,7 502,050 374,234 279,832 3.01 يحافظة Jenin 5 328 291 619 76 0 133 7 19 13 جنين .Gov Tubas Gov. 1,63 3,770 2,623 1,825 3.69 3.69 1,139 1,637 ثغصٌخ Bardala 50420 816 821 286 261 17 6 271 7 ١ػٓ Ein el 1,16' 50450 599 564 205 185 17 5.9 197 1,163 781 4.06 4.06 1,311 1,952 2,906 اٌج١ضب Beida 3
239 1 735 503 344 3.87 3.87 210 307 وغصٌخ Kardala 50455 166 141 307 52 39 3 6.3 49 2 17.2 17.2 8,188 1,669 340 43 211 إث٠ؼك Ibziq 50490 108 103 211 37 36 1 6.6 32 4 4 ؿ 45 53 -1.62 0.50 46 48 50ٍذت Salhab 50525 24 21 45 8 8 6 9 5
'Aqqab 3,42 3,12 6,54 1,20 ػ 6,548 4,385 4.09 4.09 7,385 11,028 16,468مبثٗ 1,127 5.8 193 1,033 50535 a 6 2 8 7 1,30 1,18 2,48 5,739 3,991 2,776 3.70 3.70 1,731 2,489 ر١ب١ؿغ Tayasir 50550 496 420 49 5.3 467 0 9 9 Al 169 161 153 0.50 0.20- 154 151 اٌفبع١ؿخ 29 5.2 0 28 28 151 70 81 50551 Farisiya Al 165 135 110 2.04 2.04 85 104 اؼٌمجخ 23 4.5 5 27 20 104 50 54 50560 'Aqaba Ath 11.3 11.3 6,419 2,199 753 187 546 اٌضغغح Thaghr 50575 285 261 546 126 121 16 5.5 100 1 1 a Al 2,997 1,207 486 9.52 9.52 149 370 اٌّبٌخ 58 6.4 0 57 57 370 180 190 50580 Malih 8,13 8,01 16,1 3,50 16,15 11,61 34,483 24,798 17,833 3.35 3.35 طٛثبTubas 50610 2,657 699 5.5 2,933 ؽ 5 9 54 8 4 7 557 227 93 9.37 9.37 29 71 ولضح Kashda 50650 34 37 71 10 12 5 8.9 8
سغثخ Khirbet 50656 22 17 39 13 13 5 4.9 8 39 23 5.42 5.42 46 77 131 ٠غػح Yarza عاRas al ؽ 50670 360 346 706 140 109 24 5.6 125 706 506 3.39 3.39 780 1,089 1,519 اٌفبعػخ Far'a ِش١ُ El Far'a 2,85 2,85 5,71 1,14 50700 706 162 5.5 1,048 5,712 4,152 3.24 3.24 6,286 8,647 11,896 اٌفبعػخ Camp 6 6 2 8 سغثخ Khirbet 11.1 11.1 2,051 710 246 62 179 اٌغاar Ras 50720 110 69 179 30 30 0 5.1 35 ؽ 8 8 األدّغ al
240 Ahmar ٚاصWadi al 1,41 1,32 2,73 ٞ 50740 516 553 119 5.8 474 2,730 1,691 4.91 4.91 3,152 5,088 8,215 اٌفبعػخ Far'a 0 0 0 Tammu 5,40 5,39 10,7 2,23 10,79 24,642 17,212 12,022 3.65 3.65 7,540 طّْٛ 1,965 5.5 329 1,911 50755 n 2 3 95 5 5 سغثخ Khirbet 50790 91 80 171 34 37 20 6.1 28 171 76 8.45 8.45 218 491 1,104 ػبطٛف Atuf' 1 سغثخ Khirbet 50871 64 69 133 22 22 0 6 22 133 149 -1.13 0.50 135 142 149 3 دّوخ Humsa يجًوع Total 25,5 24,7 50,2 10,1 1,6 50,26 34,76 132,355 83,997 56,340 6.25 3.76 يحافظة Tubas 8,265 5.6 9,004 33 28 61 78 70 1 2 طوباس .Gov Tulkarem Gov. 10025 ػ 254 192 2.84 2.84 276 365 483ىبثخ Akkaba 123 131 254 46 69 18 6.2 41 0 10029 4,34 4,04 8,38 1,78 15,398 11,823 9,079 2.68 2.68 6,440 8,387 لف١ٓ Qaffin 1,474 236 5.3 1,587 0 5 2 7 3 ؼٌٔخ Nazlat 10033 1,20 1,12 2,33 482 431 50 5.3 440 2,334 1,844 2.38 2.38 2,505 3,171 4,013 ١ػـIsa 0 8 6 4 ٝ' An Nazla اؼٌٌٕخ 1,51 10034 ash 803 711 313 263 23 5.5 277 1,514 1,214 2.23 2.23 1,618 2,017 2,516 اٌلغل١خ 4 5 Sharqiy a Baqa 1 ثبلخ ash 10035 2,10 1,99 4,10 923 768 144 5.4 762 4,101 3,159 2.64 2.64 4,435 5,757 7,474 4 اٌلغل١خ Sharqiy 0 3 8 1 a اؼٌٌٕخ An 10035 174 166 340 81 82 12 4.6 74 340 306 1.06 1.06 351 390 433 اؿٌٛطNazla 5 ٝ
241 al Wusta An Nazla اؼٌٌٕخ 10038 al 484 453 937 177 187 17 6 156 937 652 3.69 3.69 1,045 1,501 2,158 اٌغغث١خ 0 Gharbi ya 10042 1,38 1,47 2,85 ٠ػ 2,852 2,315 2.11 2.11 3,036 3,740 4,608زب Zeita 630 506 86 5.1 560 5 2 0 2 10044 1,52 1,40 2,92 5,280 4,087 3,163 2.60 2.60 2,267 2,929 ه١ضا Seida 624 601 79 5.2 568 0 3 6 9 10047 3,15 3,03 6,19 1,36 ػ 6,190 5,068 2.02 2.02 6,573 8,028 9,805الع Illar 1,198 173 5.4 1,142' 5 5 5 0 2 10048 4,58 4,45 9,03 2,00 ػ 9,038 7,661 1.67 1.67 9,497 11,205 13,218ز١ً Attil 1,672 373 5.3 1,720' 0 7 1 8 8 ص٠غ Deir al 10053 4,19 4,04 8,24 1,77 1,313 237 5.2 1,578 8,242 6,969 1.69 1.69 8,667 10,251 12,123 اٌغوGhusun 0 8 4 2 2 ْٛ Al اٌجبعٚ 10054 Jarushi 462 470 932 213 191 33 5.1 183 932 668 3.39 3.39 1,030 1,437 2,005 ك١خ 5 ya Al اٌّـمٛ 10055 Masquf 124 136 260 52 50 5 5.5 47 260 156 5.24 5.24 303 505 842 فخ 5 a 10057 3,35 3,25 6,60 1,40 10,614 8,635 7,026 2.08 2.08 5,373 6,604 ثؼٍب Bal'a 1,375 262 5.5 1,202 0 2 2 4 4 10059 1,38 1,27 2,66 10,704 5,848 3,195 6.23 6.23 1,456 2,665 إوزبثب Iktaba 490 551 49 5.8 463 5 9 6 5 ِش١ُ Nur 10062 3,28 3,19 6,47 1,33 ٛٔ 6,479 5,814 1.09 1.09 6,693 7,458 8,312ع Shams 761 179 5.3 1,216 0 2 7 9 6 كCamp ؾّ
242 Tulkar 10,64 ِش١ُ 2,09 10,6 5,35 5,28 10063 m 1,146 245 5.4 1,962 9,948 0.68 0.68 10,858 11,615 12,424 1 طٌٛىغَ 7 41 6 5 5 Camp Tulkar 10064 25,8 25,4 51,3 12,2 2,9 51,30 39,97 1 91,038 70,944 55,285 2.53 2.53 طٌٛىغَ 9,877 5.2 7,143 m 5 17 83 00 37 21 0 7 5 10066 3,62 3,70 7,32 1,78 1 ػ 7,329 6,032 1.97 1.97 7,770 9,441 11,471ٕجزب Anabta 1,460 274 5.1 1,440 5 5 4 9 8 6 Kafr al 10069 2,06 2,01 4,07 1 7,775 5,870 4,432 2.85 2.85 3,076 4,074 وفغ اٌٍجض 693 5.9 99 747 757 Labad 0 3 1 4 7 10071 1,143 727 463 4.63 4.63 257 404 وفب Kafa 218 186 404 87 77 7 5.4 75 0 اٌذفبه Al 10071 76 81 157 31 32 3 5.8 27 157 118 2.90 2.90 171 228 303 Haffasi 5 ٞ 10073 1,80 2,578 2,209 1,892 1.56 1.56 1,547 1,806 عا١ِٓ Ramin 889 917 390 369 42 5.1 353 0 6 10073 1,54 1,55 3,10 5,856 4,441 3,368 2.80 2.80 2,351 3,100 فغFar'un 752 507 83 4.9 633 ْٛػ 5 9 1 0 10076 1,14 1,05 2,19 1 4,225 3,178 2,390 2.89 2.89 1,650 2,194 كٛفخ Shufa 475 465 97 5.5 400 0 1 3 4 8 سغثخ Khirbet 10078 143 150 293 67 64 12 4.7 63 293 241 1.97 1.97 311 378 459 ججبعح Jubara 0 10079 ؿ 760 764 -0.05 0.50 771 811 852فبع٠ٓ Saffarin 377 383 760 153 149 16 5.6 136 5 Beit 10080 2,49 2,49 4,99 1,01 6,846 5,969 5,204 1.38 1.38 4,354 4,994 ث١ذ ١ٌض 947 5.3 150 954 Lid 0 6 8 4 1 10081 1,265 874 603 3.77 3.77 373 540 اٌغاAr Ras 275 265 540 111 106 9 5.6 96 ؽ 5 وفغ Kafr 10084 1,11 565 552 263 262 63 5 222 1,117 924 1.92 1.92 1,182 1,429 1,728 هٛع Sur 5 7 324 295 269 0.92 0.92 239 262 وٛع Kur 10087 123 139 262 69 72 8 4.9 54
243 0 وفغ Kafr 10089 1,07 522 556 261 251 34 5.2 208 1,078 962 1.14 1.14 1,115 1,250 1,401 ٠ػجبص Zibad 5 8 وفغ Kafr 10090 1,22 1,19 2,42 510 441 68 5.3 455 2,424 1,882 2.56 2.56 2,615 3,368 4,338 جّبي Jammal 0 7 7 4 Kafr وفغ 1,45 10091 'Abbus 721 736 346 355 43 5.2 281 1,457 1,096 2.89 2.89 1,587 2,110 2,804 ػجٛف 7 5 h Total يجًوع Tulkar 79,8 78,1 157, 35,1 26,09 6,1 29,93 157,9 127,3 266,817 211,355 168,779 2.50 يحافظة 5.3 em 06 82 988 01 2 50 8 88 45 طونكرو Gov. Nablus Gov. Bizzari 15066 1,18 1,07 2,25 5,037 3,549 2,501 3.56 3.56 1,587 2,252 ثؼاع٠خ 380 5.9 84 442 413 ya 0 0 2 2 15068 1,87 1,79 3,67 1 5,893 4,797 3,904 2.08 2.08 2,987 3,670 ثغلخ Burqa 925 792 134 5 733 0 4 6 0 9 15069 1,06 1,02 2,08 3,375 2,737 2,219 2.12 2.12 1,690 2,084 ٠به١ض Yasid 430 391 56 6 349 5 1 3 4 ث١ذ Beit 15070 1,40 1,41 2,82 616 471 101 5.3 528 2,821 2,121 2.89 2.89 3,073 4,087 5,436 إِغ٠ٓ Imrin 5 3 8 1 ٔوف Nisf 15074 195 199 394 104 90 17 4.7 83 394 373 0.55 0.55 401 423 447 جج١ً Jubeil 5 Sabasti 15076 1,30 1,30 2,61 ؿ 2,614 2,143 2.01 2.01 2,775 3,384 4,128جـط١خ 515 5.1 95 523 615 ya 5 6 8 4 Ijnisiny 15077 802 656 536 2.03 2.03 413 505 إجٕـ١ٕب 106 4.8 15 140 135 505 252 253 a 0 15077 1,20 1,16 2,37 3,621 3,015 2,509 1.85 1.85 1,977 2,375 طػٍٛح Talluza 507 440 72 5.5 429 5 6 9 5 2,645 2,094 1,657 2.36 2.36 1,223 1,545 إٌبلٛعح An 15078 800 745 1,54 327 278 44 5.3 290
244 Naqura 5 5 Al 15080 1,27 1,21 2,48 5,312 3,818 2,744 3.36 3.36 1,786 2,485 اٌجبطاْ 447 5.6 87 441 514 Badhan 5 3 2 5 ص٠غ Deir 15081 1,22 1,23 2,46 578 446 85 5.3 464 2,460 2,035 1.91 1.91 2,604 3,148 3,805 كغف Sharaf 0 2 8 0 'Asira ػو١غح ash 15082 3,82 3,72 7,55 1,84 1,367 276 5.1 1,490 7,556 5,724 2.82 2.82 8,212 10,841 14,310 اٌلّب١ٌخ Shamal 0 7 9 6 5 iya An إٌوبع 1,58 15082 Nassari 785 800 304 286 60 6.1 259 1,585 999 4.72 4.72 1,820 2,888 4,582 ٠خ 5 5 ya 15083 1,87 ٚػ 1,875 1,401 2.96 2.96 2,046 2,739 3,665ارب Zawata 953 922 459 317 59 5.2 360 5 5 Al 2 اؼٌمغثبٔ 1,00 15084 'Aqraba 494 507 196 204 28 6.4 157 1,001 703 3.60 3.60 1,113 1,585 2,256 0 ٠خ 1 0 niya 15085 1,70 3,328 2,491 1,864 2.94 2.94 1,279 1,709 لٛه١ٓ Qusin 866 843 339 319 60 5.7 300 5 9 15086 1,59 1,56 3,15 5,832 4,462 3,413 2.71 2.71 2,410 3,150 ث١ذ إ٠جب Beit Iba 847 626 134 5 628 0 0 0 0 ث١ذ Beit 15086 1,12 563 558 206 174 42 5.9 190 1,121 879 2.46 2.46 1,206 1,538 1,961 دـٓ Hasan 5 1 ث١ذ Beit 15087 1,05 518 539 267 199 27 5.1 207 1,057 826 2.50 2.50 1,138 1,456 1,864 Wazan 5 7 ْػٚ 'Ein ِش١ُ Beit el 15088 2,03 1,94 3,97 ١ػ 3,979 3,715 0.69 0.69 4,062 4,350 4,660ٓ ث١ذ 769 5.2 72 404 810 Ma 0 2 7 9 اٌّبء Camp ١ػ 335 146 8.66 8.66 430 986 2,263ٓ Ein 15088 164 171 335 76 75 16 5.9 57'
245 كجShibli 5 ٍٟ 15091 1,31 1,33 2,65 ِٛؼػ 2,650 2,009 2.81 2.81 2,880 3,798 5,010ط Azmut 553 453 61 5.9 449' 0 8 2 0 15092 63,6 62,4 126, 32,0 10,41 7,7 25,10 126,1 99,20 2 219,132 172,350 135,555 2.43 2.43 ٔبثNablus 5 ؾٍ 0 88 44 132 18 5 87 4 32 4 1 11,60 ِش١ُ Askar 15093 5,80 5,79 11,6 2,32' 1,096 268 5.5 2,114 9,372 2.16 2.16 12,376 15,328 18,983 ػ 7ـىغ Camp 0 8 9 07 7 ص٠غ Deir al 15093 1,09 1,12 2,21 430 329 30 6 368 2,213 1,665 2.89 2.89 2,410 3,203 4,258 اٌذطت Hatab 5 3 0 3 15095 1,31 1,24 2,56 3,905 3,251 2,707 1.85 1.85 2,133 2,562 هغح Sarra 499 422 82 5.5 463 0 4 8 2 15095 2,48 2,57 5,06 ؿ 5,062 3,749 3.05 3.05 5,539 7,479 10,099بٌُ Salim 923 779 117 6 841 5 8 4 2 13,01 15,24 ِش١ُ Balata 15096 7,48 7,75 15,2 3,17 1,512 416 5.5 2,759 1.60 1.60 15,989 18,732 21,946 4 7 ثالطخ Camp 0 9 8 47 3 ػغاق Iraq 15097' 401 367 768 161 170 13 5.2 147 768 568 3.06 3.06 841 1,137 1,537 ثٛع٠ٓ Burin 5 15099 2,18 2,15 4,34 7,159 5,761 4,636 2.20 2.20 3,496 4,344 رً Tell 869 770 152 5.6 778 0 7 7 4 ث١ذ Beit 15100 1,75 1,73 3,48 740 613 98 5.4 640 3,485 2,647 2.79 2.79 3,785 4,983 6,560 صجٓ Dajan 0 3 2 5 15101 2,17 2,03 4,20 9,955 6,842 4,702 3.82 3.82 2,888 4,202 عٚج١ت Rujeib 869 631 120 5.5 770 0 1 1 2 Kafr 15102 1,23 1,21 2,45 4,752 3,563 2,672 2.92 2.92 1,838 2,451 وفغ ل١ًٍ 423 5.8 16 338 475 Qallil 5 5 6 1 فغٚف Furush 15103 862 821 781 0.50 1.05- 855 769 ث١ذ Beit 417 352 769 177 167 50 6.4 121 0 صجٓ Dajan Madam 15105 1,75 4,020 2,803 1,954 3.67 3.67 1,223 1,754 ِبصِب 325 5.4 41 289 387 882 872 a 0 4
246 15108 1,15 1,15 2,30 3,624 2,979 2,449 1.98 1.98 1,898 2,309 ثٛع٠ٓ Burin 539 472 70 5.4 429 0 5 4 9 10,33 ث١ذ Beit 15109 5,24 5,09 10,3 2,22 1,982 384 5.2 1,999 7,672 3.03 3.03 11,307 15,238 20,535 9 فٛع٠ه Furik 0 7 2 39 9 'Asira ػو١غح 2,36 1,16 1,19 15109 al 476 391 99 6 392 2,366 1,686 3.45 3.45 2,619 3,676 5,158 اٌمج١ٍخ 6 9 7 5 Qibliya 15113 2,89 2,72 5,62 1,11 ٛػ 5,623 4,286 2.75 2.75 6,100 8,003 10,500عرب Awarta 890 105 5.7 992' 5 5 8 3 8 15116 1,53 1,39 2,92 ٛػ 2,921 2,094 3.38 3.38 3,228 4,502 6,281ع٠ف Urif 552 512 73 5.9 493' 0 0 1 1 15118 1,13 2,552 1,794 1,262 3.59 3.59 798 1,135 أٚصال Odala 567 568 194 196 35 6.6 173 0 5 Huwwa 15118 2,78 2,78 5,57 1,13 10,237 7,857 6,030 2.68 2.68 4,275 5,570 دٛاعح 971 5.7 284 888 ra 5 3 7 0 0 'Einabu 15119 1,21 1,12 2,34 ١ػ 2,340 1,637 3.64 3.64 2,605 3,723 5,322ٕجؽٛ 421 5.6 65 428 479 s 5 2 8 0 15120 114 109 104 0.50 1.02- 113 102 ٠بYanun 54 48 102 28 36 9 5.4 19 ْٛٔ 0 15121 4,71 4,36 9,07 1,72 19,734 14,080 10,047 3.43 3.43 6,478 9,079 ث١زب Beita 1,599 290 5.8 1,566 5 5 4 9 4 Ar 15122 2 17 16 15 0.50 6.38- 29 15 اٌغجّبْ 4 3.8 0 16 14 15 7 8 Rajman 0 2 Zeita ٠ػزب 2,11 1,00 1,11 15123 Jamma' 351 375 46 6.8 309 2,115 1,447 3.87 3.87 2,370 3,464 5,063 جّب١ػٓ 5 5 0 0 in Jamma' 15124 3,16 3,05 6,22 1,17 14,870 10,183 6,974 3.86 3.86 4,263 6,225 جّب١ػٓ 1,010 6.2 283 1,112 in 5 9 6 5 0 15126 1,61 3,172 2,363 1,761 2.99 2.99 1,201 1,612 أٚهغ٠ٓ Osarin 818 794 319 330 31 5.6 288 5 2
247 15127 4,19 3,98 8,18 1,75 ػ 8,180 5,849 3.41 3.41 9,046 12,651 17,693مغثب Aqraba 1,573 293 5.9 1,389 0 8 2 0 7 15128 ػػ 44 43 0.23 0.23 44 45 46زغح Za'tara 22 22 44 15 10 0 4.4 10 5 Tall al 24.1 رً 15131 Khasha 13 13 26 16 15 0 5.2 5 26 3 2.86 28 38 50 0 اٌشلجخ 1 ba 15132 1,42 1,42 2,85 5,193 4,002 3,085 2.64 2.64 2,199 2,853 ٠زّب Yatma 563 491 79 5.5 517 5 5 8 3 Qabala 15133 3,66 3,46 7,13 1,52 13,827 10,367 7,773 2.92 2.92 5,346 7,130 لجالْ 1,250 5.7 308 1,481 n 5 5 5 0 6 15134 1,40 2,900 2,113 1,540 3.22 3.22 1,020 1,400 جٛع٠ق Jurish 710 690 267 253 36 6.3 222 5 0 15136 2,23 2,14 4,37 8,523 6,379 4,774 2.94 2.94 3,276 4,377 لوغح Qusra 777 803 169 6.5 674 5 1 6 7 15137 1,42 1,39 2,82 4,984 3,893 3,041 2.50 2.50 2,206 2,824 رٍف١ذ Talfit 481 448 65 6.7 420 5 6 8 4 As 15138 1,22 1,16 2,39 5,275 3,741 2,653 3.50 3.50 1,697 2,393 اٌـب٠ٚخ 383 6.2 52 447 478 Sawiya 0 8 5 3 ِجضي Majdal 15138 1,23 1,14 2,38 5,856 3,960 2,679 3.99 3.99 1,611 2,382 ثBani 457 394 68 5.9 404 ٟٕ 5 3 9 2 فبضً Fadil Al Lubban اٌٍجٓ 2,46 1,22 1,24 15140 ash 453 390 57 6 410 2,465 1,844 2.95 2.95 2,689 3,595 4,806 اٌلغل١خ 5 2 3 5 Sharqiy a 15141 1,16 1,15 2,32 2 3,930 3,126 2,486 2.32 2.32 1,846 2,321 لغٛ٠د Qaryut 431 387 61 5.9 396 0 7 4 1 3 988 711 512 3.34 3.34 334 464 جبٌٛص Jalud 15142 229 235 464 94 91 5 5.5 85
248 0 'Ammu 15143 ّٛػ 302 231 2.72 2.72 327 428 559ع٠خ 48 6.3 5 62 58 302 151 151 riya 5 15144 1,04 1,05 2,09 2 3,687 2,886 2,259 2.48 2.48 1,643 2,099 صِٚب Duma 389 403 80 6.2 341 5 1 8 9 4 يجًوع Total 162, 158, 320, 72,1 42,88 13, 59,66 320,8 248,1 588,897 451,018 346,862 2.86 2.60 يحافظة Nablus 5.4 241 589 830 99 4 867 3 30 03 نابهس .Gov Qalqiliya Gov. Falamy 20090 1,114 871 681 2.49 2.49 495 633 فال١ِخ 114 5.6 20 133 122 633 325 308 a 5 Kafr وفغ 2,90 1,41 1,48 20092 Qaddu 564 520 64 5.9 490 2,908 2,450 1.73 1.73 3,061 3,634 4,313 لضَٚ 8 9 9 5 m 20094 1,11 1,08 2,19 4,384 3,246 2,404 3.05 3.05 1,627 2,197 ج١ذ Jit 409 306 52 5.9 375 5 2 5 7 Baqat ثبلخ 1,64 20096 al 891 753 331 348 80 5.5 297 1,644 1,226 2.98 2.98 1,795 2,407 3,228 اٌذطت 4 5 Hatab 20097 1,10 1,04 2,14 3,340 2,756 2,275 1.94 1.94 1,773 2,148 دجخ Hajja 472 450 89 5.5 389 0 1 7 8 20098 1,47 1,42 2,89 4,817 3,860 3,093 2.24 2.24 2,319 2,894 جJayyus 555 515 105 5.4 538 ؽٛ١ 5 3 1 4 2 سغثخ Khirbet 20099 232 215 447 120 117 24 4.9 92 447 380 1.64 1.64 469 552 649 5 ه١غ Sir 5 'Arab ar ػغة Ramadi اٌغِبض 20100 n ash 44 37 81 18 37 19 5.1 16 81 51 4.73 4.73 93 148 235 ٠ٓ 5 Shamal اٌلّبٌٟ i
249 20101 1,375 987 709 3.37 3.37 461 642 فغػزب Far'ata 341 301 642 112 120 15 6.4 101 5 Immati 20102 1,22 1,16 2,38 5,093 3,664 2,636 3.35 3.35 1,718 2,388 إِبر١ٓ 433 5.5 71 448 479 n 0 1 7 8 Al 20103 2,347 1,434 876 5.05 5.05 462 756 اٌفٕضق 149 5.1 91 160 165 756 357 399 Funduq 5 Qalqili 20104 21,2 20,4 41,7 8,68 1,9 41,73 31,35 80,584 60,538 45,479 2.90 2.90 لٍم١ٍ١خ 7,844 5.3 5,219 ya 0 55 84 39 0 25 9 6 An إٌجٟ 1,17 20105 Nabi 600 571 226 185 94 5.4 216 1,171 852 3.23 3.23 1,288 1,771 2,433 إ١ٌبؽ 1 5 Elyas وفغ Kafr 20106 427 429 856 187 170 42 5.5 157 856 690 2.18 2.18 913 1,133 1,405 اللف Laqif 5 'Arab ػغة 20107 Abu 56 60 116 24 37 1 4.8 24 116 77 4.18 4.18 131 198 298 أثٛ فغصح 0 Farda ؼػ 2ثخ Izbat at 20107' 114 117 231 46 62 29 5.8 40 231 167 3.30 3.30 255 352 487 6 اٌطج١ت Tabib 5 جٕوبفٛ 2,11 1,04 1,07 20108 Jinsafut 384 348 90 6 351 2,119 1,599 2.86 2.86 2,306 3,056 4,049 ط 9 3 6 5 20110 4,02 3,79 7,82 1,43 Azzun 1,225 339 6 1,309 ْٚؼػ 7,821 5,794 3.05 3.05 8,558 11,551 15,592' 0 7 4 1 4 ػغة Arab ar' اٌغِبض Ramadi 20110 118 104 222 40 54 9 5.6 40 222 136 5.02 5.02 257 420 685 ٠ٓ n al 5 اٌجٕٛثJanubi ٟ 20111 ػ 855 622 3.23 3.23 941 1,293 1,777ـٍخ Isla 461 394 855 141 124 27 6.2 137' 5 - ػغة Arab 20111 14 11 25 9 10 1 4.2 6 25 4,314 0.50 25 27 28 40.2 اٌشٌٛخ Al- 6
250 Khoule 5 h ٚاصWadi ar 20112 ٞ 85 70 155 23 18 4 6.7 23 155 76 7.39 7.39 192 391 798 اٌغكب Rasha 0 20112 3,09 2,92 6,01 1,13 12,927 9,270 6,647 3.38 3.38 4,314 6,016 دجٍخ Habla 707 215 5.7 1,062 5 4 2 6 9 عاRas at 20113 ؽ 210 184 394 70 74 9 6.7 59 394 278 3.55 3.55 437 620 879 اٌط١غح Tira 0 عاRas 20115 1,52 ؽ 781 741 292 244 71 5.7 269 1,522 1,121 3.11 3.11 1,668 2,265 3,075 ػط١خ Atiya 5 2' Ad 20117 1,250 705 398 5.89 5.89 189 335 اٌضجؼخ 57 5.9 8 57 59 335 165 170 Dab'a 0 Kafr 20117 1,96 1,95 3,92 6,935 5,412 4,224 2.51 2.51 3,060 3,921 وفغ صٍش 696 5.6 172 669 747 Thulth 5 6 5 1 ؼػثخ Izbat 20119' 64 48 112 22 27 4 5.1 22 112 100 1.14 1.14 116 130 145 جٛؼٍص Jal'ud 0 Al 20120 980 560 320 5.75 5.75 155 271 اٌّضٚع Mudaw 141 130 271 44 53 15 6.3 43 5 war ؼػثخ Izbat 20121' 373 349 722 138 114 30 5.6 130 722 451 4.82 4.82 831 1,331 2,131 ؿٍّبْ Salman 0 ؼػثخ Izbat al 20122' 169 146 315 61 67 13 6.3 50 315 293 0.73 0.73 322 346 372 األكمغ Ashqar 5 ث١ذ Beit 20125 1,01 534 476 174 169 18 6 168 1,010 804 2.31 2.31 1,082 1,359 1,707 أ١ِٓ Amin 5 0 Sanniri 20126 1,48 1,29 2,78 ١ٕؿ 2,780 2,095 2.87 2.87 3,026 4,016 5,329غ٠ب 476 5.8 68 493 532 ya 0 5 5 0 Azzun 20128 1,77 ْٚؼػ' 933 838 309 311 65 5.7 310 1,771 1,171 4.22 4.22 2,005 3,032 4,586 ػزّخ Atma 0 1' 179,348 133,336 99,515 3.34 72,67 91,21 يجًوع Total 46,7 44,4 91,2 18,1 13,59 3,8 5.5 16,48
251 6 7 يحافظة Qalqili 64 53 17 28 1 79 3 قهقيهية ya Gov. Salfit Gov. 2 ص٠غ Deir 25125 1,58 1,56 3,14 707 618 105 5.3 592 3,146 2,818 1.11 1.11 3,252 3,630 4,053 7 إؿز١ب Istiya 0 2 4 6 لغاٚح Qarawa 25127 2,00 1,79 3,80 8,579 6,022 4,227 3.60 3.60 2,668 3,801 ثt Bani 732 792 134 5.7 669 ٟٕ 5 5 6 1 دـبْ Hassan 25129 1,14 3,078 2,001 1,301 4.40 4.40 743 1,143 ل١غح Qira 575 568 206 167 31 6.5 176 0 3 وفً Kifl 25129 1,61 1,63 3,24 704 630 122 5.4 599 3,248 2,323 3.41 3.41 3,592 5,022 7,021 دبعHaris 5 3 5 8 ؽ 25130 1,00 1,99 3,350 2,672 2,132 2.29 2.29 1,589 1,992 ِغصا Marda 991 382 318 36 5.7 348 0 1 2 25130 4,13 3,93 8,06 1,66 16,028 11,890 8,820 3.03 3.03 5,982 8,064 ثض٠ب Biddya 1,577 404 5.5 1,471 5 4 0 4 8 25131 1,54 1,56 3,11 2 6,874 4,870 3,451 3.51 3.51 2,205 3,112 دبعHaris 614 445 81 5.8 534 ؽ 0 5 7 2 8 25131 1,62 2,867 2,238 1,746 2.51 2.51 1,265 1,621 ٠بٛؿف Yasuf 829 792 374 311 53 5.2 312 5 1 25132 1,00 2,00 4,397 3,124 2,219 3.48 3.48 1,423 2,003 ِـذخ Mas-ha 998 544 508 181 5.2 384 0 5 3 25133 1,273 1,101 953 1.46 1.46 789 912 إؿىبوب Iskaka 492 420 912 193 161 34 5.9 155 0 25134 1,33 1,19 2,53 5,040 3,735 2,768 3.04 3.04 1,875 2,530 هغطخ Sarta 515 513 64 5.4 466 0 9 1 0 'Izbat - ؼػثخ 25135 Abu 8 3 11 2 2 0 11 1 11 35 10.9 0.50 11 12 12 أثٛ آصَ 5 Adam 3
252 Az 25136 2,39 2,36 4,75 8,747 6,710 5,147 2.69 2.69 3,647 4,754 اؼٌا٠ٚخ 888 5.4 136 938 992 Zawiya 0 2 2 4 25137 4,40 4,39 8,79 2,11 ؿ 8,796 7,010 2.30 2.30 9,416 11,815 14,825ٍف١ذ Salfit 1,590 436 4.8 1,840 0 2 4 6 1 25139 1,86 3,314 2,579 2,007 2.54 2.54 1,448 1,861 عافبد Rafat 975 886 363 361 38 5.4 344 5 1 25140 1,66 1,57 3,23 5,241 4,250 3,446 2.12 2.12 2,624 3,236 ثغٚل١ٓ Bruqin 627 604 85 5.7 564 0 5 1 6 25141 1,36 2,248 1,810 1,458 2.19 2.19 1,100 1,366 فغسخ Farkha 693 673 265 247 27 6.2 222 5 6 2 وفغ Kafr ad 25142 2,28 2,26 4,55 990 830 132 5.2 884 4,553 3,708 2.07 2.07 4,842 5,946 7,301 9 اٌض٠ه Dik 5 9 4 3 ص٠غ Deir 25143 1,62 1,57 3,19 703 592 66 5.2 609 3,195 2,645 1.91 1.91 3,381 4,084 4,934 ثٍٛط Ballut 0 1 4 5 سغثخ Khirbet 25144 120 106 226 54 53 3 5 45 226 182 2.19 2.19 241 299 372 لQeis 0 ؾ١ يجًوع Total 30,2 29,2 59,5 12,7 11,25 2,1 11,10 59,57 46,07 109,553 83,809 64,409 2.62 يحافظة Salfit 5.4 75 95 70 46 7 68 3 0 9 سهفيث .Gov Ramallah & Al-Bireh Gov. Qarawa لغاٚح 2,91 1,41 1,50 30145 t Bani 530 444 73 5.8 504 2,915 1,932 4.20 4.20 3,298 4,976 7,507 ث٠ػ ٟٕض 5 2 3 5 Zeid Bani Zeid 3 ث٠ػ ٟٕض 5,08 2,47 2,60 30146 ash 962 887 140 5.7 888 5,083 3,825 2.88 2.88 5,536 7,356 9,776 0 اٌلغل١خ 3 7 6 0 Sharqiy a Kafr 30147 1,74 3,597 2,625 1,916 3.20 3.20 1,272 1,743 وفغ ١ػٓ 341 5.1 36 329 379 868 875 'Ein 0 3
253 Bani 30148 2,81 2,70 5,51 1,17 9,786 7,626 5,943 2.52 2.52 4,298 5,515 ث٠ػ ٟٕض 1,094 5 133 937 Zeid 0 1 4 5 6 'Abwei 30148 1,55 1,56 3,11 ػ 3,119 2,399 2.66 2.66 3,375 4,387 5,704ج٠ٛٓ 572 5.5 81 572 574 n 5 2 7 9 Turmus 30149 1,82 1,91 3,73 5,713 4,750 3,949 1.86 1.86 3,106 3,736 رغِـ١ؼب 625 6 127 840 935 'ayya 0 0 6 6 Al اٌٍجٓ Lubban 30149 1,47 709 767 261 202 42 6 248 1,476 1,054 3.42 3.42 1,633 2,287 3,202 اٌغغثal 5 6 ٟ Gharbi 30150 2,56 2,66 5,23 1,02 ؿ 5,236 3,883 3.03 3.03 5,727 7,723 10,414ٕجً Sinjil 806 127 5.4 965 0 8 8 6 9 ص٠غ Deir as 30150 1,00 1,99 983 347 288 20 6.1 326 1,991 1,521 2.73 2.73 2,159 2,826 3,699 اٌـٛصاْ Sudan 5 8 1 30151 1,36 1,16 2,53 4,268 3,403 2,712 2.29 2.29 2,020 2,534 عٔزRantis 446 385 60 6 421 ؾ١ 5 7 7 4 30152 807 778 749 0.37 0.37 714 741 جٍج١ٍ١ب Jilijliya 351 390 741 222 225 9 4.8 154 0 30152 1,23 ػ 1,237 1,013 2.02 2.02 1,313 1,604 1,958جٛي Ajjul 636 601 227 206 16 5.6 220' 5 7 Al 30153 1,22 1,14 2,36 5,194 3,691 2,623 3.47 3.47 1,683 2,368 اٌّغ١غ Mugha 414 439 61 6.3 376 0 0 8 8 yyir 30153 1,06 1,01 2,08 ػ 2,084 1,716 1.96 1.96 2,209 2,683 3,258بثٛص Abud 452 353 55 5 419' 5 5 9 4 An إٌجٟ 30154 Nabi 286 248 534 101 96 11 5.9 91 534 366 3.85 3.85 598 873 1,273 هبٌخ 0 Salih سغثخ Khirbet 30154 2,03 1,96 3,99 718 612 98 6.4 620 3,996 2,863 3.39 3.39 4,416 6,164 8,603 أثٛ فالح Abu 5 6 0 6
254 Falah Umm 30155 961 790 649 1.98 1.98 503 612 أَ هفب 114 5.4 19 100 119 612 298 314 Safa 0 Al Mazra'a اؼٌّعػخ 1,06 4,49 2,26 2,22 30155 ash 958 140 5.7 792 4,495 3,612 2.21 2.21 4,800 5,973 7,433 اٌلغل١خ 6 5 7 8 5 Sharqiy a Deir 30156 1,857 1,341 969 3.31 3.31 635 879 ص٠غ ٔظبَ 139 6.3 8 105 136 879 412 467 Nidham 0 30156 1,13 1,13 2,27 ػ 2,270 1,640 3.30 3.30 2,503 3,464 4,795طبعح Atara 495 421 39 5.5 413' 5 1 9 0 Deir ص٠غ أثٛ 3,52 1,72 1,79 30157 Abu 703 613 97 5.2 672 3,522 2,402 3.90 3.90 3,951 5,793 8,494 ِلؼً 2 8 4 0 Mash'al 30157 281 213 161 2.83 2.83 112 148 ج١ج١ب Jibiya 71 77 148 33 28 4 5.7 26 5 30158 1,712 1,098 704 4.54 4.54 395 616 ثغ٘بَ Burham 306 310 616 130 99 5 5.1 120 5 3 وفغ Kafr 30159 1,36 1,42 2,78 664 631 127 5 561 2,787 2,220 2.30 2.30 2,984 3,746 4,703 1 ِبٌه Malik 0 6 1 7 30159 2,30 2,19 4,49 11,177 7,523 5,064 4.04 4.04 3,027 4,497 كمجب Shuqba 883 684 164 5.7 793 5 2 5 7 30160 1,88 1,79 3,67 8,433 5,878 4,097 3.68 3.68 2,563 3,677 وٛثغ Kobar 707 630 72 5.5 668 0 5 2 7 30160 2,54 2,35 4,90 11,055 7,762 5,450 3.60 3.60 3,441 4,901 لج١ٗ Qibya 838 776 126 6.1 803 5 5 6 1 30161 3,07 3,05 6,12 1,68 ٍٛؿ 6,123 5,064 1.92 1.92 6,482 7,837 9,476اص Silwad 1,197 191 4.9 1,237 0 2 1 3 3 1,260 941 703 2.96 2.96 481 644 ٠جغٚص Yabrud 30161 337 307 644 136 102 9 5.8 111
255 5 AL- 30162 3,52 3,28 6,80 1,10 3 14,794 10,554 7,528 3.44 3.44 4,853 6,803 االرذبص 1,055 6.4 115 887 Itihad 0 1 2 3 1 2 30162 1,781 1,287 930 3.30 3.30 610 844 كجز١ٓ Shabtin 449 395 844 157 108 8 5.7 149 5 30163 2,26 2,26 4,52 1,77 5,080 4,832 4,597 0.50 0.21- 4,625 4,529 ث١غ٠ػذ Bir Zeit 841 262 4.5 1,005 5 1 8 9 2 AL- 30163 84 67 53 2.26 2.26 40 50 اٌضٚدخ 10 5 0 52 29 50 19 31 Doha 6 ١ػٓ Ein 30164' 349 362 711 169 190 19 5.2 136 711 526 3.06 3.06 778 1,052 1,422 ١ٕ١ؿب Siniya 0 ِش١ُ Silwad 30164 215 167 382 71 61 14 5.6 68 382 296 2.58 2.58 412 532 687 ٍٛؿاص Camp 5 ص٠غ Deir 30165 1,97 2,00 3,98 838 487 95 5.3 750 3,986 3,004 2.87 2.87 4,339 5,757 7,639 جغ٠غ Jarir 0 7 9 6 ِش١ُ Deir 30166 1,83 2,677 2,271 1,927 1.66 1.66 1,556 1,834 ص٠غ Amma 931 903 359 252 55 5.9 311' 0 4 ػّبع r Camp 30166 1,39 2,672 2,017 1,522 2.85 2.85 1,056 1,399 ثضعBudrus 690 709 273 225 23 5.9 236 ؽ 5 9 AL- 30167 3,20 2,98 6,19 1,19 3 14,596 10,052 6,923 3.80 3.80 4,263 6,190 ا٠ؼٌزٛٔخ Zaytou 1,084 103 6 1,027 0 5 5 0 8 3 neh 30167 1,71 6,718 3,711 2,050 6.11 6.11 948 1,716 جفٕب Jifna 860 856 470 366 48 4.5 378 5 6 صٚعا Dura al 30168 1,42 1,46 2,89 640 360 47 5.4 541 2,897 1,913 4.24 4.24 3,281 4,969 7,525 اٌمغع Qar' 0 8 9 7 At 30168 1,45 1,628 1,549 1,474 0.50 0.22- 1,484 1,452 اٌط١جخ 333 4.4 87 376 442 760 692 Tayba 5 2 13,994 10,862 8,430 2.57 2.57 6,064 7,813 ِش١ُ Al 30170 3,94 3,87 7,81 1,54 908 197 5.6 1,401
256 اٌجJalazun 0 2 1 3 5 ْٚؼٍ Camp Abu 30170 1,40 2,503 1,947 1,514 2.54 2.54 1,092 1,404 أثٛ لق 273 5.1 66 290 401 697 707 Qash 5 4 ص٠غ Deir 30171 1,00 1,94 936 397 290 50 5.6 345 1,942 1,374 3.52 3.52 2,154 3,045 4,304 لضQaddis 0 6 2 ؾ٠ 30171 2,31 2,25 4,57 ١ٍؼٔ 4,573 3,317 3.26 3.26 5,035 6,942 9,571ٓ Ni'lin 979 686 217 5.3 869 5 9 4 3 ١ػٓ Ein 30172 1,42 1,57 2,99' 852 629 103 5.2 577 2,999 2,483 1.91 1.91 3,174 3,833 4,630 ٠جغٚص Yabrud 0 7 2 9 سغثضب Kharbat 30172 1,47 1,36 2,84 6,198 4,418 3,150 3.44 3.44 2,029 2,846 ثha Bani 519 453 88 5.8 487 ٟٕ 5 7 9 6 دبعس Harith عاRas 30173 1,66 ؽ 850 813 308 219 30 5.8 288 1,663 1,325 2.30 2.30 1,780 2,234 2,804 وغوغ Karkar 0 3 30173 1,03 1,124 1,083 1,043 0.38 0.38 993 1,031 هغصا Surda 507 524 288 204 17 4.8 214 5 1 Al 30174 1,16 2,620 1,841 1,293 3.59 3.59 817 1,163 اٌجب١ٔخ 180 6.5 14 142 209 582 581 Janiya 0 3 Al 30174 1,30 2,953 2,068 1,448 3.63 3.63 911 1,301 اٌّض٠خ 216 6 16 153 224 635 666 Midya 5 1 Rammu 30175 1,28 1,33 2,62 3,781 3,227 2,754 1.60 1.60 2,241 2,626 عِْٛ 468 5.6 67 470 594 n 0 8 8 6 وفغ Kafr 30175 1,88 1,86 3,75 770 690 91 5.3 709 3,750 2,704 3.32 3.32 4,137 5,737 7,956 ؼّٔخ Ni'ma 5 8 2 0 30176 1,70 3,612 2,604 1,877 3.33 3.33 1,226 1,701 ث١ؼٍٓ Bil'in 889 812 350 350 51 5.5 307 0 1 30176 1,01 1,12 2,14 2,171 2,159 2,147 0.06 0.06 2,131 2,143 ث١ز١ٓ Beitin 717 410 70 4.9 440 5 5 8 3 ١ػ 812 564 3.71 3.71 906 1,304 1,878ٓ Ein 30177 413 399 812 137 108 6 6.2 130'
257 ل١ٕ١ب Qiniya 0 Badiw ثضٚ al 30177 1,500 1,112 824 3.04 3.04 558 753 اؼٌّغجب 112 6.7 5 108 110 753 346 407 Mu'arra 5 د jat ص٠غ Deir 30178 1,05 1,01 2,06 362 335 41 5.8 354 2,069 1,452 3.60 3.60 2,301 3,279 4,672 إث٠ؼغ Ibzi' 0 5 4 9 ص٠غ Deir 30178 2,41 2,83 5,25 1,34 1,233 201 5.3 990 5,252 4,837 0.83 0.83 5,383 5,845 6,347 صثٛاْ Dibwan 5 3 9 2 3 Al 30179 19,1 19,0 38,2 12,0 2,2 38,20 27,60 80,645 58,277 42,112 3.30 3.30 اٌج١غح 7,917 4.8 3,781 Bireh 0 34 68 02 87 45 2 6 ١ػٓ Ein 30180 1,56' 772 795 307 228 48 5.5 287 1,567 1,190 2.79 2.79 1,702 2,241 2,951 ػغ٠ه Arik 0 7' 30180 1,90 1,89 3,80 7,547 5,601 4,158 3.03 3.03 2,822 3,802 هفب Saffa 759 620 152 5.8 651 5 4 8 2 Ramall 30181 13,6 13,8 27,4 8,47 3,0 27,46 17,78 74,613 48,313 31,284 4.44 4.44 عاَ هللا 6,083 4.5 3,046 ah 0 14 46 60 7 86 0 1 30181 1,09 2,09 3,766 2,915 2,257 2.59 2.59 1,618 2,090 ثغلخ Burqa 995 375 278 40 6.7 314 5 5 0 ث١ذ Beit 'Ur 30182 2,24 2,12 4,37 ٛػ 4,372 3,081 3.56 3.56 4,856 6,891 9,778ع at 882 715 122 5.4 804 0 3 9 2 اٌزذزب Tahta Beituni 30182 10,0 9,71 19,7 5,05 19,76 3 112,050 52,694 24,780 7.84 7.84 9,293 ث١ز١ٔٛب 3,901 5.1 480 1,588 ya 5 47 4 61 3 1 4 Al ِش١ُ 1,02 5,01 2,43 2,58 30183 Am'ari 554 93 5.5 906 5,014 3,993 2.30 2.30 5,368 6,741 8,465 األؼِغٞ 9 4 1 3 0 Camp ِش١ُ Qaddur 30183 1,20 604 604 289 119 70 5.2 233 1,208 1,088 1.05 1.05 1,247 1,384 1,537 لضٚعح a Camp 5 8 5,820 4,200 3,032 3.31 3.31 1,984 2,749 ث١ذ Beit 30185 1,43 1,31 2,74 564 381 61 5.6 493
258 ١ؿغا Sira 0 4 5 9 Kharbat سغثضب 5,21 2,54 2,66 30185 ha al 924 669 110 6.4 815 5,211 3,662 3.59 3.59 5,793 8,243 11,730 اٌّوجبح 1 8 3 5 Misbah ث١ذ Beit 'Ur 30186 ٛػ 864 647 2.93 2.93 942 1,258 1,680ع al 438 426 864 185 179 26 4.9 178 0 اٌفٛلب Fauqa 30189 1,35 1,998 1,689 1,428 1.69 1.69 1,148 1,358 اٌط١غح At Tira 661 697 282 231 22 5.5 246 0 8 Beit 30189 3,91 3,79 7,71 1,47 15,864 11,592 8,471 3.19 3.19 5,634 7,710 ث١ذ ٌم١ب 1,302 5.9 230 1,224 Liqya 5 1 9 0 0 ث١ذ Beit 30192 134 115 249 31 23 4 7.8 32 249 204 2.01 2.01 264 323 394 ٛٔثب Nuba 5 Total Ramall يجًوع ah & 140, 138, 279, 66,7 40,56 11, 52,83 279,7 202,8 645,152 440,661 309,532 2.94 يحافظة 5.3 Al- 827 903 730 04 8 085 4 30 03 راو هللا Bireh Gov. Jericho Gov. ِغط Marj 35104 359 356 715 145 136 10 6.2 116 715 547 2.71 2.71 775 1,013 1,324 ؼٔجخ Na'ja 5 Az 35111 1,42 3,544 2,382 1,601 4.05 4.05 955 1,421 اؼٌث١ضاد Zubeid 729 692 199 140 13 7.1 199 0 1 at ِغط Marj al 35111 97 106 203 50 68 5 4.7 43 203 274 -2.95 0.50 206 217 228 اٌغؼاي Ghazal 6 Al 35114 1,85 1,85 3,71 5,480 4,628 3,907 1.71 1.71 3,136 3,714 اٌجفزٍه 578 6.4 129 716 692 Jiftlik 0 7 7 4 3,563 2,119 1,260 5.34 5.34 641 1,078 فوب٠ً Fasayil 35151 541 537 1,07 202 214 8 5.7 190
259 0 8 Al 35169 2,05 2,06 4,12 9,555 6,628 4,598 3.73 3.73 2,858 4,120 اٛؼٌجب 674 6.1 112 711 721 'Auja 0 8 2 0 An 35184 1,24 3,164 2,109 1,406 4.14 4.14 830 1,245 اؼ٠ٌّٕٛخ Nuwei' 593 652 243 274 21 5.8 213 0 5 ma 'Ein ad ١ػٓ Duyuk 35184 1,826 1,290 911 3.54 3.54 580 821 اٌضٛ٠ن 137 6 21 175 156 821 412 409 al 5 اٌفٛلب Fauqa ِش١ُ Ein as' 35186 1,59 1,56 3,16 ١ػ 3,160 1,451 8.09 8.09 3,991 8,692 18,929ٓ Sultan 653 707 67 5.4 589 5 2 8 0 اٌـٍطبْ Camp Jericho 35192 9,14 9,20 18,3 4,54 18,34 15,24 3 28,095 23,343 19,395 1.87 1.87 أع٠ذب 3,510 5.2 668 3,386 (Ariha) 0 5 1 46 9 6 3 5 ص٠غ Deir al 35197 4 0 4 1 1 0 4 1 4 2 7.18 7.18 5 10 20 اٌمٍظ Qilt 0 ِش١ُ Aqbat 35197 3,63 3,54 7,17 1,36 ػ 7,176 4,521 4.73 4.73 8,243 13,084 20,767مجخ Jaber 1,420 151 5.5 1,298 5 0 6 6 9 ججغ Camp ص٠غ Deir 35202 6 2 8 1 1 0 8 1 8 5 4.81 4.81 9 15 24 دجٍخ Hajla 1 An 21.2 21.2 إٌجٟ 35207 Nabi 167 142 309 65 91 22 4.7 66 309 45 551 3,782 25,970 ٝؿِٛ 5 5 5 Musa يجًوع Total 21,1 21,1 42,3 9,04 1,2 42,32 31,08 122,488 69,310 46,858 5.63 يحافظة Jericho 8,040 5.6 7,615 87 33 20 6 27 0 8 أريحا .Gov Jerusalem Gov. 6,301 4,122 2,696 4.34 4.34 1,553 2,374 عافبد Rafat 4018 1,20 1,17 2,37 455 319 49 5.7 420
260 70 3 1 4 4018 1,44 1,630 1,548 1,470 0.52 0.52 1,374 1,447 ِشّبMikhmas 677 770 503 404 39 4.6 312 ؽ 85 7 ِش١ُ Qalandiy 4019 4,57 4,25 8,83 1,70 934 160 5.4 1,625 8,831 6,629 2.91 2.91 9,625 12,822 17,081 لٍٕض٠ب a Camp 00 4 7 1 3 Jaba' ججغ (Tajamm 4019 202 129 82 4.58 4.58 46 72 )رجّغ 16 4.5 15 31 19 72 37 35 u' 10 ثضٞٚ( Badawi) Qalandiy 4019 1,17 2,543 1,821 1,303 3.40 3.40 844 1,179 لٍٕض٠ب 214 5.5 8 150 220 606 573 a 15 9 Beit 4019 1,62 3,431 2,477 1,788 3.31 3.31 1,170 1,621 ث١ذ صلٛ 308 5.3 21 268 370 791 830 Duqqu 30 1 4019 1,65 1,52 3,18 6,279 4,673 3,478 3.00 3.00 2,369 3,183 ججغ Jaba' 557 399 41 6.9 462 35 5 8 3 Al 4019 1,13 1,13 2,27 5,499 3,747 2,554 3.91 3.91 1,551 2,276 اٌجض٠غح 410 5.6 46 255 482 Judeira 40 8 8 6 Ar Ram اٌغاَ & 4019 10,4 9,87 20,3 7,53 20,35 18,71 ٚ 0.84 0.84 20,878 22,708 24,697ضبد١خ 4,149 4.9 921 2,285 Dahiyat 45 81 8 59 0 9 9 اٌجغ٠ض al Bareed ث١ذ Beit 4019 1,98 1,99 3,98 843 604 79 5.2 764 3,980 3,119 2.47 2.47 4,282 5,464 6,972 ػٕبْ Anan 50 5 5 0' 4019 2,13 2,08 4,22 1,01 6,960 5,599 4,505 2.20 2.20 3,395 4,220 اٌج١ت Al Jib 544 68 5.9 719 55 7 3 0 5 Bir 4019 2,40 2,41 4,81 2,05 5,768 5,333 4,932 0.79 0.79 4,454 4,817 ث١غ ٔجبال 944 5.1 170 792 Nabala 60 2 5 7 5 ث١ذ 4019 Beit Ijza 383 315 698 146 104 11 5.8 120 698 490 3.60 3.60 776 1,106 1,575 إجؼا 65 17,409 8,304 3,961 7.68 7.68 1,513 3,172 اٌمج١جخ Al 4019 1,61 1,55 3,17 628 491 132 5.7 555
261 Qubeiba 80 6 6 2 Kharayib سغائت 4019 Umm al 177 186 363 55 44 3 6.8 53 363 272 2.93 2.93 396 528 705 أَ اٌٍذُ 85 Lahim 4019 3,51 3,28 6,79 1,17 16,226 11,116 7,615 3.86 3.86 4,657 6,798 ثضBiddu 760 267 5.9 1,157 ٚ 95 4 4 8 9 إٌجAn Nabi 4020 ٟ 136 122 258 41 27 2 6 43 258 160 4.89 4.89 298 480 774 هّٛئ١ً Samwil 00 4020 3,11 3,16 6,27 1,28 13,739 9,769 6,947 3.47 3.47 4,459 6,271 دؼِب Hizma 730 152 6.1 1,027 05 0 1 1 4 ث١ذ Beit 4020 1,07 1,215 1,150 1,089 0.55 0.55 1,014 1,071 د١ٕٕب Hanina 550 521 409 233 19 5.9 181 10 1 اٌجٍض al Balad 4020 3,24 3,21 6,45 1,15 9,414 7,991 6,783 1.65 1.65 5,482 6,458 لطٕخ Qatanna 894 64 6 1,069 15 2 6 8 7 ث١ذ Beit 4020 1,94 1,94 3,88 649 415 59 6.2 629 3,887 2,792 3.36 3.36 4,293 5,976 8,320 ٛؿع٠ه Surik 20 6 1 7 ث١ذ 1,89 4020 Beit Iksa 963 932 424 326 29 5.2 362 1,895 1,148 5.14 5.14 2,202 3,636 6,001 إوـب 5 25 4020 6,09 5,95 12,0 2,65 12,04 ػ 7,037 5.53 5.53 14,159 24,243 41,509ٕبرب Anata 1,250 288 5.6 2,168' 40 1 8 49 0 9 Al اٌىؼبثٕٗ Ka'abina 4020 778 740 704 0.50 0.28- 714 694 )رجّغ Tajamm 339 355 694 171 171 36 5.7 122) 45 ثضu' )ٞٚ Badawi) Az 4020 1,76 1,63 3,40 1,06 14,747 7,794 4,119 6.58 6.58 1,798 3,402 ا١ػؼٌُ Za'ayye 368 73 4.9 695 65 3 9 2 1 m 37,157 26,854 19,408 3.30 3.30 12,72 17,60 اؼ١ؼٌع٠خ Al 4021 8,89 8,70 17,6 5,20 2,430 971 5.1 3,429
262 'Eizariya 00 7 9 06 7 6 4 4021 5,57 5,20 10,7 2,87 10,78 16,945 13,921 11,437 1.99 1.99 8,858 أثٛ صAbu Dis 1,518 297 4.9 2,215 ؾ٠ 20 9 3 82 8 2 ػغة Arab al 4021' 364 357 721 96 114 3 7.1 101 721 881 -1.98 0.50 732 769 809 اٌجٙب١ٌٓ Jahalin 25 As اٌـٛادغ Sawahira 4021 2,92 2,87 5,80 1,28 15,247 10,016 6,579 4.29 4.29 3,810 5,800 ح 1,077 5.4 78 914 ash 45 6 4 0 8 اٌلغل١خ Sharqiya Ash اٌل١ز 1,94 1,00 4021 Sheikh 941 518 437 16 5.1 385 1,949 1,760 1.03 1.03 2,010 2,225 2,464 ؼؿض 9 8 60 Sa'd يجًوع Total 70,2 68,0 138, 35,5 18,21 4,1 25,73 138,2 انقذس Jerusale 5.4 27 06 233 93 1 28 1 33 m J2 j2 يجًوع Total 114, 110, 225, 44,70 225,4 انقذس Jerusale - - - 5 743 673 416 3 16 m J1 j1 يجًوع Total 184, 178, 363, 35,5 18,21 4,1 70,43 363,6 104,7 292,398 207,060 151,098 3.29 يحافظة Jerusale 5.2 970 679 649 93 1 28 4 49 92 انقذس .m Gov Bethlehem Gov. Al 45217 1,04 1,00 2,04 6,579 3,955 2,378 5.22 5.22 1,227 2,041 اٌٌٛجخ 390 5.2 24 280 388 Walaja 0 1 0 1 45217 1,99 1,97 3,96 7,240 5,574 4,291 2.65 2.65 3,054 3,967 ثز١غ Battir 981 663 85 5 798 5 2 5 7 Al 45218 5,45 5,29 10,7 1,86 10,75 3 22,736 16,419 11,856 3.31 3.31 7,765 اؼٌج١ض٠خ Ubeidi 1,257 131 6.3 1,703' 0 6 7 53 5 3 6 ya 3,378 3,030 2,718 1.09 1.09 2,360 2,631 ِش١ُ Ayda 45218 1,31 1,31 2,63 564 288 43 5.2 509'
263 ػب٠ضح Camp 5 8 3 1 Khallet سٍخ 45219 an 80 93 173 35 30 1 6 29 173 143 1.92 1.92 183 222 268 اؼٌّٕبْ 0 Nu'man ِش١ُ Al 'Aza 45219 1,52 786 743 275 142 38 5.2 292 1,529 1,262 1.94 1.94 1,620 1,962 2,377 اؼؼٌح Camp 5 9 Al 45220 1,122 712 452 4.65 4.65 250 394 اٌشبم 77 5.1 5 84 91 394 194 200 Khas 0 Al 45220 68 61 56 0.98 0.98 49 54 اٌذضاص٠خ Haddad 30 24 54 13 12 0 5.4 10 5 iya Khallet سٍخ 1,41 45220 Hamam 694 721 335 167 16 5 285 1,415 1,150 2.10 2.10 1,506 1,853 2,280 دّبِخ 5 8 eh ثئغ Bir 45220 331 341 672 149 102 5 4.7 144 672 472 3.60 3.60 747 1,064 1,514 Onah 9 ِٗٛػ Beit 45221 5,83 5,92 11,7 3,43 11,75 12,07 13,187 12,546 11,935 0.50 0.27- ث١ذ جبال 2,664 4.4 571 1,911 Jala 0 4 4 58 3 8 9 3 صاع Dar 45222 1,71 1,65 3,37 685 656 68 5.4 625 3,373 2,183 4.45 4.45 3,843 5,938 9,176 7 هالح Salah 5 5 8 3 45223 2,94 2,60 5,55 1,19 10,952 8,150 6,065 3.00 3.00 4,131 5,551 دؿٛبْ Husan 928 168 5.4 1,028 0 2 9 1 5 ٚاصWadi 45223 1,16 ٞ 588 580 244 180 12 5.4 217 1,168 869 3.00 3.00 1,276 1,716 2,306 فٛو١ٓ Fukin 5 8 Bethleh em 45224 12,7 12,5 25,2 6,70 1,8 25,26 21,66 36,004 30,866 26,461 1.55 1.55 ث١ذ ٌذُ 5,211 4.8 3,107 (Beit 0 53 13 66 9 60 6 0 Lahm) 11,13 12,36 ث١ذ Beit 45225 6,20 6,16 12,3 3,51 2,145 656 4.5 2,775 1.05 1.05 12,762 14,171 15,736 ؿ 7 7بدٛع Sahur 5 2 5 67 7
264 Ad 45226 4,95 4,80 9,75 2,22 42,726 22,478 11,825 6.63 6.63 5,131 9,753 اٌضٚدخ 1,849 5.3 429 1,002 Doha 5 0 3 3 0 Al 45227 5,05 4,71 9,77 1,90 23,136 15,907 10,937 3.82 3.82 6,720 9,774 اٌشضغ 1,722 5.7 255 1,106 Khadr 0 6 8 4 1 Ad ِش١ُ Duheis 45227 4,42 4,31 8,73 1,90 1,170 253 5.1 1,698 8,736 6,803 2.53 2.53 9,417 12,092 15,528 اٌض١٘لخ ha 5 6 0 6 5 Camp Hindaz 45228 2,41 2,38 4,79 3 19,290 10,535 5,754 6.24 6.24 2,621 4,799 ٕ٘ضاػح 794 6 56 805 899 a 0 6 3 9 8 Ash 3 اٌلٛاٚع 3,73 1,82 1,91 45228 Shawa 771 760 56 5.4 694 3,737 2,715 3.25 3.25 4,113 5,661 7,792 9 ح 7 2 5 5 wra 45230 1,87 1,78 3,66 7,706 5,577 4,036 3.29 3.29 2,651 3,663 إعطبArtas 755 535 40 6.1 603 ؽ 0 7 6 3 Nahhali 45232 3,54 3,28 6,82 1,35 16,611 11,285 7,667 3.94 3.94 4,638 6,827 ٔذب١ٌٓ 1,204 5.7 182 1,117 n 5 2 5 7 2 ث١ذ Beit 45233 1,22 654 575 242 200 13 6.1 200 1,229 840 3.88 3.88 1,378 2,016 2,949 رؼّغ Ta'mir 5 9 Khallet سٍخ 45234 al 290 288 578 104 191 4 6.2 93 578 324 5.96 5.96 688 1,227 2,188 اػٌٍٛح 5 Louza 45235 1,922 1,379 990 3.37 3.37 643 896 اٌججؼخ Al Jab'a 480 416 896 153 137 11 6.4 140 5 45236 3,21 3,07 6,28 1,08 4 ػػ 6,289 4,408 3.62 3.62 6,997 9,982 14,242زغح Za'tara 1,049 85 6 1,046 0 5 4 9 0 0 جٕبرخ Jannata 45238 2,75 2,66 5,41 4 13,655 9,134 6,110 4.10 4.10 3,623 5,416 )ث١ذ 860 6.3 52 851 913 h 5 4 2 6 1 فٍٛح( ٚ 1,419 872 4 4.99 4.99 1,642 2,672 4,349اصWadi 45240 764 655 1,41 301 272 22 5.1 278 ٞ
265 2 عدبي Rahhal 0 9 Jubbet ججخ 45240 adh 81 81 162 27 23 5 6 27 162 93 5.71 5.71 191 333 581 اٌظ٠ت 5 Dhib Khallet 4 سٍخ 45241 Sakariy 97 88 185 36 33 2 5.4 34 185 195 -0.53 0.50 188 197 207 ؿ 3ىبع٠ب 5 a Khallet سٍخ 45243 al 220 187 407 79 74 4 5.6 73 407 303 2.99 2.99 445 597 802 اٌذضاص 0 Haddad اؼٌّوغ Al 45244 429 374 803 136 137 10 6.2 129 803 572 3.45 3.45 889 1,248 1,752 ح Ma'sara 0 ٚاصWadi 45244 ٞ 394 378 772 132 103 10 6.5 119 772 538 3.68 3.68 860 1,235 1,771 ا١ٌٕن an Nis 5 Jurat جٛعح 1,49 45246 ash 797 694 269 202 43 6 250 1,491 1,085 3.23 3.23 1,640 2,254 3,097 اٌلؼّخ 1 0 Sham'a - سٍخ Khallet 45246 0 0 0 12 15 4 0 0 0 4 100. 0.50 0 0 0 ػفبٔخ Afana 5' 00 ِغاح Marah 45247 373 312 685 106 104 14 6.9 99 685 446 4.38 4.38 779 1,197 1,838 ؼِال Ma'alla 0 Umm أَ 45248 Salamu 475 470 945 144 128 20 6.8 139 945 584 4.93 4.93 1,092 1,767 2,859 ٍّٛؿٔخ 0 na Al 45249 1,363 828 503 5.11 5.11 263 433 إٌّل١خ Manshi 212 221 433 57 45 5 7.6 57 0 ya 45249 4,55 4,32 8,88 1,44 4 20,563 14,274 9,909 3.72 3.72 6,165 8,881 رمٛع Tuqu' 1,311 169 6.5 1,368 5 5 6 1 4 4
266 ِغاح Marah 45250 1,32 690 630 177 158 32 7.8 169 1,320 822 4.85 4.85 1,522 2,443 3,924 عثبح Rabah 0 0 11,00 ث١ذ Beit 45252 5,63 5,37 11,0 2,04 1,561 400 6.1 1,808 7,896 3.37 3.37 12,156 16,941 23,609 4 فجبع Fajjar 5 4 0 04 2 Al 45253 1,01 4 2,792 1,796 1,155 4.51 4.51 651 1,012 ا١ٌّٕخ 157 6.4 18 147 153 503 509 Maniya 5 2 5 45256 1,293 820 520 4.66 4.66 288 454 و١ـبْ Kisan 226 228 454 77 75 3 6 76 5 'Arab ar ػ 4غة 1,45 45266 Rashayi 750 703 291 301 5 6.5 224 1,453 947 4.37 4.37 1,652 2,535 3,889 6 اٌغكب٠ضح 3 0 da Total يجًوع Bethle 89,7 86,4 176, 38,2 25,56 5,8 32,66 176,2 132,6 377,357 266,648 193,202 3.69 2.88 يحافظة 5.4 hem 43 92 235 57 4 85 7 35 32 بيث نحى Gov. Hebron Gov. سغثخ Khirbet 50243 127 137 264 48 50 1 5.6 47 264 212 2.22 2.22 282 351 437 اٌض٠غ ad Deir 5 9,54 13,36 هٛع٠ 2,35 13,3 6,61 6,74 50245 Surif 2,242 306 6.2 2,151 3.43 3.43 14,787 20,714 29,016 1 5 ف 1 65 7 8 0 Al 5,93 ِش١ُ 1,42 7,94 3,91 4,02 50253 'Arrub 977 184 5.8 1,358 7,941 2.96 2.96 8,667 11,600 15,526 3 اؼٌغٚة 0 1 6 5 0 Camp 9,86 13,54 ث١ذ Beit 50254 6,90 6,63 13,5 2,73 2,266 364 5.9 2,306 47 3.22 3.22 14,900 20,458 28,091 7 8 أِٚغ Ummar 0 9 9 48 9 50254 525 380 274 3.30 3.30 180 249 جبال Jala 111 138 249 47 64 2 6.2 40 5 50255 3,201 1,836 1,053 5.72 5.72 511 891 دزب Hitta 441 450 891 121 129 16 7.8 114 0 4,470 2,820 1,780 4.71 4.71 978 1,550 كٛ١ر Shuyuk 50255 822 728 1,55 287 284 41 6 257
267 اؼٌغٚة h al 5 0 'Arrub 50256 3,47 3,18 6,65 1,18 5,10 12,274 9,406 7,208 2.70 2.70 48 6,655 سبعاKharas 1,091 130 6.4 1,042 ؽ 0 2 3 5 2 0 Umm 50257 113 92 75 2.04 2.04 58 71 أَ اٌجطُ 11 6.5 0 10 12 71 35 36 al Butm 5 Hamrus 50258 107 79 58 3.11 3.11 39 53 دّغٚف 7 7.6 3 12 8 53 22 31 h 0 50258 2,21 2,11 4,33 3,17 ٛٔ 4,336 3.16 3.16 4,760 6,494 8,860ثب Nuba 817 757 92 5.9 730 5 8 8 6 8 Beit 50261 5,55 5,33 10,8 1,94 10,88 7,56 25,150 17,474 12,141 3.71 3.71 49 ث١ذ أٚال 1,712 6.4 271 1,847 Ula 5 5 0 85 9 5 3 50262 9,12 8,91 18,0 3,05 18,04 13,1 ١ؼؿ 50 3.20 3.20 19,833 27,172 37,227غ Sa'ir 3,043 418 6.7 2,699 0 9 6 45 9 5 71 50263 11,2 10,8 22,1 4,55 22,12 15,6 49,025 34,690 24,547 3.52 3.52 51 دٍذٛي Halhul 3,555 638 5.6 3,961 0 74 54 28 0 8 58 Ash 50263 4,50 4,30 8,81 1,75 5,98 21,437 14,564 9,894 3.94 3.94 52 8,811 اٌلٛ١ر Shuyuk 1,468 278 6.1 1,438 5 3 8 1 4 6 h Tarqum 50264 7,39 6,95 14,3 2,49 14,35 10,4 29,868 21,721 15,796 3.24 3.24 53 رغل١ِٛب 2,284 6.3 347 2,356 iya 0 8 9 57 2 7 41 4,15 ث١ذ Beit 50265 3,36 3,16 6,52 1,08 964 120 6.9 948 6,526 4.61 4.61 7,470 11,722 18,393 9 وبدً Kahil 5 4 2 6 4 1,73 ث١ذ Beit 50268 1,80 930 879 360 310 42 6.4 282 1,809 0.44 0.44 1,833 1,916 2,002 Einun 0 9 ْٕٛ١ػ 1' لالع Qla’a 50268 456 447 903 194 103 8 5.7 158 903 705 2.51 2.51 973 1,246 1,596 ٠ػزب Zeta 1 50268 9,72 9,28 19,0 3,46 19,01 13,5 41,207 29,438 21,030 3.42 3.42 54 إطٔب Idhna 3,626 611 6.1 3,118 5 3 9 12 3 2 82 26,924 17,950 11,968 4.14 4.14 55 7,06 10,59 رفٛح Taffuh 50275 5,38 5,21 10,5 1,94 1,432 254 6 1,759
268 0 5 2 97 8 7 5 Beit 1,86 ث١ذ 2,56 1,30 1,26 50276 Maqdu 521 484 55 5.9 432 2,568 56 3.24 3.24 2,826 3,887 5,346 7 ِمضَٚ 8 1 7 5 m Al 50277 1,21 1,05 1,706 1,474 1,273 1.48 1.48 1,218 اٌجمؼٗ 193 6.3 2 155 244 606 612 Baqa 8 8 2 Hebron 50278 84,2 78,9 163, 34,1 17,59 7,3 28,56 163,1 117, 179,81 343,950 248,692 3.30 3.30 57 اٌش١ًٍ Al 5.7) 0 23 23 146 06 3 64 3 46 962 5 Khalil) Al اٌج٠ٛغٖ Bowere 50278 ػ( 694 472 3.93 3.93 779 1,146 1,684مجخ h 358 336 694 122 117 3 6.5 106 1 أج١ٍٗ( Aqabat) Injeleh) 1,57 سٍخ Khallet 50278 1,11 1,07 2,18 366 304 18 6.9 316 2,186 3.35 3.35 2,413 3,356 4,667 2 اٌضاع Edar 2 1 5 6 4,11 ص٠غ Deir 50281 3,16 3,07 6,23 1,18 1,028 134 5.9 1,057 6,237 58 4.24 4.24 7,064 10,699 16,205 ؿ 8بِذ Samit 0 6 1 7 3 Bani 50281 10,0 10,0 20,0 3,45 20,08 13,4 50,523 33,830 22,652 4.09 4.09 59 ث١ؼٔ ُٟٕ 3,067 6.5 429 3,333 Na'im 5 74 10 84 2 4 48 Khallet سٍخ Al 50283 96 121 217 38 38 0 5.6 39 217 166 2.72 2.72 235 307 402 اٌّـبفغ Masafe 0 r Beit 50283 3,99 4,06 8,06 1,35 5,92 16,391 12,041 8,846 3.13 3.13 8,064 ث١ذ ٛػا 1,295 6.2 354 1,390 'Awwa 5 8 6 4 5 4 50284 14,3 13,9 28,2 5,57 28,26 18,7 72,521 48,147 31,964 4.18 4.18 60 صٚعا Dura 4,557 994 5.9 4,832 0 63 05 68 1 8 67 50285 1,14 4,351 2,439 1,367 5.96 5.96 644 1,149 لٍمQalqas 584 565 172 166 18 7.2 159 ؾ 5 9
269 50286 ؿ 855 676 61 2.38 2.38 917 1,160 1,468ىخ Sikka 402 453 855 162 158 20 5.7 149 0 سغثخ Khirbet 50286 183 188 371 63 69 3 5.8 64 371 239 4.50 4.50 423 657 1,020 ؿالِخ Salama 5 ٚاصWadi 50287 ٞ 64 66 130 20 24 3 6.2 21 130 107 1.97 1.97 138 167 203 ػج١ض Ubeid 0' Fuqeiqi 50287 407 341 286 1.79 1.79 227 271 فم١مؾ١ 42 6.5 7 35 44 271 138 133 s 5 50289 1,73 1,70 3,44 2,43 7,594 5,382 3,814 3.50 3.50 3,440 سغؿب Khursa 599 567 82 6.2 554 5 3 7 0 8 Tarram 50290 1,811 1,145 724 4.69 4.69 399 631 طغاِخ 106 6 8 115 121 631 331 300 a 0 Al 4,78 ِش١ُ 1,09 6,54 3,19 3,35 50290 Fawwar 762 191 6.4 1,029 6,544 3.18 3.18 7,189 9,834 13,451 4 اٌفٛاع 2 4 0 4 5 Camp Al 50291 1,92 1,49 3,454 2,679 2,078 2.57 2.57 62 1,925 اٌّجض 315 6.1 57 333 335 955 970 Majd 0 5 3 Marah ِغاح 50291 al 101 114 215 50 46 1 5.4 40 215 139 4.46 4.46 245 379 586 اٌجمبع 5 Baqqar Hadab 1,31 دضة 1,91 50292 al 964 954 347 262 24 6.2 308 1,918 3.85 3.85 2,148 3,133 4,570 5 أٌفٛاع 8 0 Fawwar ص٠غ Deir al 50292 982 766 598 2.51 2.51 433 555 اؼٌـً Asal at 266 289 555 111 100 12 6.2 89' 5 اٌزذزب Tahta Al 50293 1,27 4,975 2,754 1,525 6.09 6.09 707 1,277 اٌذ١ٍخ 169 7.6 3 186 173 636 641 Heila 5 7 ٚاصWadi 50294 ٞ 361 354 715 122 109 6 5.9 121 715 451 63 4.72 4.72 821 1,302 2,063 اٌلبجٕخ ash 0
270 Shajina 50295 1,92 1,26 5,038 3,316 2,182 4.27 4.27 1,925 اٌوغح As Sura 975 950 323 299 52 6.6 293 0 5 7 ص٠غ Deir 50295 135 133 268 50 47 2 6.2 43 268 233 1.41 1.41 279 321 370 عاػح Razih 5 Ar 50296 2,06 1,88 3,94 2,47 11,577 7,253 4,544 4.79 4.79 3,949 اٌغ٠ذ١خ 511 7.7 36 472 519 Rihiya 0 6 3 9 4 50296 ٠ػ 848 648 2.73 2.73 919 1,203 1,574ف Zif 425 423 848 114 117 4 8.7 98 5 ص٠غ Deir al 50297 1,59 1,31 2,511 2,063 1,695 1.98 1.98 1,598 اؼٌـً Asal al 782 816 282 246 19 6.5 244' 0 8 3 اٌفٛلب Fauqa Khallet سٍخ 50297 al 141 131 272 54 62 7 6.5 42 272 148 6.27 6.27 326 600 1,103 اؼٌمض 5 'Aqed 50298 1,66 1,16 3,816 2,661 1,855 3.67 3.67 64 1,665 إِغ٠ق Imreish 830 835 298 305 20 5.9 281 0 5 1 Al 50300 1,772 1,112 698 4.77 4.77 381 607 اٌج٠ٛت 76 8 2 159 152 607 316 291 Buweib 5 ث١ذ Beit ar 50301 426 402 380 0.58 0.58 352 373 اٌغٚف Rush at 187 186 373 74 74 11 6 62 0 اٌزذزب Tahta Hadab دضة 50304 al 309 332 641 119 124 20 5.8 111 641 381 5.34 5.34 749 1,261 2,121 اؼٌٍمخ 0 'Alaqa ث١ذ Beit 50307 160 158 318 77 85 5 5.5 58 318 238 65 2.94 2.94 347 463 619 ِغMirsim 5 ُؿ ث١ذ Beit ar 50309 2,226 1,557 1,090 3.64 3.64 685 979 اٌغٚف Rush al 519 460 979 158 162 15 6.5 151 0 اٌفٛلب Fauqa
271 50309 1,38 3,180 2,216 1,545 3.68 3.68 966 1,386 وغِخ Karma 721 665 255 228 15 5.8 239 5 6 1,20 ث١ذ Beit 50310 1,11 1,04 2,16 293 295 13 7.5 289 2,165 6.03 6.03 2,580 4,632 8,316 ػ 6ّغح Amra 0 6 9 5' Om Adaraj أَ اٌضعط (Arab 50310 10. ػ( 813 417 6.90 6.90 993 1,937 3,776غة 76 0 126 116 813 393 420 Al 5 7 اٌىؼبثٕٗ( Ka’abn eh) ٚاصWadi al 50311 ٞ 26 21 47 15 19 1 7.8 6 47 23 7.41 7.41 58 119 243 اٌىالة Kilab 0 Om أَ 50311 Ashoqh 152 144 296 62 70 1 7.2 41 296 172 5.58 5.58 348 599 1,032 اٌلمذبْ 1 an Khallet سٍخ 1,41 50311 al 722 690 188 205 10 7.6 187 1,412 900 4.61 4.61 1,616 2,536 3,978 ا١ٌّخ 2 5 Maiyya Kheros س١غٚك hewesh ٛ٠ف 50311 Wal 177 202 379 67 90 0 6.5 58 379 245 4.46 4.46 432 668 1,034 ٚاٌذض٠ض 6 Hadede ٠خ yah Om Al أَ اؼٌّض Amad )ٙؿً 50311 (Sahel 83 69 152 38 50 2 5.2 29 152 102 4.07 4.07 171 255 380 ٚاص 7 Wadi اٌّبء( Elma) 50312 24,6 24,0 48,6 7,82 48,67 33,6 113,456 78,528 54,353 3.75 3.75 66 ٠طب Yatta 7,455 931 6.9 7,077 0 14 58 72 8 2 88
272 Ad 50312 2,207 1,416 908 4.54 4.54 67 510 795 اٌض٠غاد 98 8.1 10 115 104 795 408 387 Deirat 5 Khashe سلُ m اٌضعط Adaraj 50312 309 297 606 113 112 0 6.5 93 606 467 2.64 2.64 655 850 1,103 )اٌٙظا١ٌٓ Al- 6) Hathale ) en) 50313 1,649 1,185 851 3.36 3.36 554 771 وغػح Kurza 383 388 771 138 127 12 5.6 137 5 50314 1,11 1,14 2,26 1,62 4,875 3,491 2,500 3.39 3.39 68 2,262 عاثٛص Rabud 385 360 18 6.1 372 5 4 8 2 0 Umm 50315 4,925 2,298 1,072 7.92 7.92 398 853 أَ ٌوفب 110 7.8 1 152 142 853 415 438 Lasafa 0 50317 1,30 1,27 2,57 1,97 4,786 3,657 2,795 2.73 2.73 69 2,578 اٌجغط Al Burj 486 452 49 6.2 418 0 7 1 8 0 Um Al- 50321 1,560 964 596 4.93 4.93 319 516 اَ اٌش١غ 69 7.5 3 100 102 516 260 256 Khair 0 Al 50321 1,89 1,84 3,74 2,08 14,400 8,014 4,460 6.04 6.04 3,741 اٌىغًِ 552 6.8 36 726 673 Karmil 5 7 4 1 2 سٍخ Khallet 50322 1,09 563 530 206 222 2 6.6 166 1,093 592 70 6.32 6.32 1,314 2,426 4,478 هبٌخ Salih 5 3 Adh 20,4 28,77 اٌظب٘غ 4,89 28,7 14,1 14,5 50324 Dhahiri 4,552 829 6.4 4,469 71 3.48 3.48 31,888 44,907 63,239 34 6 ٠خ 0 76 95 81 5 ya At 50325 1,652 816 403 7.31 7.31 72 161 326 اٌزٛأٟ 52 6.3 2 77 76 326 155 171 Tuwani 5 50326 10.5 ١ؼِ 459 169 7.50 570 1,175 2,422ٓ Ma'in 219 240 459 72 85 1 7.9 58 0 1 463 441 419 0.50 3.47- 73 588 413 إٌجبصح An 50326 217 196 413 104 96 2 8.1 51
273 Najada 5 'Anab ػٕبة 50329 al 162 173 335 59 63 0 6.7 50 335 218 4.39 4.39 381 586 900 اٌىج١غ 5 Kabir سغثخ Khirbet 50330 53 42 95 13 13 0 9.5 10 95 73 2.67 2.67 103 134 174 اهفAsafi 5 ٟ ِٕطمخ Mantiq 50331 15.3 723 351 170 7.50 33 137 كؼت at Shi'b 71 66 137 29 29 0 6 23 0 0 اٌجطٓ al Batin As 50332 9,96 9,68 19,6 3,22 19,64 13,9 42,855 30,532 21,753 3.45 3.45 74 اٌـّٛع 2,950 6.7 372 3,019 Samu' 0 3 6 49 0 9 99 Wadi ٚاصٞ 50332 Al 245 236 481 71 73 6 8.3 58 481 378 2.44 2.44 517 658 837 اؼٌّب٠غ 1 Amayer Khirbet سغثخ Tawil 50332 374 274 200 3.19 3.19 133 182 ط٠ًٛ 24 7.6 0 31 28 182 82 100 ash 5 اٌل١خ Shih Ar 2,17 اٌغِبض 3,28 1,65 1,62 50333 Ramadi 561 566 22 6.7 487 3,281 4.18 4.18 3,710 5,586 8,411 9 ٠ٓ 1 6 5 5 n Magha - ِغب٠غ 50334 yir al 2 2 4 2 2 0 4 1 4 27 17.3 0.50 4 4 4 اؼٌج١ض 5 'Abeed 8 Khirbet 18.5 سغثخ 50335 al 114 117 231 57 57 0 5.6 41 231 42 75 7.50 287 591 1,219 9 اٌفش١ذ 0 Fakheit Khirbet سغثخ 50336 Bir al 65 54 119 40 41 0 5.2 23 119 178 76 -3.95 0.50 121 127 133 ث١غ اؼٌض 0 'Idd
274 25.8 سغثخ Khirbet 50337 32 28 60 16 16 0 4.6 13 60 6 7.50 75 154 317 ٛٔػ 9رخ Zanuta 5 Imneizi 50338 2,039 993 484 7.46 7.46 190 390 إؼ١ِٕي 49 8 0 55 59 390 186 204 l 0 ػغة 'Arab al 50340 1,918 1,133 670 5.40 5.40 77 338 572 اٌفغ٠جب 85 6.7 2 100 104 572 312 260 Fureijat 5 د يجًوع Total 281, 270, 552, 103, 80,44 16, 89,91 552,1 389, 613,53 1,251,9 874,304 3.88 يحافظة Hebro 6.1 570 594 164 086 8 447 9 64 716 8 89 انخهيم .n Gov 1,58 يجًوع Total 1,19 1,15 2,35 456, 319,2 77, 427,0 2,350 2,329, 3,195,7 4,468,4 2,70 انضفة West 3,24 7,33 0,58 5.5 314 70 639 97 ,583 965 33 05 9 انغربية Bank 4 9 3
275
* Comment on Community: Actual Comment Community Community اؿُ اٌزجّغ Population No. Code Name 1997 Population of Faqqu'a in 2007 include َف ُّمػَ ٛخ Faqqu'a 2,570 10,060 سغثخ أثػ ٕٛمغ Khirbet Abu 'Anqar 11 10,065 1 ثغغلخ Barghasha 54 10,100 اٌّجّٛع Total 2,635 Population of Barta'a ash Sharqiya in 2007 include Barta'a ash ثغطؼخ اٌلغل١خ 2,653 10,120 Sharqiya 2 سغثخ اٌل١ز Khirbet ash Sheikh 10,130 161 ١ؼؿض Sa'eed اٌّجّٛع Total 2,814 Population of Beit Qad in 2007 include ث١ذ لبص Beit Qad 642 10,140 أَ لبثٛة Umm Qabub 68 10,160 3 ِلغٚع ث١ذ لبص Mashru' Beit Qad 285 10,110 اٌّجّٛع Total 995 Population of Jenin in 2007 include ج١ٕٓ Jenin 26,332 10,180 ضبد١خ هجبح Dahiyat Sabah al 10,075 1,073 اٌش١غ Kheir 4 ػغة 10,270 'Arab as Suweitat 370 اٌـ٠ٛطبد اٌّجّٛع Total 27,775 Population of Kafr Qud in 2007 include وفغ لٛص Kafr Qud 668 10,210 5 إٌّل١خ Al Manshiya 117 10,260 اٌّجّٛع Total 785 Population of Zabda in 2007 include ػثضح Zabda 612 10,245 ل١من 6 10,255 Qeiqis 99 )اٌموٛع( اٌّجّٛع Total 711 Population of Qabatiya in 2007 include لجبط١خ Qabatiya 14,502 10,340 7 سغثخ ؿج١ؼٓ Khirbet Sab'ein 22 10,280 اٌّجّٛع Total 14,524 Population of Arraba in 2007 include ػغاثخ Arraba 7,356 10,370 8 اٌضّب٠غح Ad Damayra 218 10,365 اٌّجّٛع Total 7,574
276 Population of Telfit in 2007 include رٍف١ذ Telfit 82 10,385 9 ر١ٕٓ Tannin 39 10,325 اٌّجّٛع Total 121 Population of Raba in 2007 include عاثب Raba 2,237 10,405 سغثخ ِغاح Khirbet Marah ar 10 10,375 10 اٌغRaha ٝ٘ سغثخ سغٚثخ Khirbet Kharruba 23 10,390 اٌّجّٛع Total 2,270 Population of Sir in 2007 include ه١غ Sir 566 10,495 11 ِٕطمخ ا١ٌٙق Mantiqat al Heish 19 10,540 اٌّجّٛع Total 585 Population of Kardala in 2007 include وغصٌخ Kardala 119 50,455 12 Khirbet Tell el سغثخ رً اٌذّخ 91 50,470 Himma اٌّجّٛع Total 210 Population of Khirbet Humsa in 2007 include سغثخ دّوخ Khirbet Humsa 17 50,871 13 اٌذض٠ضح Al Hadidiya 132 50,851 اٌّجّٛع Total 149 Population of Baqa ash Sharqiya in 2007 include ثبلخ اٌلغل١خ Baqa ash Sharqiya 3,015 100,350 14 ؼٌٔخ أثٛ ٔبع Nazlat Abu Nar 144 100,360 اٌّجّٛع Total 3,159 Population of Tulkarm in 2007 include طٌٛىغَ Tulkarm 33,505 100,645 طٔبثخ Dhinnaba 6,215 100,640 15 سغثخ اٌط١بح Khirbet at Tayyah 257 100,675 اٌّجّٛع Total 39,977 Population of Anabta in 2007 include ػٕجزب Anabta 5,391 100,665 16 وفغ عِبْ Kafr Rumman 641 100,630 اٌّجّٛع Total 6,032 Population of Kafr al Labad in 2007 include وفغ اٌٍجض Kafr al Labad 2,970 100,690 ؼػثخ أثIzbat Abu ٛ' 17 100,655 37 س١ّق Khameish ؼػثخ اٌشالي Izbat al Khilal 69' 100,685 اٌّجّٛع Total 3,076 Population of Shufa in 2007 include 18 كٛفخ Shufa 924 100,760
277 ؼػثخ كٛفخ Izbat Shufa 726' 100,725 اٌّجّٛع Total 1,650 Population of Burqa in 2007 include ثغلخ Burqa 2,973 150,680 19 اٌّـٛؼص٠خ Al Mas'udiya 14 150,750 اٌّجّٛع Total 2,987 Population of Al 'Aqrabaniya in 2007 include اؼٌمغثب١ٔخ Al 'Aqrabaniya 660 150,840 سغثخ رً اٌغبع Kirbet Tall al Ghar 9 150,850 20 كذضٖ ّٚ٘الْ Shihda wa Hamlan 34 150,940 اٌّجّٛع Total 703 Population of Nablus in 2007 include ٔبثNablus 98,919 ؾٍ 150,920 21 اٌج١ٕض Al Juneid 285 150,890 اٌّجّٛع Total 99,204 Population of Al Ar Rajman in 2007 include اٌغجّبْ Ar Rajman 1 151,220 سغثخ طبٔب Khirbet Tana 15 151,176 22 جفٕب اJafa an Nun 13 ٌْٕٛ 151,235 اٌضٚا Ad Dawa 0 151,240 اٌّجّٛع Total 29 Population of Qaryut in 2007 include لغٛ٠د Qaryut 1,821 151,410 23 سغثخ هغح Khirbet Sarra 25 151,450 اٌّجّٛع Total 1,846 Population of Duma in 2007 include صِٚب Duma 1,637 151,445 24 سغثخ اٌّغادُ Khirbet al Marajim 6 151,465 اٌّجّٛع Total 1,643 Population of Khirbet Sir in 2007 include سغثخ ه١غ Khirbet Sir 377 200,995 25 ؼػثخ أثٛ دّبصح Izbat Abu Hamada 3' 200,980 اٌّجّٛع Total 380 Population of 'Izbat at Tabib in 2007 include ؼػثخ اٌطج١ت Izbat at Tabib 148 201,075 ِذطخ رذـ١ٓ Mahattat Tahseen 26 201,060 19 ِٕوٛع Mansur اٌّجّٛع Total 167 Population of Deir Istiya in 2007 include ص٠غ إؿز١ب Deir Istiya 2,766 251,250 27 ٚاصٞ لبٔب Wadi Qana 52 251,150 اٌّجّٛع Total 2,818 Population of Haris in 2007 include 28 دبعHaris 2,201 ؽ 251,310
278 صاع أثٛ ثوً Dar Abu Basal 4 251,350 اٌّجّٛع Total 2,205 Population of Kafr ad Dik in 2007 include وفغ اٌض٠ه Kafr ad Dik 3,698 251,425 29 سغثخ ؿٛؿخ Khirbet Susa 10 251,390 اٌّجّٛع Total 3,708 Population of Bani Zeid ash Sharqiya in 2007 include ؼِاعع إٌٛثبMazari' an Nubani 1,753 ٟٔ 301,460 30 ػبعٚعح Arura 2,072' 301,475 اٌّجّٛع Total 3,825 Population of Kafr Malik in 2007 include وفغ ِبٌه Kafr Malik 2,098 301,590 31 ١ػٓ ؿب١ِخ Ein Samiya 122' 301,580 اٌّجّٛع Total 2,220 Population of AL-Itihad in 2007 include ث١زBeitillu 2,152 ٍٛ 301,620 جّبال Jammala 1,015 301,630 32 ص٠غ ػّبع Deir 'Ammar 1,686 301,655 اٌّجّٛع Total 4,853 Population of AL-Zaytouneh in 2007 include Al Mazra'a al اؼٌّعػخ اٌمج١ٍخ 2,964 301,695 33 Qibliya أثٛ كش١ضَ Abu Shukheidim 1,299 301,670 اٌّجّٛع Total 4,263 Population of Beituniya in 2007 include ث١ز١ٔٛب Beituniya 9,268 301,825 34 Khirbet Kafr سغثخ ومغ ك١بْ 25 301,795 Sheiyan اٌّجّٛع Total 9,293 Population of Jericho (Ariha) in 2007 include أع٠ذب Jericho (Ariha) 14,551 351,920 ص٠غ اٌمغٔطً Deir Quruntul 3 351,880 35 ١ػٓ اٌضٛ٠ن Ein ad Duyuk at' 351,905 689 اٌزذزب Tahta اٌّجّٛع Total 15,243 Population of Jericho (Ariha) in 2007 include اؼٌج١ض٠خ Al 'Ubeidiya 6,195 452,180 36 ٚاصٞ اؼٌغاWadi al 'Arayis 1,570 ؾ٠ 452,215 اٌّجّٛع Total 7,765 Population of Dar Salah in 2007 include صاع هالح Dar Salah 721 452,225 اٌذج١ٍ١خ Al Hujeila 74 452,220 37 جٙضُ Juhdum 1,007 452,245 أَ اٌمـUmm al Qasseis 264 ؾ١ 452,250
279 أَ ػـٍخ Umm 'Asla 117 452,260 اٌّجّٛع Total 2,183 Population of Hindaza in 2007 include ٕ٘ضاػح Hindaza 1,555 452,280 سٍخ دّض Khallet Hamad 344 452,315 ثغ٠ضؼخ Bureid'a 240 452,320 38 ٚاصٞ أَ لؼٍخ Wadi Umm Qal'a 192 452,310 ظٙغح إٌضDhahrat an Nada 290 ٜ 452,305 اٌّجّٛع Total 2,621 Population of Ash Shawawra in 2007 include اٌلٛاٚعح Ash Shawawra 1,912 452,285 عاؽ اٌٛاص Ras al Wad 569 452,290 39 اٌشلٕخ Al Khushna 49 452,330 فشذ اٌجٛي Fakht al Jul 185 452,295 اٌّجّٛع Total 2,715 Population of Za'tara in 2007 include ػػزغح Za'tara 3,890 452,360 40 فغ٠ضAl Fureidis 518 ؽ 452,375 اٌّجّٛع Total 4,408 Population of Jannatah in 2007 include جٕبرخ )ث١ذ 452,385 368 فٍٛح( Jannatah عسّخ Rakhme 671 452,350 اؼٌـبوغح Al 'Asakira 724 452,365 41 سٍخ اٌمغا١ٔٓ Khallet al Qaranin 101 452,395 اؼٌمبة Al 'Iqab 645 452,410 دغٍِخ Harmala 548 452,420 أثٛ ٔج١ُ Abu Nujeim 566 452,425 اٌّجّٛع Total 3,623 Population of Wadi Rahhal in 2007 include ٚاصٞ عدبي Wadi Rahhal 413 452,400 اٌج١ضب Al Beida 253 452,380 42 اٌضجغح Ath Thabra 179 452,370 سغثخ إٌذٍخ Khirbet an Nahla 27 452,340 اٌّجّٛع Total 872 Population of Khallet Sakariya in 2007 include سٍخ ؿىبع٠ب Khallet Sakariya 72 452,415 43 سٍخ اٌجٍٛطخ Khallet al Balluta 123 452,390 اٌّجّٛع Total 195 Population of Tuqu' in 2007 include رمٛع Tuqu' 4,827 452,495 سغثخ اٌض٠غ Khirbet ad Deir 1,132 452,455 44 اٌذٍمAl Halqum 130 َٛ 452,475 سغثخ رمٛع Khirbet Tuqu' 76 452,520
280 اٌّجّٛع Total 6,165 Population of Al Maniya in 2007 include ا١ٌّٕخ Al Maniya 564 452,535 45 ٚاصٞ ِذّض Wadi Muhammad 87 452,510 اٌّجّٛع Total 651 Population of 'Arab ar Rashayida in 2007 include ػغة اٌغكب٠ضح Arab ar Rashayida 777 452,660 اؼؼٌاػِخ Al 'Azazima 59 452,670 46 اٌغٚا١ػٓ Ar Rawa'in 111 452,715 اٌّجّٛع Total 947 Population of Beit Ummar in 2007 include ث١ذ أِٚغ Beit Ummar 8,987 502,540 هبفب Safa 785 502,485 47 سغثخ إٌّطغح Khirbet al Mantara 95 502,505 اٌّجّٛع Total 9,867 Population of Kharas in 2007 include سبعاKharas 5,056 ؽ 502,560 سغثخ ِلغف 48 502,515 Khirbet Mushrif 44 )ػظاة( اٌّجّٛع Total 5,100 Population of Beit Ula in 2007 include ث١ذ أٚال Beit Ula 6,726 502,615 ل١ال Qila 651 502,570 49 عاؽ اٌجٛعح Ras al Jora 186 502,600 اٌّجّٛع Total 7,563 Population of Sa'ir in 2007 include ١ؼؿغ Sa'ir 9,545 502,620 ػغلبْ طغاص Irqan Turad 361' 502,590 و٠ػٛجب Kuziba 338 502,595 Shamaliyyat al كّب١ٌخ اٌٜٛٙ 67 502,610 Hawa 50 عاؽ اٌط٠ًٛ Ras at Tawil 470 502,665 اٌضٚاعح Ad Duwwara 1,196 502,690 ٚاصٞ اٌغ٠ُ Wadi ar Rim 68 502,725 لٕبْ إٌّغ Qinan an Namir 80 502,735 اؼٌض٠ـخ Al 'Uddeisa 1,046 502,720 اٌّجّٛع Total 13,171 Population of Halhul in 2007 include دٍذٛي Halhul 15,477 502,630 اٌجمبع Al Baqqar 27 502,605 51 سغثخ اٌذـىخ Khirbet al Hasaka 154 502,675 اٌّجّٛع Total 15,658 Population of Ash Shuyukh in 2007 include 52 اٌلٛ١ر Ash Shuyukh 5,063 502,635
281 لفبْ اٌشQafan al Khamis 923 ؾ١ّ 502,650 اٌّجّٛع Total 5,986 Population of Tarqumiya in 2007 include رغل١ِٛب Tarqumiya 10,429 502,640 53 سغثخ جّغٚعح Khirbet Jamrura 12 502,625 اٌّجّٛع Total 10,441 Population of Idhna in 2007 include إطٔب Idhna 13,364 502,685 ث١غ ِـٍُ Bir Musallam 135 502,645 54 ٛؿثب Suba 83 502,730 اٌّجّٛع Total 13,582 Population of Taffuh in 2007 include رفٛح Taffuh 6,962 502,750 55 اٌشّجبد Al Khamajat 103 502,710 اٌّجّٛع Total 7,065 Population of Beit Maqdum in 2007 include ث١ذ ِمضBeit Maqdum 507 َٚ 502,765 اٌىAl Kum 945 َٛ 502,770 56 اٌّٛعق Al Muwarraq 415 502,795 اٌّجّٛع Total 1,867 Population of Hebron (Al Khalil) in 2007 include اٌش١ًٍ Hebron (Al Khalil) 117,839 502,780 57 ث١غ٠ٓ Birin 123 502,880 اٌّجّٛع Total 117,962 Population of Idhna in 2007 include ص٠غ ؿبِذ Deir Samit 4,066 502,810 طبعؿٚخ Tarusa 39 502,800 58 دّوخ Humsa 13 502,785 اٌّجّٛع Total 4,118 Population of Bani Na'im in 2007 include ث١ؼٔ ُٟٕ Bani Na'im 13,404 502,815 59 جغْٚ اJurun al Louz 44 ػٌٍٛ 502,705 اٌّجّٛع Total 13,448 Population of Dura in 2007 include صٚعا Dura 15,300 502,840 عفبصح Rafada 303 502,820 ٚاضخ Wadih 48 502,845 60 اٌطجمخ At Tabaqa 1,018 502,850 وغ٠ـخ Kureise 1,616 502,805 اٌٙجغح Al Hijra 482 502,885 اٌّجّٛع Total 18,767 Population of Sikka in 2007 include ؿىخ Sikka 572 502,860 61 طٛاTawas 104 ؽ 502,890
282 اٌّجّٛع Total 676 Population of Al Majd in 2007 include اٌّجض Al Majd 1,292 502,910 سغثخ أثٛ دبِض Khirbet Abu Hamid 83 502,930 62 إؿى١ه Iskeik 118 502,985 اٌّجّٛع Total 1,493 Population of Wadi ash Shajina in 2007 include ٚاصٞ اٌلبجٕخ Wadi ash Shajina 404 502,940 63 سغثخ ثـُ Khirbet Bism 47 503,015 اٌّجّٛع Total 451 Population of Imreish in 2007 include إِغ٠ق Imreish 880 502,980 ػجضح Abda 126' 503,000 64 اؼٌٍمخ اٌفٛلب Al 'Alaqa al Fauqa 67 503,025 اؼٌٍمخ اٌزذزب Al 'Alaqa at Tahta 88 503,050 اٌّجّٛع Total 1,161 Population of Beit Mirsim in 2007 include ث١ذ ِغBeit Mirsim 204 ُؿ 503,075 65 أثؿ ٛذٛ١ٌخ Abu Suhweila 34 503,055 اٌّجّٛع Total 238 Population of Yatta in 2007 include ٠طب Yatta 30,420 503,120 ث١بع اؼٌغBiyar al 'Arus 650 ؽٚ 502,995 اٌض٠ٚغ Ad Duweir 490 503,020 لٕبْ إٌجّخ Qinan an Najma 114 503,060 لغٔخ اٌغاQurnet ar Ras 194 ؽ 503,070 سغ٠ـخ Khurisa 29 503,085 66 إٌّطبع Al Muntar 283 503,175 إI'zeiz 507 ؼ٠ؼػ 503,190 ٚاصٞ اٌـبصح Wadi as Sada 156 503,030 سٍخ اؼٌغثKhallet 'Arabi 137 ٟ 503,035 دغHureiz 708 ٖؼ٠ 502,990 اٌّجّٛع Total 33,688 Population of Ad Deirat in 2007 include اٌض٠غاد Ad Deirat 279 503,125 67 اٌغفب١ػخ Ar Rifa'iyya 231 503,080 اٌّجّٛع Total 510 Population of Rabud in 2007 include عاثٛص Rabud 433 503,145 أثٛ اٌغؼالْ Abu al Ghuzlan 402 503,160 68 أثٛ اؼٌـجب Abu al 'Asja 443 503,155 أثٛ اؼٌغلبْ Abu al 'Urqan 342 503,185 اٌّجّٛع Total 1,620 69 Population of Al Burj in 2007 include
283 اٌجغط Al Burj 1,749 503,170 اٌج١غح Al Bira 221 503,165 اٌّجّٛع Total 1,970 Population of Khallet Salih in 2007 include سٍخ هبٌخ Khallet Salih 300 503,225 70 لٕبْ ججغ Qinan Jaber 292 503,220 اٌّجّٛع Total 592 Population of Adh Dhahiriya in 2007 include اٌظب٘غ٠خ Adh Dhahiriya 20,279 503,245 سغثخ ص٠غ Khirbet Deir 503,270 42 اٌلShams ؾّ 71 سغثخ ك٠ٛىخ Khirbet Shuweika 86 503,285 جٚ ٞٛوفغجٛي Juwai & Kafr Jul 0 503,195 ٛؿِغح Somara 27 503,235 اٌّجّٛع Total 20,434 Population of At Tuwani in 2007 include اٌزٛاAt Tuwani 76 ٟٔ 503,255 اٌغوAr Rakeez 0 ؼ١ 503,280 72 لٛاQawawis 37 ؾ٠ٚ 503,315 سغثخ هبعٚعح Khirbet Sarura 48 503,290 اٌّجّٛع Total 161 Population of An Najada in 2007 include إٌجبصح An Najada 168 503,265 73 سلُ اٌىغَ Khashem al Karem 420 503,130 اٌّجّٛع Total 588 Population of As Samu' in 2007 include اٌـّٛع As Samu' 12,743 503,320 اٌـ١ّ١ب As Simiya 1,210 503,230 سغثخ اٌشغاثخ Khirbet al Kharaba 2 503,385 74 سغثخ ٠ٛػٓ Khirbet Ghuwein 503,395 44 اٌفٛلب al Fauqa اٌّجّٛع Total 13,999 Population of Khirbet al Fakheit in 2007 include سغثخ اٌفش١ذ Khirbet al Fakheit 20 503,350 سغثخ اٌزجبْ Khirbet at Tabban 22 503,330 75 سغثخ اٌّجبKhirbet al Majaz 0 ػ 503,340 اٌّجّٛع Total 42 Population of Khirbet Bir al 'Idd in 2007 include سغثخ ث١غ اؼٌض Khirbet Bir al 'Idd 104 503,360 Khirbet at سغثخ اٌزٛا١ِٓ 24 503,355 76 Tawamin ٘غ٠جخ إٌجHaribat an Nabi 50 ٟ 503,365 اٌّجّٛع Total 178 77 Population of 'Arab al Fureijat in 2007 include
284 ػغة اٌفغ٠جبد Arab al Fureijat 302 503,405 سغثخ اٌغٛ٘ح Khirbet ar Rahwa 36 503,400 اٌّجّٛع Total 338
285 ANNEX A
MEMBERS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE
286 ANNEX B
EXCEL PROGRAM RESULTS
287 Rating for each criteria Sheet: Demography Water consumption
No. Locality Name Actual Actual Actual Projected Water Population Population Growth-Rate Population score consumption score 2007 1997* (2007-1997)** 2030*** (L/day/cap)* 1 Silat al Harithiya 9,422 7,246 2.66 17,236 0.76 111 5 2 Al Yamun 16,383 12,255 2.95 31,943 1.41 77 4 3 Kafr Dan 5,148 3,766 3.18 10,565 0.47 57 3 4 Deir Abu Da'if 5,572 3,897 3.64 12,681 0.56 66 4 5 Birqin 5,685 4,344 2.73 10,555 0.47 78 4 6 Ya'bad 13,640 10,625 2.53 24,229 1.07 54 2 7 Qabatiya 19,197 14,524 2.83 36,465 1.61 68 4 8 Arraba 9,920 7,574 2.74 18,452 0.81 64 3 9 Kafr Ra'i 7,364 5,758 2.49 12,967 0.57 72 4 10 Meithalun 6,955 5,159 3.03 13,825 0.61 58 3 11 Jaba' 8,492 6,409 2.85 16,222 0.71 64 3 12 El Far'a Camp 5,712 4,152 3.24 11,896 0.52 45 2 13 Tammun 10,795 7,540 3.65 24,642 1.09 82 4 14 Qaffin 8,387 6,440 2.68 15,398 0.68 85 4 15 'Attil 9,038 7,661 1.67 13,218 0.58 90 4 16 Deir al Ghusun 8,242 6,969 1.69 12,123 0.53 96 5 17 Bal'a 6,604 5,373 2.08 10,614 0.47 76 4 18 'Asira ash Shamaliya 7,556 5,724 2.82 14,310 0.63 65 3 19 'Awarta 5,623 4,286 2.75 10,500 0.46 83 4 20 Huwwara 5,570 4,275 2.68 10,237 0.45 66 4
288 21 Beita 9,079 6,478 3.43 19,734 0.87 56 3 22 Jamma'in 6,225 4,263 3.86 14,870 0.66 62 3 23 Aqraba 8,180 5,849 3.41 17,693 0.78 106 5 24 Qabalan 7,130 5,346 2.92 13,827 0.61 33 1 25 'Azzun 7,821 5,794 3.05 15,592 0.69 140 5 26 Biddya 8,064 5,982 3.03 16,028 0.71 53 2 27 Sinjil 5,236 3,883 3.03 10,414 0.46 46 2 28 Shuqba 4,497 3,027 4.04 11,177 0.49 24 1 29 Qibya 4,901 3,441 3.60 11,055 0.49 56 3 30 Al Jalazun Camp 7,813 6,064 2.57 13,994 0.62 94 5 31 Kharbatha al Misbah 5,211 3,662 3.59 11,730 0.52 57 3 32 Beit Liqya 7,710 5,634 3.19 15,864 0.70 52 2 Ar Ram & Dahiyat al 33 20,359 18,719 0.84 24,697 1.09 55 2 Bareed 34 Biddu 6,798 4,657 3.86 16,226 0.72 68 4 35 Hizma 6,271 4,459 3.47 13,739 0.61 67 4 36 'Anata 12,049 7,037 5.53 41,509 1.83 88 4 37 Al 'Eizariya 17,606 12,724 3.30 37,157 1.64 108 5 38 Abu Dis 10,782 8,858 1.99 16,945 0.75 98 5 As Sawahira ash 39 5,800 3,810 4.29 15,247 0.67 102 5 Sharqiya 40 Al 'Ubeidiya 10,753 7,765 3.31 22,736 1.00 45 2 41 Husan 5,551 4,131 3.00 10,952 0.48 45 2 42 Nahhalin 6,827 4,638 3.94 16,611 0.73 55 2 43 Za'tara 6,289 4,408 3.62 14,242 0.63 40 1 44 Jannatah 5,416 3,623 4.10 13,655 0.60 45 2 45 Tuqu' 8,881 6,165 3.72 20,563 0.91 50 2
289 46 Beit Fajjar 11,004 7,896 3.37 23,609 1.04 60 3 47 Surif 13,365 9,541 3.43 29,016 1.28 30 1 48 Beit Ummar 13,548 9,867 3.22 28,091 1.24 50 2 49 Kharas 6,655 5,100 2.70 12,274 0.54 42 1 50 Beit Ula 10,885 7,563 3.71 25,150 1.11 35 1 51 Sa'ir 18,045 13,171 3.20 37,227 1.64 30 1 52 Halhul 22,128 15,658 3.52 49,025 2.16 35 1 53 Ash Shuyukh 8,811 5,986 3.94 21,437 0.94 45 2 54 Tarqumiya 14,357 10,441 3.24 29,868 1.32 40 1 55 Beit Kahil 6,526 4,159 4.61 18,393 0.81 50 2 56 Idhna 19,012 13,582 3.42 41,207 1.82 45 2 57 Taffuh 10,597 7,065 4.14 26,924 1.19 30 1 58 Deir Samit 6,237 4,118 4.24 16,205 0.71 55 2 59 Bani Na'im 20,084 13,448 4.09 50,523 2.23 42 1 60 Beit 'Awwa 8,064 5,924 3.13 16,391 0.72 25 1 61 Dura 28,268 18,767 4.18 72,521 3.20 50 2 62 Yatta 48,672 33,688 3.75 113,456 5.00 30 1 63 Adh Dhahiriya 28,776 20,434 3.48 63,239 2.79 55 2 64 As Samu' 19,649 13,999 3.45 42,855 1.89 60 3 113,456
290
Note * From PCBS * Water consumption (PWA, 2005) ** Actual Growth-Rate= (population 2007 /
Population 1997)(1/10) - 1
*** Expected population in (2030) = Population in (2007)* (1+r)^23
Rating-Equation >=L/day/cap score adjustable Ds = 5 x P/ Ph (highest population) 0 1 45 2 56 3 66 4 91 5
Rating 1 point: < 45L/day/cap 2 points: 45 - 55L/day/cap 3 points: 56 - 65L/day/cap 4 points: 66 - 90L/day/cap 5 points: > 91 L/day/cap
291
Reuse Environmental factor Hydrological springs or No. Locality Name Total Agricultural land value* score vulnerability to score wells in the score Score Grounwater* region** 1 Silat al Harithiya High 5 High 3 No 1 4 2 Al Yamun High 5 Low 1 Yes 2 3 3 Kafr Dan High 5 Medium 2 Yes 2 4 4 Deir Abu Da'if High 5 High 3 No 1 4 5 Birqin Medium 3 Low 1 Yes 2 3 6 Ya'bad Medium 3 Medium 2 Yes 2 4 7 Qabatiya Medium+High 4 High 3 Yes 2 5 8 Arraba Medium+High 4 Low 1 Yes 2 3 9 Kafr Ra'i Low+Medium 2 Medium 2 No 1 3 10 Meithalun low+Medium+High 3 High 3 No 1 4 11 Jaba' Medium 3 High 3 Yes 2 5 12 El Far'a Camp High 5 High 3 Yes 2 5 13 Tammun Low 1 Low 1 Yes 2 3 14 Qaffin Medium 3 Low 1 Yes 2 3 15 'Attil High 5 Medium 2 Yes 2 4 16 Deir al Ghusun High 5 Low 1 Yes 2 3 17 Bal'a Low+Medium 2 Medium 2 Yes 2 4 'Asira ash 18 Low High 3 No 1 4 Shamaliya 1 19 'Awarta Low+Medium+High 3 Low 1 Yes 2 3 20 Huwwara Low+Medium 2 Low 1 Yes 2 3 21 Beita Low+Medium 2 Medium 2 No 1 3 22 Jamma'in Low+Medium 2 High 3 No 1 4 23 Aqraba Low+Medium 2 High 3 Yes 2 5
292 24 Qabalan Low+Medium 2 High 3 No 1 4 25 'Azzun Low+Medium 2 Medium 2 Yes 2 4 26 Biddya Low+Medium 2 High 3 No 1 4 27 Sinjil Low+Medium 2 High 3 Yes 2 5 28 Shuqba Low+Medium 2 High 3 Yes 2 5 29 Qibya Low+Medium 2 High 3 No 1 4 30 Al Jalazun Camp Low+High 3 High 3 No 1 4 Kharbatha al 31 Medium Low 1 No 1 2 Misbah 3 32 Beit Liqya Medium+High 4 Medium 2 Yes 2 4 Ar Ram & 33 Dahiyat al Low High 3 No 1 4 Bareed 1 34 Biddu Medium 3 High 3 No 1 4 35 Hizma Low 1 High 3 Yes 2 5 36 'Anata Low 1 High 3 No 1 4 37 Al 'Eizariya Low 1 Low 1 Yes 2 3 38 Abu Dis Low 1 Low 1 No 1 2 As Sawahira ash 39 Low Low 1 Yes 2 3 Sharqiya 1 40 Al 'Ubeidiya Low 1 Low 1 No 1 2 41 Husan Medium 3 High 3 Yes 2 5 42 Nahhalin Medium 3 High 3 Yes 2 5 43 Za'tara Low+Medium 2 Low 1 Yes 2 3 44 Jannatah Low+Medium 2 Medium 2 No 1 3 45 Tuqu' Low+Medium 2 High 3 Yes 2 5 46 Beit Fajjar Low+Medium 2 High 3 Yes 2 5 47 Surif Low 1 High 3 No 1 4 48 Beit Ummar Low+Medium 2 High 3 Yes 2 5
293 49 Kharas Low 1 High 3 No 1 4 50 Beit Ula Low 1 Medium 2 No 1 3 51 Sa'ir Low+Medium 2 High 3 Yes 2 5 52 Halhul Low+Medium 2 High 3 Yes 2 5 53 Ash Shuyukh Low 1 High 3 Yes 2 5 54 Tarqumiya Low 1 High 3 No 1 4 55 Beit Kahil Low+Medium 2 High 3 Yes 2 5 56 Idhna Low 1 Low 1 Yes 2 3 57 Taffuh Low+Medium 2 High 3 Yes 2 5 58 Deir Samit Low+Medium 2 Low 1 No 1 2 59 Bani Na'im Low 1 Low 1 Yes 2 3 60 Beit 'Awwa Low+Medium 2 Low 1 No 1 2 61 Dura Low 1 High 3 Yes 2 5 62 Yatta Low 1 Medium 2 Yes 2 4 63 Adh Dhahiriya Low+Medium+High 3 Low 1 No 1 2 64 As Samu' Low 1 Low 1 Yes 2 3 Note * hydrological vulnerability map (published by UNEP * Agricultural land map (published by MoA) in cooperation with the EQA, 2002) ** GIS database Rating- Hydrological springs or Agricultural land value score vulnerability to score wells in the score
Equation Grounwater region adjustable Low 1 Low 1 No 1
Low+Medium 2 Medium 2 Yes 2
Medium 3 High 3
Low+Medium+High 3
Low+High 3
Medium+High 4
High 5
294 Rating 1 points: Low-value agricultural land 1 point: No springs and wells in the region 3 points: Medium -value agricultural land 2 points: >= 1 springs or wells in the region 5 points: High-value agricultural land 1 point: Low hydrological vulnerability 2 points: Medium hydrological vulnerability 3 points: High hydrological vulnerability Operation body Risk for Industrial Waste Rank of olive No. Locality Name Rank of municipality- Total stonecu textil score municipality- score presses Total score MoLG* Score tters* es* MDLF** * 1 Silat al Harithiya C 1.5 C 2 3.5 1 2 0 3 4 2 Al Yamun B 2 C 2 4 4 3 0 7 3 3 Kafr Dan Village Council 0.5 C 2 2.5 1 0 0 1 4 4 Deir Abu Da'if Village Council 0.5 C 2 2.5 1 0 0 1 4 5 Birqin C 1.5 C 2 3.5 3 0 0 3 4 6 Ya'bad B 2 C 2 4 2 0 0 2 4 7 Qabatiya B 2 C 2 4 4 64 0 68 1 8 Arraba B 2 C 2 4 5 3 0 8 3 9 Kafr Ra'i C 1.5 C 2 3.5 5 1 0 6 3 10 Meithalun C 1.5 C 2 3.5 2 2 0 4 4 11 Jaba' C 1.5 C 2 3.5 2 1 0 3 4 12 El Far'a Camp Projects Committee 0.5 C 2 2.5 0 0 0 0 5 13 Tammun C 1.5 C 2 3.5 0 5 0 5 3 14 Qaffin C 1.5 C 2 3.5 3 2 0 5 3 15 'Attil C 1.5 C 2 3.5 2 3 0 5 3 16 Deir al Ghusun C 1.5 C 2 3.5 4 1 0 5 3 17 Bal'a C 1.5 C 2 3.5 2 1 0 3 4 'Asira ash 18 C 1.5 C 2 3.5 3 2 0 5 3 Shamaliya 19 'Awarta Village Council 0.5 C 2 2.5 2 0 0 2 4
295 20 Huwwara C 1.5 C 2 3.5 0 2 0 2 4 21 Beita C 1.5 C 2 3.5 5 0 0 5 3 22 Jamma'in C 1.5 C 2 3.5 2 30 0 32 1 23 Aqraba C 1.5 C 2 3.5 2 2 0 4 4 24 Qabalan C 1.5 C 2 3.5 3 1 0 4 4 25 'Azzun C 1.5 C 2 3.5 2 0 0 2 4 26 Biddya C 1.5 C 2 3.5 5 0 0 5 3 27 Sinjil C 1.5 E 1 2.5 0 0 0 0 5 28 Shuqba Village Council 0.5 C 2 2.5 1 1 0 2 4 29 Qibya Village Council 0.5 C 2 2.5 0 1 0 1 4 30 Al Jalazun Camp Projects Committee 0.5 C 2 2.5 0 0 0 0 5 Kharbatha al 31 Village Council 0.5 C 2 2.5 2 2 0 4 4 Misbah 32 Beit Liqya C 1.5 C 2 3.5 1 2 0 3 4 Ar Ram & Dahiyat 33 C 1.5 C 2 3.5 1 4 0 5 3 al Bareed 34 Biddu C 1.5 C 2 3.5 2 3 0 5 3 35 Hizma Village Council 0.5 C 2 2.5 0 5 0 5 3 36 'Anata C 1.5 E 1 2.5 0 11 0 11 2 37 Al 'Eizariya C 1.5 C 2 3.5 0 0 1 1 4 38 Abu Dis C 1.5 C 2 3.5 0 0 0 0 5 As Sawahira ash 39 C 1.5 C 2 3.5 0 0 0 0 5 Sharqiya 40 Al 'Ubeidiya C 1.5 C 2 3.5 0 0 0 0 5 41 Husan Village Council 0.5 C 2 2.5 0 0 0 0 5 42 Nahhalin Village Council 0.5 C 2 2.5 0 0 0 0 5 43 Za'tara C 1.5 C 2 3.5 0 0 0 0 5 44 Jannatah D 1 C 2 3 0 0 0 0 5 45 Tuqu' C 1.5 C 2 3.5 0 1 0 1 4
296 46 Beit Fajjar C 1.5 C 2 3.5 0 182 0 182 1 47 Surif C 1.5 C 2 3.5 2 2 0 4 4 48 Beit Ummar C 1.5 C 2 3.5 0 15 0 15 2 49 Kharas C 1.5 C 2 3.5 2 2 0 4 4 50 Beit Ula C 1.5 C 2 3.5 1 0 0 1 4 51 Sa'ir B 2 C 2 4 2 12 0 14 2 52 Halhul B 2 C 2 4 0 9 0 9 3 53 Ash Shuyukh C 1.5 C 2 3.5 0 15 0 15 2 54 Tarqumiya C 1.5 C 2 3.5 1 5 0 6 3 55 Beit Kahil Village Council 0.5 C 2 2.5 0 0 0 0 5 56 Idhna B 2 B 2.5 4.5 3 6 0 9 3 57 Taffuh C 1.5 C 2 3.5 0 0 0 0 5 58 Deir Samit C 1.5 C 2 3.5 1 0 0 1 4 59 Bani Na'im B 2 C 2 4 1 4 0 5 3 60 Beit 'Awwa C 1.5 C 2 3.5 0 13 0 13 2 61 Dura B 2 B 2.5 4.5 1 0 0 1 4 62 Yatta B 2 C 2 4 2 9 0 11 2 63 Adh Dhahiriya B 2 C 2 4 2 8 0 10 2 64 As Samu' B 2 C 2 4 0 0 0 0 5 * From municipalities and Village Note * http://www.molg.pna.ps/LGU.aspx councils **http://www.mdlf.org.ps/Details.aspx?LangID=En&PageID=49&mi d=22 Rank of Rating- Rank of municipality- score municipality- score >= score MoLG Equation MDLF adjustable Village Council 0.5 F 0.5 16 1 Projects Committee 0.5 E 1 10 2 D 1 D 1.5 5 3
297 C 1.5 C 2 1 4 B 2 B 2.5 0 5 A 2.5 A 2.5 1 point: > 15 stonecutters + Rating 0.5 point: Village Council or 0.5 point: F olive presses + textiles Projects Committee 1 point: E 2 points: Between 10 and 15 1 point: D 1.5 point: D 3 points: Between 5 and 10 1.5 point: C 2 point: C 4 points: < 5 5 points: No stonecutters + 2 point: B 2.5 point: A,B olive presses + textiles 2.5 point: A
298 Socio-economic factor Total Total populati Highe % holds % bachelor Econom No. Locality Name on aged Ph.D Mas r Bach a B.Sc. Economicall Total degree score ically score 10 years * ter* Diplo elor* or y Score or Active* and ma* higher* Active* higher* over* 1 Silat al Harithiya 6,640 13 27 4 356 400 6 1.5 2,042 31 1.5 3.0 2 Al Yamun 11,484 9 27 7 477 520 5 0.5 3,675 32 1.5 2.0 3 Kafr Dan 3,585 1 8 191 200 6 1.5 1,157 32 1.5 3.0 4 Deir Abu Da'if 3,805 10 3 162 175 5 0.5 1,334 35 2.5 3.0 5 Birqin 4,159 6 20 4 336 366 9 1.5 1,518 36 2.5 4.0 6 Ya'bad 9,759 14 36 7 675 732 8 1.5 3,132 32 1.5 3.0 7 Qabatiya 13,446 10 45 12 703 770 6 1.5 3,494 26 0.5 2.0 8 Arraba 7,127 4 28 5 468 505 7 1.5 2,206 31 1.5 3.0 9 Kafr Ra'i 5,325 4 22 5 271 302 6 1.5 1,636 31 1.5 3.0 10 Meithalun 5,054 14 50 11 423 498 10 1.5 1,656 33 1.5 3.0 11 Jaba' 6,079 3 15 3 280 301 5 0.5 1,680 28 0.5 1.0 12 El Far'a Camp 3,778 3 12 1 227 243 6 1.5 1,316 35 1.5 3.0 13 Tammun 7,651 7 35 4 570 616 8 1.5 2,586 34 1.5 3.0 14 Qaffin 6,041 3 15 1 267 286 5 0.5 1,840 30 1.5 2.0 15 'Attil 6,793 26 4 534 564 8 1.5 2,208 33 1.5 3.0 16 Deir al Ghusun 6,079 7 47 13 583 650 11 2.5 2,052 34 1.5 4.0 17 Bal'a 4,756 3 15 2 225 245 5 1.5 1,474 31 1.5 3.0 18 'Asira ash Shamaliya 5,557 12 52 11 649 724 13 2.5 2,023 36 2.5 5.0 19 'Awarta 3,982 8 1 193 202 5 1.5 1,292 32 1.5 3.0 20 Huwwara 3,948 3 20 3 221 247 6 1.5 1,201 30 1.5 3.0 21 Beita 6,198 6 33 2 383 424 7 1.5 1,902 31 1.5 3.0 22 Jamma'in 4,206 4 21 1 263 289 7 1.5 1,261 30 0.5 2.0
299 23 Aqraba 5,625 1 6 145 152 3 0.5 1,713 30 1.5 2.0 24 Qabalan 5,030 1 11 1 164 177 4 0.5 1,551 31 1.5 2.0 25 'Azzun 5,414 3 21 7 390 421 8 1.5 1,765 33 1.5 3.0 26 Biddya 5,563 5 41 2 377 425 8 1.5 1,791 32 1.5 3.0 27 Sinjil 3,459 5 12 4 139 160 5 0.5 1,129 33 1.5 2.0 28 Shuqba 2,929 1 6 1 105 113 4 0.5 1,014 35 1.5 2.0 29 Qibya 3,253 3 101 104 3 0.5 1,163 36 2.5 3.0 30 Al Jalazun Camp 5,158 2 15 162 179 3 0.5 1,773 34 1.5 2.0 Kharbatha al 31 3,478 1 7 1 106 115 3 0.5 1,091 31 1.5 2.0 Misbah 32 Beit Liqya 5,226 16 1 260 277 5 1.5 1,692 32 1.5 3.0 Ar Ram & Dahiyat al 33 9,589 16 101 12 698 827 9 1.5 3,520 37 2.5 4.0 Bareed 34 Biddu 4,303 2 10 2 193 207 5 0.5 1,420 33 1.5 2.0 35 Hizma 3,962 9 28 5 329 371 9 1.5 1,286 32 1.5 3.0 36 'Anata 6,067 9 32 12 331 384 6 1.5 2,064 34 1.5 3.0 37 Al 'Eizariya 8,703 18 53 10 464 545 6 1.5 2,873 33 1.5 3.0 38 Abu Dis 6,141 28 119 22 647 816 13 2.5 2,307 38 2.5 5.0 As Sawahira ash 39 3,282 15 24 3 189 231 7 1.5 1,088 33 1.5 3.0 Sharqiya 40 Al 'Ubeidiya 7,142 3 10 1 287 301 4 0.5 2,205 31 1.5 2.0 41 Husan 3,872 4 9 10 138 161 4 0.5 1,295 33 1.5 2.0 42 Nahhalin 4,542 11 21 12 314 358 8 1.5 1,442 32 1.5 3.0 43 Za'tara 4,209 5 17 9 305 336 8 1.5 1,316 31 1.5 3.0 44 Jannatah 3,572 2 2 98 102 3 0.5 1,023 29 0.5 1.0 45 Tuqu' 6,047 1 11 1 267 280 5 0.5 1,727 29 0.5 1.0 46 Beit Fajjar 7,517 2 17 3 264 286 4 0.5 2,387 32 1.5 2.0 47 Surif 9,381 8 31 13 789 841 9 1.5 2,198 23 0.5 2.0 48 Beit Ummar 9,331 25 55 12 799 891 10 1.5 3,066 33 1.5 3.0
300 49 Kharas 4,526 3 17 4 254 278 6 1.5 1,298 29 0.5 2.0 50 Beit Ula 7,160 3 9 3 343 358 5 1.5 2,180 30 1.5 3.0 51 Sa'ir 12,046 9 24 17 540 590 5 0.5 3,608 30 0.5 1.0 52 Halhul 15,475 32 93 33 1290 1448 9 1.5 5,215 34 1.5 3.0 53 Ash Shuyukh 5,956 2 25 5 325 357 6 1.5 1,747 29 0.5 2.0 54 Tarqumiya 9,978 9 31 4 651 695 7 1.5 3,089 31 1.5 3.0 55 Beit Kahil 4,169 1 14 6 327 348 8 1.5 1,154 28 0.5 2.0 56 Idhna 13,062 18 47 8 759 832 6 1.5 4,045 31 1.5 3.0 57 Taffuh 6,877 1 15 1 245 262 4 0.5 2,014 29 0.5 1.0 58 Deir Samit 3,999 3 5 147 155 4 0.5 1,074 27 0.5 1.0 59 Bani Na'im 13,194 15 36 3 579 633 5 0.5 4,151 31 1.5 2.0 60 Beit 'Awwa 5,557 3 4 4 194 205 4 0.5 1,684 30 1.5 2.0 61 Dura 19,514 53 156 31 1914 2154 11 2.5 6,355 33 1.5 4.0 62 Yatta 31,541 21 60 11 1267 1359 4 0.5 9,083 29 0.5 1.0 63 Adh Dhahiriya 19,245 14 41 25 793 873 5 0.5 6,152 32 1.5 2.0 64 As Samu' 13,116 9 33 6 734 782 6 1.5 3,447 26 0.5 2.0 * Census Final Results – Summary, (Population, Buildings, Housing, Note Establishments) Census 2007, 2008-2009 Rating- score score Equation adjustable > 10 2.5 > 35 2.5 >= 5 1.5 > 30 1.5 >= 0 0.5 >= 0 0.5
301 0.5 point: <= 5% of the population hold a bachelor degree or higher of the total population aged 10 years and
Rating over 1.5 points: 5% to 10% of the population hold a bachelor degree or higher of the total population aged 10 years and over 2.5 point: > 10% of the population hold a bachelor degree or higher of the total population aged 10 years and over 0.5 points: <= 30% of the population economically active of the total population aged 10 years and over 1.5 points: 30% to 35% of the population economically active of the total population aged 10 years and over 2.5 points: > 35% of the population economically active of the total population aged 10 years and over
Geographical factor Political Issues settlement in No. Locality Name % gravity No. of Total Political land Total score score the catchment score score flow* catchments* Score classifications* Score area* Silat al 50% to 1 1 2 2 NO 2 A+B 2 4.0 Harithiya 75% 3 75% to 2 Al Yamun 1.5 2 2 NO 2 A+B 2 4.0 95% 3.5 3 Kafr Dan > 95% 2 2 2 4 NO 2 A+B 2 4.0 4 Deir Abu Da'if > 95% 2 1 1 3 NO 2 A+B 2 4.0 75% to 5 Birqin 1.5 2 2 NO 2 B 2 4.0 95% 3.5 50% to 6 Ya'bad 1 2 2 YES 1 B+C 1 2.0 75% 3
302 7 Qabatiya > 95% 2 1 1 3 NO 2 B 2 4.0 8 Arraba <50% 0.5 > 2 3 3.5 NO 2 A+B+C 1 3.0 50% to 9 Kafr Ra'i 1 > 2 3 NO 2 A 3 5.0 75% 4 10 Meithalun > 95% 2 1 1 3 NO 2 A 3 5.0 75% to 11 Jaba' 1.5 2 2 NO 2 B 2 4.0 95% 3.5 12 El Far'a Camp > 95% 2 1 1 3 NO 2 A 3 5.0 50% to 13 Tammun 1 2 2 NO 2 A+B 2 4.0 75% 3 14 Qaffin > 95% 2 2 2 4 NO 2 B+C 1 3.0 15 'Attil > 95% 2 2 2 4 NO 2 B+C 1 3.0 50% to 16 Deir al Ghusun 1 2 2 NO 2 B+C 1 3.0 75% 3 75% to 17 Bal'a 1.5 > 2 3 NO 2 A+B+C 1 3.0 95% 4.5 'Asira ash 50% to 18 1 2 2 NO 2 A+B 2 4.0 Shamaliya 75% 3 50% to 19 'Awarta 1 2 2 YES 1 B+C 1 2.0 75% 3 20 Huwwara > 95% 2 1 1 3 NO 2 B+C 1 3.0 21 Beita > 95% 2 2 2 4 NO 2 B+C 1 3.0 50% to 22 Jamma'in 1 2 2 NO 2 B+C 1 3.0 75% 3 50% to 23 Aqraba 1 2 2 NO 2 B+C 1 3.0 75% 3 24 Qabalan > 95% 2 2 2 4 NO 2 B 2 4.0 25 'Azzun > 95% 2 2 2 4 YES 1 B+C 1 2.0
303
50% to 26 Biddya 1 2 2 YES 1 B+C 1 2.0 75% 3 27 Sinjil > 95% 2 2 2 4 NO 2 A+B+C 1 3.0 50% to 28 Shuqba 1 > 2 3 NO 2 B+C 1 3.0 75% 4 29 Qibya <50% 0.5 > 2 3 3.5 NO 2 B+C 1 3.0 Al Jalazun 75% to 30 1.5 2 2 YES 1 B+C 1 2.0 Camp 95% 3.5 Kharbatha al 50% to 31 1 2 2 NO 2 B+C 1 3.0 Misbah 75% 3 32 Beit Liqya > 95% 2 1 1 3 NO 2 B+C 1 3.0 Ar Ram & 33 Dahiyat al <50% 0.5 > 2 3 YES 1 B+C 1 2.0 Bareed 3.5 50% to 34 Biddu 1 2 2 YES 1 B+C 1 2.0 75% 3 75% to 35 Hizma 1.5 2 2 YES 1 B+C 1 2.0 95% 3.5 75% to 36 'Anata 1.5 2 2 YES 1 B+C 1 2.0 95% 3.5 37 Al 'Eizariya <50% 0.5 > 2 3 3.5 YES 1 B+C 1 2.0 38 Abu Dis <50% 0.5 > 2 3 3.5 YES 1 B+C 1 2.0 As Sawahira 50% to 39 1 2 2 YES 1 B+C 1 2.0 ash Sharqiya 75% 3 40 Al 'Ubeidiya <50% 0.5 > 2 3 3.5 NO 2 A+C 1 3.0 41 Husan <50% 0.5 > 2 3 3.5 NO 2 B+C 1 3.0 42 Nahhalin <50% 0.5 > 2 3 3.5 YES 1 B+C 1 2.0 43 Za'tara 50% to 1 2 2 3 NO 2 A+B+C 1 3.0
304 75% 44 Jannatah <50% 0.5 > 2 3 3.5 NO 2 B+C 1 3.0 45 Tuqu' > 95% 2 2 2 4 YES 1 B+C 1 2.0 50% to 46 Beit Fajjar 1 2 2 NO 2 B 2 4.0 75% 3 50% to 47 Surif 1 2 2 NO 2 B+C 1 3.0 75% 3 48 Beit Ummar <50% 0.5 > 2 3 3.5 YES 1 B+C 1 2.0 49 Kharas > 95% 2 1 1 3 NO 2 B 2 4.0 50% to 50 Beit Ula 1 > 2 3 NO 2 B 2 4.0 75% 4 51 Sa'ir <50% 0.5 > 2 3 3.5 NO 2 B+C 1 3.0 75% to 52 Halhul 1.5 > 2 3 NO 2 B+C 1 3.0 95% 4.5 75% to 53 Ash Shuyukh 1.5 2 2 NO 2 B+C 1 3.0 95% 3.5 54 Tarqumiya <50% 0.5 > 2 3 3.5 YES 1 B+C 1 2.0 50% to 55 Beit Kahil 1 2 2 NO 2 B+C 1 3.0 75% 3 56 Idhna <50% 0.5 > 2 3 3.5 NO 2 B+C 1 3.0 50% to 57 Taffuh 1 2 2 NO 2 A+B 2 4.0 75% 3 75% to 58 Deir Samit 1.5 > 2 3 NO 2 B+C 1 3.0 95% 4.5 59 Bani Na'im <50% 0.5 > 2 3 3.5 NO 2 A+B+C 1 3.0 50% to 60 Beit 'Awwa 1 > 2 3 YES 1 B+C 1 2.0 75% 4 61 Dura 75% to 1.5 > 2 3 4.5 NO 2 A+B 2 4.0
305 95% 50% to 62 Yatta 1 > 2 3 NO 2 A+B 2 4.0 75% 4 63 Adh Dhahiriya <50% 0.5 > 2 3 3.5 NO 2 A+B 2 4.0 75% to 64 As Samu' 1.5 2 2 NO 2 A+B 2 4.0 95% 3.5
306
* Have been identified from the contour * GIS Note maps database settlement in Rating- % gravity No. of Political land score score the catchment score score flow catchments classifications Equation area adjustable <50% 0.5 1 1 YES 1 C 1 50% to 1 2 2 NO 2 B+C 1 75% 75% to 1.5 > 2 3 A+C 1 95% > 95% 2 A+B+C 1 B 2 A+B 2 A 3
Rating 0.5 point: <50% by gravity flow 1 point: >=1 settlements in the catchment area 1 points: 50% to 75% by gravity flow 2 points: No settlements in the catchment area 1.5 points: 75% to 95% by gravity flow 1 points: Trunk lines and/or WWTP in Area C 2 points: > 95% by gravity flow 2 points: Entire project in Areas A and/or B 1 points: > 2 catchment areas 3 points: Entire project in Areas A 2 points: 2 catchment areas 3 point: 1 catchment areas
307 Normalize weights Sheet: No. Criteria Environmental Assessment Committee Tourism Planning and National EQA MoLG Transport Agriculture Health and Administrative PWA Economy Antiquities Development 1 Demography 5 8 8 8 9 10 8 9 9 2 Water consumption / Wastewater 7 6 8 6 9 7 6 9 9 production 3 Reusing wastewater 5 4 5 3 8 2 5 5 8 4 Environmental factor 10 9 8 10 10 10 9 10 10 5 Operation body 10 8 8 8 9 8 8 10 9 6 Risk for Industrial 7 6 6 5 7 7 5 10 7 Waste 7 Socio-economic factor 10 8 10 8 9 10 8 8 9 8 Geographical factor 7 4 6 6 7 5 5 6 8 9 Political Issues 6 7 8 7 8 7 7 7 9
Can Change Directly Weights of the criteria were identified through the intergovernmental agencies
308
No. Criteria Palestinian Public Works Labour Civil Petroleum Weights Normalize weight Energy Authority and Housing defense Authority (Wm) (from 100%) from 10 (Wm×100/∑W)
1 Demography 7 10 9 8 7 8.2 12.5 2 Water consumption / Wastewater 4 5 6 7 6 6.8 10.37 production 3 Reusing wastewater 6 4 5 6 4 5 7.62 4 Environmental factor 8 10 10 10 9 9.5 14.48 5 Operation body 8 9 9 8 8 8.6 13.11 6 Risk for Industrial 7 5 6 4 8 6.4 9.76 Waste 7 Socio-economic factor 7 9 8 8 8 8.6 13.11 8 Geographical factor 5 4 5 4 5 5.5 8.38 9 Political Issues 7 6 7 6 6 7 10.67
309 Evaluation measure Sheet: Criteria Score for each community Score No Water Reusing Risk for Socio- for Locality Name Demograph Environmenta Operatio Geographica Politica . consumptio wastewate Industrial economic each y l factor n body l factor l Issues n r Waste factor comm Normalize weight 12.5 10.37 7.62 14.48 13.11 9.76 13.11 8.38 10.67 unity Silat al 1 0.76 5 5 4 3.5 4 3 3 4 69.9 Harithiya 2 Al Yamun 1.41 4 5 3 4 3 2 3.5 4 64.1 3 Kafr Dan 0.47 3 5 4 2.5 4 3 4 4 64.1 4 Deir Abu Da'if 0.56 4 5 4 2.5 4 3 3 4 64.7 5 Birqin 0.47 4 3 3 3.5 4 4 3.5 4 64.6 6 Ya'bad 1.07 2 3 4 4 4 3 3 2 58.4 7 Qabatiya 1.61 4 4 5 4 1 2 3 4 64.1 8 Arraba 0.81 3 4 3 4 3 3 3.5 3 59.5 9 Kafr Ra'i 0.57 4 2 3 3.5 3 3 4 5 61.7 10 Meithalun 0.61 3 3 4 3.5 4 3 3 5 64.5 11 Jaba' 0.71 3 3 5 3.5 4 1 3.5 4 61.1 12 El Far'a Camp 0.52 2 5 5 2.5 5 3 3 5 67.4 13 Tammun 1.09 4 1 3 3.5 3 3 3 4 57.7 14 Qaffin 0.68 4 3 3 3.5 3 2 4 3 56.6 15 'Attil 0.58 4 5 4 3.5 3 3 4 3 65 16 Deir al Ghusun 0.53 5 5 3 3.5 3 4 3 3 65 17 Bal'a 0.47 4 2 4 3.5 4 3 4.5 3 62.9 'Asira ash 18 0.63 3 1 4 3.5 3 5 3 4 62.6 Shamaliya 19 'Awarta 0.46 4 3 3 2.5 4 3 3 2 54.2 20 Huwwara 0.45 4 2 3 3.5 4 3 3 3 57.4
310 21 Beita 0.87 3 2 3 3.5 3 3 4 3 56.1 22 Jamma'in 0.66 3 2 4 3.5 1 2 3 3 50.3 23 Aqraba 0.78 5 2 5 3.5 4 2 3 3 63.5 24 Qabalan 0.61 1 2 4 3.5 4 2 4 4 55.7 25 'Azzun 0.69 5 2 4 3.5 4 3 4 2 62.5 26 Biddya 0.71 2 2 4 3.5 3 3 3 2 52.7 27 Sinjil 0.46 2 2 5 2.5 5 2 4 3 57.5 28 Shuqba 0.49 1 2 5 2.5 4 2 4 3 53.5 29 Qibya 0.49 3 2 4 2.5 4 3 3.5 3 56.6 Al Jalazun 30 0.62 5 3 4 2.5 5 2 3.5 2 59.8 Camp Kharbatha al 31 0.52 3 3 2 2.5 4 2 3 3 48.9 Misbah 32 Beit Liqya 0.70 2 4 4 3.5 4 3 3 3 59.9 Ar Ram & 33 Dahiyat al 1.09 2 1 4 3.5 3 4 3.5 2 55.6 Bareed 34 Biddu 0.72 4 3 4 3.5 3 2 3 2 55.8 35 Hizma 0.61 4 1 5 2.5 3 3 3.5 2 56.2 36 'Anata 1.83 4 1 4 2.5 2 3 3.5 2 54.4 37 Al 'Eizariya 1.64 5 1 3 3.5 4 3 3.5 2 59.7 38 Abu Dis 0.75 5 1 2 3.5 5 5 3.5 2 61.7 As Sawahira 39 0.67 5 1 3 3.5 5 3 3 2 58.4 ash Sharqiya 40 Al 'Ubeidiya 1.00 2 1 2 3.5 5 2 3.5 3 50.4 41 Husan 0.48 2 3 5 2.5 5 2 3.5 3 58.2 42 Nahhalin 0.73 2 3 5 2.5 5 3 3.5 2 59.3 43 Za'tara 0.63 1 2 3 3.5 5 3 3 3 53.6
311 44 Jannatah 0.60 2 2 3 3 5 1 3.5 3 49.9 45 Tuqu' 0.91 2 2 5 3.5 4 1 4 2 54.5 46 Beit Fajjar 1.04 3 2 5 3.5 1 2 3 4 56.3 47 Surif 1.28 1 1 4 3.5 4 2 3 3 52 48 Beit Ummar 1.24 2 2 5 3.5 2 3 3.5 2 55.9 49 Kharas 0.54 1 1 4 3.5 4 2 3 4 52.3 50 Beit Ula 1.11 1 1 3 3.5 4 3 4 4 55.1 51 Sa'ir 1.64 1 2 5 4 2 1 3.5 3 53 52 Halhul 2.16 1 2 5 4 3 3 4.5 3 63.2 53 Ash Shuyukh 0.94 2 1 5 3.5 2 2 3.5 3 53.1 54 Tarqumiya 1.32 1 1 4 3.5 3 3 3.5 2 51.5 55 Beit Kahil 0.81 2 2 5 2.5 5 2 3 3 56.7 56 Idhna 1.82 2 1 3 4.5 3 3 3.5 3 56.7 57 Taffuh 1.19 1 2 5 3.5 5 1 3 4 57.7 58 Deir Samit 0.71 2 2 2 3.5 4 1 4.5 3 48.3 59 Bani Na'im 2.23 1 1 3 4 3 2 3.5 3 51.7 60 Beit 'Awwa 0.72 1 2 2 3.5 2 2 4 2 42 61 Dura 3.20 2 1 5 4.5 4 4 4.5 4 74.3 62 Yatta 5.00 1 1 4 4 2 1 4 4 59.9 63 Adh Dhahiriya 2.79 2 3 2 4 2 2 3.5 4 55.5 64 As Samu' 1.89 3 1 3 4 5 2 3.5 4 61
312 Setting priorities Sheet: Locality No. Locality Name Score No. Locality Name Score No. Score Name Adh 1 Dura 74.3 23 Al Jalazun Camp 59.8 45 55.5 Dhahiriya 2 Silat al Harithiya 69.9 24 Al 'Eizariya 59.7 46 Beit Ula 55.1 3 El Far'a Camp 67.4 25 Arraba 59.5 47 Tuqu' 54.5 4 'Attil 65 26 Nahhalin 59.3 48 'Anata 54.4 5 Deir al Ghusun 65 27 Ya'bad 58.4 49 'Awarta 54.2 As Sawahira ash 6 Deir Abu Da'if 64.7 28 58.4 50 Za'tara 53.6 Sharqiya 7 Birqin 64.6 29 Husan 58.2 51 Shuqba 53.5 8 Meithalun 64.5 30 Tammun 57.7 52 Ash Shuyukh 53.1 9 Al Yamun 64.1 31 Taffuh 57.7 53 Sa'ir 53 10 Kafr Dan 64.1 32 Sinjil 57.5 54 Biddya 52.7 11 Qabatiya 64.1 33 Huwwara 57.4 55 Kharas 52.3 12 Aqraba 63.5 34 Beit Kahil 56.7 56 Surif 52 13 Halhul 63.2 35 Idhna 56.7 57 Bani Na'im 51.7 14 Bal'a 62.9 36 Qaffin 56.6 58 Tarqumiya 51.5 15 'Asira ash Shamaliya 62.6 37 Qibya 56.6 59 Al 'Ubeidiya 50.4 16 'Azzun 62.5 38 Beit Fajjar 56.3 60 Jamma'in 50.3 17 Kafr Ra'i 61.7 39 Hizma 56.2 61 Jannatah 49.9 Kharbatha al 18 Abu Dis 61.7 40 Beita 56.1 62 48.9 Misbah 19 Jaba' 61.1 41 Beit Ummar 55.9 63 Deir Samit 48.3 20 As Samu' 61 42 Biddu 55.8 64 Beit 'Awwa 42
313 21 Beit Liqya 59.9 43 Qabalan 55.7 Ar Ram & Dahiyat al 22 Yatta 59.9 44 55.6 Bareed
314 Alternative A
Normalize weights to each criteria No. Criteria Weights Normalize (Wm) weight 1 Demography 8.2 13.99 2 Water consumption / Wastewater production 6.8 11.6 3 Reusing wastewater 5 8.53 4 Environmental factor 9.5 16.21 5 Operation body 8.6 14.68
6 Risk for Industrial Waste 6.4 10.92 7 Socio-economic factor 8.6 14.68 8 Geographical factor 5.5 9.39 9 Political Issues 0 0 58.6 100
Setting priorities for communities Locality Locality No Locality No. Score No. Score Score Name Name . Name 1 Dura 73.6 23 Beit Liqya 59.8 45 Taffuh 55 Silat al 2 68.7 24 Arraba 59.5 46 Biddya 54.3 Harithiya Beit 3 'Attil 65.6 25 Jaba' 58.8 47 53.5 Fajjar Deir al 4 65.6 26 As Samu' 58.8 48 Za'tara 52.9 Ghusun Tarqumi 5 'Azzun 65.2 27 Hizma 58.2 49 52.9 ya 6 Abu Dis 64.3 28 Husan 58 50 Qabalan 52.8 7 Aqraba 63.9 29 Beit Ummar 57.8 51 Shuqba 52.8 Adh El Far'a 8 63.5 30 Biddu 57.7 52 Dhahiriy 52.6 Camp a Ash 9 Halhul 63.5 31 Yatta 57.5 53 52.3 Shuyukh Ar Ram & 10 Bal'a 63.2 32 Dahiyat al 57.5 54 Beit Ula 52.2 Bareed
315 Deir Abu 11 62.9 33 Kafr Ra'i 57.2 55 Sa'ir 52.2 Da'if 12 Birqin 62.8 34 Sinjil 57.2 56 Surif 51.1 Bani 13 Al Yamun 62.2 35 Huwwara 57.1 57 50.7 Na'im Al 14 Kafr Dan 62.2 36 Beit Kahil 56.3 58 'Ubeidiy 49.3 a Jamma'i 15 Qabatiya 62.2 37 Idhna 56.3 59 49.1 n Al Jalazun 16 62.1 38 Tuqu' 56.3 60 Kharas 49 Camp Al 17 62 39 Qaffin 56.2 61 Jannatah 48.7 'Eizariya Kharbath 18 Nahhalin 61.7 40 Qibya 56.2 62 a al 47.6 Misbah Deir 19 Ya'bad 60.6 41 'Anata 56.2 63 46.9 Samit As Sawahira Beit 20 60.6 42 'Awarta 55.9 64 42.3 ash 'Awwa Sharqiya 'Asira ash 21 60.5 43 Beita 55.7 Shamaliya 22 Meithalun 60.2 44 Tammun 55
316 Alternative B
Normalize weights to each criteria No. Criteria Weights (Wm) Normalize weight 1 Demography 8.2 13.95 2 Water consumption / 0 0 Wastewater production 3 Reusing wastewater 5 8.5 4 Environmental factor 9.5 16.16 5 Operation body 8.6 14.63 6 Risk for Industrial Waste 6.4 10.88 7 Socio-economic factor 8.6 14.63 8 Geographical factor 5.5 9.35 9 Political Issues 7 11.9 58.8 100
Setting priorities for communities Locality Locality Locality No. Score No. Score No. Score Name Name Name 1 Dura 78.3 23 Qabalan 59.8 45 Bani Na'im 55.4 El Far'a 2 70.6 24 Kafr Ra'i 59.6 46 Tarqumiya 55.2 Camp Al Jalazun 3 Halhul 68.2 25 Arraba 59.5 47 55.1 Camp Silat al 4 Harithiy 66.4 26 Sinjil 59.5 48 Tammun 55.1 a Meithalu 5 65 27 Aqraba 59.3 49 Al 'Eizariya 55 n 6 Yatta 64.6 28 Beit Ula 59.2 50 Huwwara 54.8 Kafr Beit 7 64.5 29 58.6 51 Ash Shuyukh 54.6 Dan Kahil 8 'Attil 63.2 30 Idhna 58.6 52 Biddya 54.2 Deir 9 Abu 62.9 31 'Azzun 58.2 53 Qaffin 53.9 Da'if 'Asira ash Beit As Sawahira 10 62.9 32 57.7 54 53.5 Shamali Ummar ash Sharqiya ya 11 Birqin 62.8 33 Za'tara 57.5 55 Hizma 53.5 Ar Ram Al 12 62.3 34 & 57.4 56 Biddu 53 Yamun Dahiyat
317 al Bareed 13 Qabatiya 62.3 35 Shuqba 57.4 57 Al 'Ubeidiya 51.6 Beit 14 62.2 36 Abu Dis 57.3 58 'Anata 51.5 Liqya Adh 15 Taffuh 62 37 Dhahiriy 57.3 59 'Awarta 51.3 a Nahhali 16 61.6 38 Sa'ir 56.8 60 Jannatah 51 n 17 Jaba' 61.2 39 Qibya 56.2 61 Deir Samit 49.3 As 18 61.2 40 Tuqu' 56.2 62 Jamma'in 49.2 Samu' Deir al Kharbatha al 19 60.9 41 Kharas 56.1 63 47.6 Ghusun Misbah Beit 20 Bal'a 60.9 42 55.9 64 Beit 'Awwa 44.6 Fajjar 21 Ya'bad 60.6 43 Beita 55.7 22 Husan 60.3 44 Surif 55.7
318 Alternative C Normalize weights to each criteria No. Criteria Weights (Wm) Normalize weight 1 Demography 8.2 14.39 2 Water consumption / 6.8 11.93 Wastewater production 3 Reusing wastewater 5 8.77 4 Environmental factor 9.5 16.67 5 Operation body 0 0 6 Risk for Industrial Waste 6.4 11.23 7 Socio-economic factor 8.6 15.09 8 Geographical factor 5.5 9.65 9 Political Issues 7 12.28 57.0 100
Setting priorities for communities Locality Locality Locality No. Score No. Score No. Score Name Name Name 1 Dura 72 23 Sinjil 58.6 45 Qabalan 53.5 Ar Ram & El Far'a 2 70.1 24 Beit Liqya 58.3 46 Dahiyat al 53.5 Camp Bareed Silat al 3 69.9 25 As Samu' 58.2 47 Beit Ula 52.9 Harithiya Deir Abu 4 66.9 26 Al 'Eizariya 58.1 48 Tuqu' 52.2 Da'if Adh 5 Kafr Dan 66.2 27 Beit Kahil 57.7 49 51.8 Dhahiriya 6 'Attil 64.2 28 Qibya 57.6 50 Idhna 51.7 Deir al 7 64.2 29 Hizma 57.2 51 Za'tara 51.1 Ghusun Ash 8 Birqin 63.8 30 Yatta 56.9 52 50.6 Shuyukh As Sawahira 9 Meithalun 63.6 31 56.6 53 Biddya 50.1 ash Sharqiya 10 Aqraba 62.5 32 Arraba 56.4 54 Kharas 49.7 11 Qabatiya 61.8 33 Tammun 55.8 55 Surif 49.3 12 Bal'a 61.8 34 Taffuh 55.8 56 Sa'ir 48.9 Kharbatha 13 Al Yamun 61.7 35 Huwwara 55.5 57 48.8 al Misbah 14 'Asira ash 61.5 36 Ya'bad 55.2 58 Tarqumiya 48.7
319 Shamaliy a 15 'Azzun 61.4 37 'Anata 55.1 59 Jannatah 48.4 Al Al 16 Jalazun 61.2 38 'Awarta 54.9 60 47.5 'Ubeidiya Camp 17 Nahhalin 60.8 39 Qaffin 54.6 61 Bani Na'im 47.4 18 Halhul 60.6 40 Beit Fajjar 54.2 62 Jamma'in 47.3 19 Kafr Ra'i 60.5 41 Beita 54.1 63 Deir Samit 45.1 20 Abu Dis 60.5 42 Shuqba 54.1 64 Beit 'Awwa 37.8 Beit 21 Jaba' 59.7 43 53.7 Ummar 22 Husan 59.5 44 Biddu 53.7
320 Alternative D Normalize weights to each criteria No. Criteria Weights (Wm) Normalize weight 1 Demography 8.2 13.85 2 Water consumption / 6.8 11.49 Wastewater production 3 Reusing wastewater 5 8.45 4 Environmental factor 9.5 16.05 5 Operation body 8.6 14.53 6 Risk for Industrial 0 0 Waste 7 Socio-economic factor 8.6 14.53 8 Geographical factor 5.5 9.29 9 Political Issues 7 11.82 59.2 100
Setting priorities for communities Locality Locality Localit No. Score No. Score No. Score Name Name y Name Jamma' 1 Dura 73.7 23 Abu Dis 57.6 45 53.6 in Beit 2 Qabatiya 68.9 24 57.6 46 Taffuh 53.1 Ummar Silat al Qabala 3 68.8 25 Al 'Eizariya 57.5 47 53.1 Harithiya n 4 'Attil 65.5 26 Tammun 57.4 48 Sinjil 52.9 Deir al Adh Beit 5 65.5 27 57.2 49 52.5 Ghusun Dhahiriya Ula Beit 6 Al Yamun 64.6 28 As Samu' 56.8 50 52 Kahil El Far'a 7 63.9 29 Idhna 56.3 51 Biddya 52 Camp 8 Halhul 63.5 30 Qaffin 56.3 52 Tuqu' 51.8 Deir Abu 9 63 31 Ya'bad 56.1 53 'Awarta 51.5 Da'if Bani 10 Birqin 62.9 32 'Anata 56 54 50.8 Na'im 'Asira ash 11 62.9 33 Hizma 55.8 55 Shuqba 50.7 Shamaliya Tarqum 12 Meithalun 62.8 34 Beita 55.7 56 50.6 iya Al Jalazun 13 Kafr Dan 62.3 35 55.4 57 Kharas 49.3 Camp 14 Yatta 62.1 36 Biddu 55.4 58 Surif 49 15 Kafr Ra'i 61.9 37 Ar Ram & 55.2 59 Za'tara 48.6
321 Dahiyat al Bareed Kharba 16 Aqraba 61.7 38 Nahhalin 55 60 tha al 45.6 Misbah Al 17 Bal'a 61 39 Huwwara 55 61 'Ubeidi 45.1 ya Ash Deir 18 'Azzun 60.7 40 54.5 62 44.9 Shuyukh Samit Jannata 19 Beit Fajjar 60.2 41 Sa'ir 54.4 63 44.5 h Beit 20 Arraba 59.5 42 Qibya 54 64 42.2 'Awwa As Sawahira 21 Jaba' 59 43 53.9 ash Sharqiya
22 Beit Liqya 57.7 44 Husan 53.7
جامعة النجاح الوطنية كمية الدراسات العميا
تحديد أولويات قطاع الصرف الصحي في الضفة الغربية بإستخدام طريقة تحميل القرار متعدد المعايير )MCDA(
إعداد براء ياسين عبد الفتاح جرارعو
إشراف أ.د. مروان حداد
قدمت ىذه االطروحة استكماال لمتطمبات نيل درجة الماجستير في ىندسة المياه والبيئة بكمية الدراسات العميا في جامعة النجاح الوطنية في نابمس، فمسطين. 3102 ب تحديد أولويات قطاع الصرف الصحي في الضفة الغربية بإستخدام طريقة تحميل القرار متعدد المعايير )MCDA( إعداد براء ياسين عبد الفتاح جرارعو إشراف د.مروان حداد
الممخص
في خالل العقدين األخيرين، تم استثمار ماليين الدوالرات فيي قطياع الصير الصييي فيي األراضيي الفلسطينية. ومع ذلك، يعتبر قطياع الصير الصييي مين القطاايات المخملية خيالل العقيود الماضيية
ييي ييتم خدمية ميا نسيبت بيين 22-32% فقييط مين السيبان بتيببات صير صييي وبيذت التييببات تخيييدم بعيييض الميييدن الرميسيييية والمخيميييات والقيييرا فيميييا ييييتخلص معظيييم السيييبان مييين المييييات العادمييية
بواسطة اليفر اإلمتصاصية.
تم امل العديد من األبيا والدراسات الي قطياع الصير الصييي فيي فلسيطين وتيم وضيع العدييد
ميين الخطيييط واإلسيييتراتيهيات فييي بيييذا المهيييال خيييالل السيينوات الماضيييية لبييين يييا مييين بيييذت األبييييا واإلستراتيهيات لم ييدد ولويات المناطق التي بياهة ليل متبلة الصر الصيي.
يخد البي لتيديد ولويات المناطق التي بياهة ليل متبلة الصر الصيي لعمل متياريع فيخيا
بإسييتخدام طريقيية تيليييل القييرار متعييدد المعييايير MCDA(، يييي ظخيير البييي ن الطريقيية اليالييية التي يتم تيديد المناطق المستخدفة من بيذت المتياريع إميا الي سياس سياسيات الميانيين و سيلو
غير المي ذلك ألنخا ال تأخذ هميع المعايير الصييية والعلمية التخاذ القرار الصييح.
ظخر البي ن المعايير التي تؤثر بتبل ببيير الي صينع القيرار فيي قطياع الصير الصييي بيي القضيييايا: اليييديموغرافيا، اسيييتخالك المييييات / مييييات الصييير الصييييي المنتهييية، إاييياد اسيييتخدام المييييات،
العاميييل البيميييي، الهسيييم المتييي ل، المخييياطر الناتهييية اييين النفاييييات الصييينااية، العاميييل اإلقتصييياد -
ت اإلهتمييااي، العامييل اله رافييي، والقضييايا السياسييية. وقييد نيياقش البييي قلييية تقييييم بييذت المعييايير وتييم إيهاد االقة رياضية تربط بين المعايير المختلفة مما يسخل املية تيديد ولويات المناطق.
ظخيير البييي ن اييدد التهمعييات المتوقييع ن يبليي اييدد سييبانخا بثيير ميين 10 قال نسييمة فييي اييام 2030 بيي 79 تهميع، يوهيد منخيا 33 تهميع مخييدوم بتيببات صير صييي و قييد التنفييذ و فييي مريلة التصميم وقد تم تخصيص تمويل لخا، بينما بناك 44 تهميع ييتم اليتخلص مين المييات العادمية بواسييطة اليفيير اإلمتصاصييية. ويسيي الخطيية القطااييية للميييات 2010-2030 التييي تييم املخييا ميين
قبيل سيلطة المييات الفلسيطينية فإني بيليول اييام 2030 يهي ن تبيون بيل التهمعيات التيي يبلي اييدد سبانخا بثر من 10 قال نسمة مربوطة بنظام صر صيي.
تيم تطبييق طريقية تيلييل القيرار متعيدد المعييايير MCDA( التيي تيم تطويربيا خيالل بيذا البيي اليي
44 تهمييع يييتم الييتخلص ميين الميييات العادميية فيخييا بواسييطة اليفيير اإلمتصاصييية والتييي سييتخدم بيلييول
اام 2030 يس الخطة القطااية للميات، وقد تم ترتي ال 44 تهمع يس األولوية.
خرهت الدراسة بعدد من التوصيات من بينخا ن تبد سلطة الميات بوضع خطة طويلية األهيل وخطية
خمسية تتمل خدمة 20 تهمع يس األولوية وال ازم الهخات المانية بخذت الخطة.