Sustainability Analysis of an Urban Basin in Central Brazil

Henrique Marinho Leite Chaves 1; Thaiane Meira dos Santos 2;

Bruno Henrique Toná Juliani 3; Cássia Rocha Pompeu 4;
and Cristhiane Michiko Passos Okawa 5
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNB - Universidade de Bras?lia on 08/19/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: A great challenge for water managers and stakeholders is the maintenance and improvement of basin sustainability, tackling the
ever-increasing threats and impacts. Some catchments, such as the Paranoá River basin (Central Brazil), are facing rapid urbanization, with
increasing water demand and water quality impacts that threaten their sustainability. To assess this, two basin indices, the Watershed Sustain-
ability Index (WSI) and the Water Resources System Dynamics (WRSD), were applied to the Paranoá basin in the period between 2015 and
2018. Off-the-shelf data and tailored surveys were used as information sources. The basin WRSD and WSI scores were 0.33 and 0.60,
respectively, corresponding to a medium level of hydrologic and integrated sustainability. The WSI bottlenecks were the high unit water
demand in the basin, and the incipient management responses with respect to the basin’s environment, livelihood, and policy indicators.
For the WRSD index, high water demand was the limiting sustainability factor. Adaptation measures to improve basin sustainability include
effective water demand management and the establishment of new protected areas in the catchment. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-
7870.0001912. © 2021 American Society of Civil Engineers.

Introduction Watershed sustainability involves social, economic, and envi-

Finding a sustainable balance between ecological and human
needs in river basins is a challenge (Poff et al. 2003; Vörösmarty
et al. 2010), because stresses such as land-use change, population
growth, and climate change are rapidly aggravating and leading to
water scarcity, particularly in highly populated urban catchments
(UNESCO 2010; United Nations 2019).
A quarter of the large cities worldwide are facing water stress
due to geographical or financial limitations (McDonald et al. 2014),
e.g., in North America (Luthy et al. 2020), South Asia (Rasul 2014;
Frederiksen 2005), and Europe (Pedro-Monzonís et al. 2015). By
2050, with rapid urban growth, it is expected that water demand in
urban areas will increase by 80%, exceeding water availability in
watersheds worldwide (Flörke et al. 2018).
Hunsaker et al. (1998) indicated that if urbanization surpasses
10% of the total watershed area, water impairment begins, due to
cumulative point and nonpoint pollution. Moreover, anthropogenic
threats such as habitat degradation and proliferation of exotic spe-
cies are responsible for a global decline in the biodiversity of rivers
(Dudgeon et al. 2006; Baker et al. 2020).
1
Professor, School of Technology, Univ. of Brasilia, Brasilia, Brazil
(corresponding author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6754-0576.
Email: hchaves@unb.br
2
Research Assistant, School of Technology, Univ. of Brasilia, Brasilia,
Brazil. Email: meira.thaiane@gmail.com
3
Graduate Student, Postgraduate Program in Water Resources and En-
vironmental Engineering, Federal Univ. of Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil. Email:
brunotjuliani@gmail.com
4
Graduate Student, Dept. of Hydraulic Engineering, IHCantabria-
Instituto de Hidráulica Ambiental de la Universidad de Cantabria, Santander,
Spain. Email: rochac@unican.es
5
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, State Univ. of Maringá, Maringá,
Brazil. Email: cmpokawa@uem.br
Note. This manuscript was submitted on January 27, 2021; approved
on May 21, 2021; published online on August 18, 2021. Discussion per-
iod open until January 18, 2022; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Environmental
Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9372.
ronmental factors, which operate at multiple scales and vary among
cultures and regions (Rijsberman 2006; Plummer et al. 2012). To
capture this complexity in an objective metric and to monitor local
progress toward sustainability, several indicators and indices have
recently been developed, including the Environmental Sustainabil-
ity Index (ESI) (Esty et al. 2005), the Water Poverty Index (WPI)
(Sullivan 2002; Garriga and Foguet 2010), the Watershed Sustain-
ability Index (WSI) (Chaves and Alipaz 2007), and the Water
Resources System Dynamics (WRSD) (Xu et al. 2002).
These indices assist decision-makers in the watershed planning
and management process (Juwana et al. 2012) to monitor basin sus-
tainability over time and space and to identify system bottlenecks,
attracting public awareness and interest (Mayer 2008; Babcicky
2013). As opposed to more complex watershed models, which re-
quire expert knowledge, indices are user-friendly and only require
off-the-shelf information, facilitating their use by wider audiences
(Chaves 2011).
The WSI (Chaves and Alipaz 2007) integrates readily available
information on basin hydrology, environment, livelihood, and pol-
icy issues, using the Pressure-State-Response approach (OECD
1999). The four WSI indicators are evenly weighted in an additive
model, reducing the uncertainty of nonlinear indices (Singh et al.
2007; Gan et al. 2017). The WSI was developed to provide a basin
sustainability metric for UNESCO’s International Hydrological
Programme (IHP) (UNESCO 2010), and has been applied to pre-
dominantly rural watersheds in several countries, including Spain
(Senent-Aparicio et al. 2016), Chile (Cortés et al. 2012), Mexico
(Preciado-Jiménez et al. 2013), Romania (Mititelu-Ionuş 2017),
Costa Rica (Catano et al. 2011), Malaysia (Elfithri et al. 2018),
and Brazil (Chaves and Alipaz 2007; Costa e Silva et al. 2020).
The WSI scores (0–1) in those basins ranged between 0.55 and
0.75 (medium level of integrated sustainability). The WRSD (0–1)
index, on the other hand, calculates the basin water balance,
assigning values of water sustainability based on water supply and
demand levels. The WRSD has been applied to Chinese (Xu et al.
2002), Iranian (Azmi and Sarmadi 2015), and Brazilian (Chaves
and Santos 2020) basins, ranging between 0.22 and 0.60, corre-
sponding to a medium water sustainability level.

© ASCE 04021047-1 J. Environ. Eng.

J. Environ. Eng., 2021, 147(11): 04021047

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNB - Universidade de Bras?lia on 08/19/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 1. Paranoá River basin in Central Brazil. (Base map by authors; data from IBGE 2020.)

Brazil’s capital Brasilia is located in the Paranoá River basin.
Since its establishment in 1960, the city and basin population has
rapidly increased, reaching 722,000 inhabitants in 2018 (IBGE
2021). In 2017 and 2018, the Paranoá River basin experienced a
severe drought, leading to a water rationing process (ANA 2018;
Nunes et al. 2020; Chaves and Lorena 2019). Additionally, the natural
savanna of the Cerrado biome, where the Paranoá basin is located,
is rapidly being converted into urban and other anthropogenic
uses (Campos and Chaves 2020), threatening the basin’s climate
(Hoffmann and Jackson 2000) and water resources (Franz et al. 2014).
Although the WSI and the WRSD indices have been applied to
assess the sustainability of different basins around the world, none
of them were predominantly urban catchments, with significant
urban-type pressures, and no sustainability bottlenecks were prop-
erly addressed. Considering that the urbanization threats in the
Paranoá basin may affect its sustainability, the objectives of this
research were to assess it with the WSI and WRSD indices, to iden-
tify the basin sustainability bottlenecks, and to propose appropriate
adaptation measures. This comprehensive sustainability assessment
could pave the way for further research in the topic.
in the catchment, improved areas today represent 40 percent of
the total basin area. Furthermore, rapid land-use conversion in re-
cent years is threatening the basin’s natural biodiversity and water
resources and, consequently, its sustainability and water security
(Franz et al. 2014).
The water sustainability of the Paranoá River basin was estimated
by the WRSD index, and its integrated sustainability was assessed
by the WSI. Both indices are independent of the basin size and sup-
plementary, spanning different aspects of basin sustainability.
The Watershed Sustainability Index
According to Chaves and Alipaz (2007) integrated basin sustain-
ability is classified as high (WSI > 0.8), medium (0.8 < WSI < 0.5),
or low (WSI < 0.5). The integrated sustainability of the Paranoá
river basin was assessed with the WSI during the period between
January 2015 and December 2018, where the state, pressure,

Methodology

The Paranoá River Basin

The study was carried out in the Paranoá river basin, where Brasília
is located. The Paranoá basin has an area of 1,056 km2 , gently
sloping topography, well-drained soils, and Cerrado (savanna) as
the natural vegetation. According to Köppen-Geiger, its climate
type is Aw (Kottek et al. 2006), with a mean annual rainfall of
1,500 mm, mean annual runoff of 421 mm, and mean annual tem-
perature of 22°C. There are two reservoirs in the basin, used for
water supply and leisure (Fig. 1).
The Paranoá basin has experienced a strong urbanization pro-
Fig. 2. Population growth and water demand in the Paranoá basin.
cess in the last 60 years, with an ever-increasing water demand
(Data from IBGE 2021.)
(Fig. 2). Although several parks and other protected areas exist

© ASCE 04021047-2 J. Environ. Eng.

J. Environ. Eng., 2021, 147(11): 04021047

 Table 1. Indicators, parameters, values, and scores of the WSI
Pressure State Response
Indicator Parameter Value Score Parameter Value Score Parameter Value Score
Hydrology (H) Variation in the Δ > 20% 0.00 Unit water demand Du >2,000 0.00 Variation in the Very poor 0.00
unit water 20% > Δ > 10% 0.25 in the period-Du 2,000 > Du > 1,000 0.25 water use Poor 0.25
demand in the 10 > Δ > 0% 0.50 (inhab · hm−3 yr−1 ) 1,000 > Du >600 0.50 efficiency in Medium 0.50
period 0 > Δ > −10% 0.75 600 > Du >100 0.75 the period Good 0.75
Δ < −10% 1.00 Du <100 1.00 Very good 1.00
Variation in Δ > 20% 0.00 IQA<25 0.00 Variation in the Δ< − 20% 0.00
total P in the 20% > Δ > 10% 0.25 25 < IQA<50 0.25 basin WQI in −20% < Δ< − 10% 0.25
period 10 > Δ > 0% 0.50 50 < IQA<70 0.50 the period, −10% < Δ < 0% 0.50
0 > Δ > −10% 0.75 70 < IQA<90 0.75 with respect to 0 < Δ<10% 0.75
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNB - Universidade de Bras?lia on 08/19/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Δ < −10% 1.00 IQA>90 1.00 the long-term Δ > 10 1.00

mean
Environment (E) Basin EPI > 20% 0.00 Proportion of the V n < 5% 0.00 Variation in the Δ<−10% 0.00
environmental 20% > EPI > 10% 0.25 basin with natural 5%<V n <10% 0.25 percentage of −10%<Δ<0% 0.25
pressure 10% > EPI > 5% 0.50 vegetation-V n 10% < V n <25% 0.50 protected/ 0%<Δ<10% 0.50
index—EPI 5% > EPI > 0% 0.75 25% < V n <40% 0.75 managed area 10% < Δ<20% 0.75
EPI < 0% 1.00 V n >40% 1.00 in the period Δ>20% 1.00
Livelihood (L) Variation of Δ< − 20% 0.00 Basin HDI in the HDI < 0.5 0.00 Variation in the Δ< − 10% 0.00
the basin −20% < Δ< − 10% 0.25 last year of the 0.5 < HDI < 0.6 0.25 basin HDI in −10% < Δ<0% 0.25
HDI—Income −10% < Δ<0% 0.50 period 0.6 < HDI < 0.75 0.50 the period 0% < Δ<10% 0.50
in the period 0 < Δ<10% 0.75 0.75 < HDI < 0.9 0.75 10%<Δ<20% 0.75
Δ>10% 1.00 HDI > 0.9 1.00 Δ>20% 1.00
Policy (P) Variation of Δ< − 20% 0.00 Basin legal and Very poor 0.00 Variation in the Δ< − 10% 0.00
the basin −20% < Δ< − 10% 0.25 institutional Poor 0.25 WRM −10% < Δ<0% 0.25
HDI— −10% < Δ<0% 0.50 capacity Medium 0.50 investment in 0% < Δ<10% 0.50
Education in 0 < Δ<10% 0.75 Good 0.75 the basin in the 10% < Δ<20% 0.75
the period Δ>10% 1.00 Very good 1.00 period Δ>20% 1.00
Source: Adapted from Chaves and Alipaz (2007).

response parameters, and their corresponding variations, were an-
alysed. The WSI is the arithmetic mean of four basin indicators,
namely:
WSI ¼ ðH þ E þ L þ PÞ=4
impairment in the basin. Therefore, total phosphorous (P) and the
water quality index (WQI) were the parameters selected during a
basin workshop, with the participation of water managers and
stakeholders. The WQI value corresponded to the parameter’s
ð1Þ

where Hð0 − 1Þ = the hydrology indicator; Eð0 − 1Þ = the environ-

mental indicator; Lð0 − 1Þ = the livelihood indicator; and Pð0 − 1Þ =
the policy indicator. These indicators are formed by different
parameters, whose values and scores are presented in Table 1. The
hydrology indicator is the only one with two sets of parameters
(the two upper lines of Table 1), one for water quantity and another
for water quality.
The WSI state water quantity parameter is the unit water de-
mand Du (inhab · hm−3 yr−1 ) (Falkenmark and Widstrand 1992),
calculated as the ratio of the basin population in 2018 and the long-
term (1999–2018) mean annual basin stream flow volume at the
basin outlet, plus the mean flow regulation capacity of the two ba-
sin reservoirs (Chaves and Lorena 2019).
According to (Falkenmark and Widstrand 1992), a water stress
condition occurs if Du > 2000 inhab · hm−3 yr−1 . Because the
city’s water demand is fully supplied by the Paranoá River basin,
the yearly water supply potential was assessed at the basin’s outlet,
considering a 20-yr stream flow time series (1999–2018) obtained
from official gauging stations (Fig. 3), and later extrapolated to the
basin outlet, using a stream flow regional analysis (Chaves et al.
2002). The WSI hydrology-quantity pressure parameter in Table 1
was the percent variation in Du between the recent (2015–2018)
and long term (1999–2018) periods, while maintaining the 2018
basin population fixed (Chaves and Alipaz 2007).
Fig. 3. Gauging stations of the Paranoá River basin, used to assess
As recommended by Chaves and Alipaz (2007), the WSI water
water quantity and water quality information. (Map by authors.)
quality parameters were chosen as indicators of the level of water

© ASCE 04021047-3 J. Environ. Eng.

J. Environ. Eng., 2021, 147(11): 04021047

 long-term mean. The quality-pressure parameter (P) was calculated
as the percent variation between the long-term mean and the mean
of the study period (2015–2018). The quality response parameter
followed the same rationale, except that the WQI variation was
adopted. The basin water quality parameters were obtained from
official monitoring stations (Fig. 3).
The environmental parameters (E) were obtained from official
land-use maps (MapBiomas 2019) for the years 2015 and 2018.
According to Chaves and Alipaz (2007), the larger the natural area
in a basin, the higher the environmental sustainability. Therefore,
the environment-state parameter was calculated as the percentage
of natural cover area in the basin (Vn). The WSI environmental
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNB - Universidade de Bras?lia on 08/19/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
pressure parameter, on the other hand, is the environment pressure
index (EPI), which represents the conversion rate of natural to non-
natural landscapes, and given by Chaves and Alipaz (2007) as
EPI ¼ ½ð%change inU a Þ þ ð%change inAa Þ=2 ð2Þ
where EPI (%) = the basin environmental pressure index; U a = the
basin urban area (km2 ); and Aa = the basin agricultural area (km2 ).
The percent change in Eq. (2) is for the years 2015 and 2018. The
period considered for the pressure and response environment
parameters was also the years 2015 and 2018.
The environment-response parameter of the WSI is the percent
variation in conserved/managed natural areas between 2015 and
2018. The land-use maps of the Paranoá basin, used to calculate
the EPI parameter and variation in the different land-uses, are pre-
sented in Fig. 4.
The WSI livelihood parameters are the Human Development
Index (HDI) and its income sub-parameter (HDI-Income), assessed
by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP 2020).
Because no HDI information existed for the study period, the
2000 and 2010 HDI and HDI-Income values for the 12 townships
located in the basin were averaged with the Geographical Informa-
tion System (GIS), using the township population as the weighing
parameter (Chaves and Alipaz 2007). The 2015 and 2018 basin
Fig. 4. Land use of the Paranoá basin: (a) in 2015; and (b) in 2018. (Base map by authors; data from MapBiomas 2019.)
© ASCE 04021047-4
J. Environ. Eng., 2021, 147(11): 04021047
HDI and HDI-Income values were then obtained by linear extrapo-
lation. The HDI-Education (Policy-Pressure) parameter was calcu-
lated in a similar fashion as the HDI and HDI-Income.
As recommended by Chaves and Alipaz (2007), the basin
institutional capacity (Policy-State parameter) was obtained with
a basin governance survey, applied to 12 basin managers and stake-
holders. In that survey, the level of legal and institutional effective-
ness regarding water resources management (WRM) was assessed.
The Policy-State parameter score was proportional to the mean sur-
vey score, varying from 4 (Very Poor) to 12 (Very Good), corre-
sponding to the scores 0 and 1, respectively (Table 1). Finally, the
percent variation in basin investment in WRM between 2015 and
2018 (Policy-Response parameter) was obtained from different ba-
sin agencies and NGOs, and scored accordingly (Table 1).
After all the parameter values, levels, and scores presented in
Table 1 were obtained, the global WSI score was calculated in a
spreadsheet applying Eq. (1). Once the overall basin sustainability
was classified using the levels suggested by Chaves and Alipaz
(2007), the basin sustainability bottlenecks (parameters with scores
≤0.5) were identified, and appropriate mitigation/adaptation mea-
sures were proposed.
Water Resources System Dynamics Index
The WRSD was used to assess the Paranoá basin water sustainabil-
ity, and is given by Xu et al. (2002) as
8
<S − D
if S > D
WRSD ¼ S ð3Þ
:
0 if S ≤ D
where S (hm3 yr−1 ) = total basin water supply; and D (hm3 yr−1 ) =
total basin water demand. As with the WSI, the WRSD score
varies from 0.0 and 1.0, and basin sustainability is classified as:
WRSD≤0.2 (Low); 0.2 ≤ WRSD≤0.8 (Medium); and WRSD
≥0.8 (High) (Xu et al. 2002).
J. Environ. Eng.
 The basin water supply was derived from the long-term (1999–
2018) mean annual flow volume at the basin outlet, obtained
by regional flow analysis (Chaves et al. 2002), using the contrib-
uting flows from the catchment subbasins (Fig. 3). To this annual
flow volume, an additional volume of 73 hm3 yr−1 was added,
corresponding to the mean regulation capacity of the two existing
reservoirs in the basin, obtained and described by Chaves and
Lorena (2019). Because the basin groundwater predominantly re-
sides in porous and unconfined aquifers, and because surface and
underground basins coincide, the annual groundwater recharge
was presumed to be discharged as base flow at the basin outlet
(Albuquerque and Chaves 2011).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNB - Universidade de Bras?lia on 08/19/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The mean basin water demand in the period between 2015 and
2018 was taken as the sum of the official yearly licensed water vol-
ume from surface (rivers and lakes) and groundwater (tubular
wells) sources (ADASA 2017), and of the environmental (restric- Fig. 5. Yearly stream flow at the Paranoá basin outlet between 1999
tion) flow volume, taken as 30% of the mean water supply poten- and 2018.
tial, to guarantee aquatic sustainability (Azmi and Sarmadi 2015):
D ¼ V s þ V g þ 0.3S ð4Þ

where D = total water demand (hm3 yr−1 ); V s = total licensed water

volume from surface sources (hm3 yr−1 ); V g = total licensed
water volume from groundwater (hm3 yr−1 ); and S = total basin
water supply potential (hm3 yr−1 ), described above. The sources
of human water supply are the basin rivers and reservoirs, and
the irrigation water is dominantly obtained from upstream rivers.
The demand estimates above derive from the fact that, although not
all water surface and groundwater licenses are consumptive uses
(ADASA 2017), there are many unlicensed water uses in the Para-
noá basin, creating an underestimation of water demand (Chaves
and Santos 2020).
After the WRSD index [Eq. (3)] was calculated for the Paranoá
basin, its sustainability level was classified according to Xu et al.
(2002), and appropriate adaptation measures were proposed.

Fig. 6. Total phosphorus in the Paranoá basin between 2001 and 2018.
Results

WSI of the Paranoá Basin water use efficiency (Hydrology-Quantity-Response) parameter

Hydrologic Indicator
The long-term stream flow at the basin outlet was 444.7 hm3 yr−1
(Fig. 5), and the reservoir regulating capacity was 73 hm3 yr−1 , for
a total long-term water supply volume of 517.7 hm3 yr−1 . Consid-
ering that 721,608 inhabitants were supplied by basin water
in 2018, and that no interbasin transfer existed, the mean unit
water demand (Du ) for the Quantity-State parameter was
1,394 hab hm3 yr−1 , resulting in a parameter score of 0.25.
Because the basin mean water supply in the period 2015–2018,
including reservoir storage, was 481.8 hm3 yr−1 , and maintaining
the population constant, the unit water demand (Du ) of the period
was 1,498 hab hm3 yr−1 . This represents an increase of 6.9% with
respect to the long-term unit water demand, corresponding to a
score of 0.50 for the Hydrology-Pressure parameter.
In the case of the Hydrology-Quantity-Response parameter,
three main initiatives increased water use efficiency in the Paranoá
basin during the study period: (1) the establishment in 2017 of two
water treatment plants, adding 37.8 hm3 yr−1 to the basin’s potable
water system, (2) the adoption of a water rationing scheme during
the 2018 drought, resulting in a reduction in water demand of 20%,
and (3) the linking of the Paranoá and Descoberto water supply
systems in 2018, improving the overall water security in the basin.
Hence, following the guidelines of Chaves and Alipaz (2007), the
was classified as “good,” with a corresponding score of 0.75.
As for the Hydrology-Quality-Pressure parameter, the mean
total P concentration in the basin in the 2015–2018 period
was 0.020 mg L−1 , 28.6% less than the long-term average
(0.028 mg L−1 , Fig. 6), resulting in a score of 1.0 for the parameter.
The basin long-term mean WQI was 67.5, which corresponds to
a score of 0.50 for the Hydrology-Quality-State parameter. Because
the variation in the WQI means between the long term (1999–2018)
and the study period (2015–2018) was 6.9%, the Hydrology-
Quality-Response parameter was 0.75. Hence, the overall mean
of the six water quality and quantity parameters in the Paranoá ba-
sin was 0.63, corresponding to the final Hydrology indicator score.
Environmental Indicator
The basin EPI [Eq. (2)] was 1.6%, because the agricultural and ur-
ban areas in the Paranoá catchment increased by 1.0% and by 2.3%
in the study period, respectively. This result corresponded to a score
of 0.75 for the Environment-Pressure parameter.
In the case of the Environment-State parameter, the existing
natural vegetation in the Paranoá basin in 2018 was 659 km2 , cor-
responding to 62.4% of the total basin area. According to Table 1,
the corresponding score is 1.0, because an area of natural cover
greater then 40% contributes to basin sustainability (Chaves and
Alipaz 2007).

© ASCE 04021047-5 J. Environ. Eng.

J. Environ. Eng., 2021, 147(11): 04021047

 The Environment-Response parameter, given by the variation in Livelihood Indicator
the total managed and protected natural areas in the basin between The Livelihood-Pressure parameter is presented in Table 3. There
2015 and 2018, is presented in Table 2. According to that table, was an increase of 1.6% in the HDI-Income from 2015 to 2018,
there was a reduction of 0.6% in the basin conserved area, corre- corresponding to a parameter score of 0.75.
sponding to a parameter score of 0.25. In the cases of the Livelihood-State and Livelihood-Response
parameters, Table 4 shows that the basin HDI in 2018 was
0.959, and its variation between 2015 and 2018 was 2.6%, corre-
Table 2. Variation in the conserved area in the Paranoá basin between 2015 sponding to parameter scores of 1.0 and 0.5, respectively.
and 2018, and the corresponding Environment-Response score Although the linear HDI projections may not represent the ac-
Conserved Conserved tual HDI values for the years 2015 and 2018, the linear extrapo-
area in 2015 area in 2018 lation was the least biased estimator for those two sources of
(km2 ) (km2 ) % Variation Score data, using the existing 2000 and 2010 HDIs.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNB - Universidade de Bras?lia on 08/19/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

393.7 391.4 −0.6% 0.25

Policy Indicator
The results of the Policy-Pressure parameter of the Paranoá basin
are presented in Table 5. There was a 3.9% increase in the HDI-
Table 3. Extrapolated basin HDI-Income in 2015 and 2018, and the
corresponding score for the Livelihood-Pressure parameter
Education value between 2015 and 2018, corresponding to a
parameter score of 0.75.
Year HDI—Income Score In the case of the basin legal and institutional capacity (Policy-
2000 0.891 — State) parameter, Table 6 presents the results of the survey applied
2010 0.939 — to basin managers and stakeholders, and the corresponding param-
2015 0.962 — eter score. According to Table 6, the mean survey result was 10=12
2018 0.977 — (Good), with a corresponding parameter score of 0.75 (Table 1).
% variation 1.6% 0.75
Finally, Table 7 presents the value and score of the Policy-
Response parameter. The variation in basin WRM investment in
the period between 2015 and 2018 was 0.15%, with a correspond-
Table 4. Basin HDI and the corresponding scores for the Livelihood-State
ing score of 0.5 (Table 1).
and Livelihood-Response parameters
Year HDI L-S score Watershed Sustainability
2000 0.813 — Table 8 presents the WSI parameter values and scores of the Para-
2010 0.894 — noá basin. The far right column provides the indicator means, and
2015 0.935 — the bottom line gives the Pressure/State/Response column aver-
2018 0.959 1.0 ages. The basin WSI in the period 2015–2018 was 0.68. Table 8
% variation 2.6% — also highlights the fact that there are four sustainability bottlenecks,
L-R Score 0.5 — i.e., parameter scores that were equal to or less than 0.5.

Table 5. Policy-Pressure parameter value and score for the Paranoá basin
Table 7. WRM investment in the basin in 2015 and 2018, and the
Year HDI—Education
corresponding Policy-Response score
2015 0.889
Year 2015 2018 Variation Score
2018 0.924
% variation 3.9% Total WRM investment $33.59 33.64 0.15% 0.50
Score 0.75 (USD million)

Table 6. Survey responses provided by basin managers and stakeholders to assess the Paranoá basin Policy-State parameter
Are there WRM laws or Are the existing laws and Are there WRM Do the institutions provide
Manager (M); regulations in the basin? regulations effective? institutions in the basin? effective WRM solutions? Total
stakeholder (S) (1–3) (1–3) (1–3) (1–3) (4–12)
M1 2 3 3 3 11
M2 3 2 3 2 10
M3 3 3 3 3 12
M4 3 2 3 2 10
M5 3 2 3 2 10
M6 3 2 3 2 10
M7 3 2 3 2 9
S1 2 2 3 2 10
S2 3 2 3 2 9
S3 2 2 3 2 10
S4 2 2 3 2 9
S5 3 2 2 2 9
Mean 2.7 2.2 2.9 2.2 10
— — — — Score 0.75

© ASCE 04021047-6 J. Environ. Eng.

J. Environ. Eng., 2021, 147(11): 04021047

 Table 8. WSI parameter values and scores of the Paranoá River basin in the period 2015–2018
Pressure State Response
Indicator Value (%) Score Value Score Value (%) Score Mean
Hydrology—H — 0.75 — 0.38 — 0.75 0.63
Environment—E 1.6 0.75 62.4% 1.00 −0.6 0.25 0.67
Livelihood—L 1.6 0.75 0.959 1.00 2.6 0.50 0.75
Policy—P 3.9 0.75 Good 0.75 0.15 0.50 0.67
Mean — 0.75 — 0.78 — 0.50 0.68
Note: The sustainability bottlenecks are shown in italics.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNB - Universidade de Bras?lia on 08/19/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

WRSD of the Paranoá Basin Discussion

The long-term water supply in the Paranoá basin, being the sum of
the long-term stream flow and the mean regulating volume of its
reservoirs, was 517.7 hm3 yr−1 (Fig. 7), the same value as the
WSI index.
The mean yearly water demand in the Paranoá basin in the
period between 2015 and 2018 is presented in Fig. 8. The total sur-
face, groundwater, and environmental water demand in the basin
was 348.9 hm3 yr−1 .
Considering the water supply and demand above, the WRSD
value for the Paranoá basin, obtained by Eq. (3), was 0.33.
Fig. 7. Long-term water supply in the Paranoá basin.
WSI Index
According to Chaves and Alipaz (2007), the WSI score for the Par-
anoá (0.68) for the period between 2015 and 2018 is classified as
medium sustainability. Compared to other basins worldwide, the
Paranoá basin ranked second [Fig. 9(a)], with a score slightly above
the overall mean (0.64).
The bottlenecks affecting the basin’s WSI in Table 8 were
Hydrology-State (0.38), and the Environment (0.25), Livelihood
(0.5), and Policy (0.5) response parameters. The limiting WSI in-
dicator (row mean) was Hydrology (0.63), and the limiting P-S-R
(column means) was Response (0.5).
The relatively low Hydrology-State parameter score resulted
from the high unit water demand in the basin (1,394 inhab ·
hm−3 yr−1 ), not far from the stress threshold value of 2,000 inhab ·
hm−3 yr−1 of Falkenmark and Widstrand (1992). The basin high
unit demand could be mitigated with the adoption of supply man-
agement techniques, including treated wastewater reuse, and de-
mand management alternatives, such as the control of water losses
in distribution systems (Grant et al. 2012).
The environment-response bottleneck could be improved with
the establishment of new parks and other protected areas in the ba-
sin. Although the Livelihood-Response parameter (HDI) depends
on basin exogenous socioeconomic factors, the Policy-Response
parameter could be improved with the allocation of more funds
for water resource management in the basin.
These sustainability bottlenecks were, in most cases, similar to
those identified in basins worldwide. The WSI of the Elqui (Cortés
et al. 2012), the Segura (Senent-Aparicio et al. 2016), and the
Lerma-Chapala basins (Preciado-Jiménez et al. 2013) were limited
by their low water supply (semi-arid climates), reducing the Hy-
drology subindicator. The Langat basin (Elfithri et al. 2018) also
reported low Hydrology scores, but caused by water pollution re-
sulting from rapid basin urbanization. In contrast, the main bottle-
necks identified in the Reventazón basin (Catano et al. 2011), with
a humid climate, were associated with a medium level of basin HDI
and its low increase rate, resulting in low Livelihood scores.

WRSD Index
Although the WRSD score of 0.33 indicates a medium water sus-
tainability level (Xu et al. 2002), it is close to the low sustainability
threshold (0.2), indicating that appropriate water management is
necessary if water stress conditions are to be avoided. The mid-
low WRSD score was due to the high water demand in the basin,
because the basin’s yearly precipitation (1,500 mm) and total run-
off (421 mm) represent a favorable water balance (Chaves and
Lorena 2019).
Fig. 8. Mean water demand by source in the Paranoá basin between
Another factor that contributed to the relatively high water de-
2015 and 2018.
mand was the adoption of an environmental flow corresponding to

© ASCE 04021047-7 J. Environ. Eng.

J. Environ. Eng., 2021, 147(11): 04021047

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNB - Universidade de Bras?lia on 08/19/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 9. (a) WSI; and (b) WRSD for the Paranoá and other basins worldwide. Dashed lines represent the mean score.
30% of the total water supply, which guarantees aquatic sustain-
ability (Azmi and Sarmadi 2015). To tackle the high water demand
in the basin, demand management policies, including improvement
of water-use efficiency and incentive instruments (Grant et al.
2012), can be implemented.
Fig. 9(b) compares the Paranoá WRSD score with those of
Chinese (Xu et al. 2002), Iranian (Azmi and Sarmadi 2015), and
Brazilian basins (Chaves and Santos 2020). The Paranoá ranked
fifth out of seven. Two of the Chinese basins (Longyangxia and
Hekouzhen) presented higher WRSD scores than the Paranoá ba-
sin, possibly because those are dominantly rural catchments, with
lower specific water demands.
Considering that central Brazil, where the Paranoá basin is lo-
cated, has experienced a significant precipitation reduction in the
last 50 years (Campos and Chaves 2020), and is expected to face
further decreases in the next 50 years (Hoffmann and Jackson
2000), the basin sustainability could be threatened in the future
through reduced water supplies. Additionally, if population contin-
ues to grow in the basin, water demand will increase, which would
cause a reduction of the WRSD index. To mitigate those threats,
water supply (Paton et al. 2014) and demand (Rockström 2003)
management practices and policies are recommended for the basin.
Of particular importance are economic incentives, such as water
saving bonuses (Lee et al. 2013), which were successfully imple-
mented in the basin during the 2018 water crisis.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The Paranoá basin sustainability, assessed by the WSI and WRSD
indices in the period between 2015 and 2018, were 0.68 and 0.33,
respectively, classified as medium sustainability. Compared to
other basins around the world, the Paranoá basin ranked second
and fifth with respect to the WSI and WRSD indices, respectively.
Four WSI bottlenecks contributed to the reduction of basin sus-
tainability. They were the Hydrology-State, Environment, Liveli-
hood, and Policy-Response parameters. In the case of the WRSD,
a relatively high water demand was responsible for the observed
score, close to the threshold level of low sustainability.
© ASCE 04021047-8
J. Environ. Eng., 2021, 147(11): 04021047
In the future, expected reductions in precipitation and increase
in water demand will threaten the basin sustainability. To tackle
those threats, the establishment of sound water supply and de-
mand management practices and policies, new investments in
WRM activities, and the creation basin protected areas are
recommended.
Last but not least, it is recommended that basin sustainability be
monitored with both indices, considering different climate, land-
use, and water management scenarios. This would provide the
Paranoá basin with an effective and transparent adaptation tool,
paving the way for basin sustainability.
Data Availability Statement
All data used during the study is available from the corresponding
author upon reasonable request.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the technical support provided by Secre-
taria de Meio Ambiente do Distrito Federal (SEMA-DF) and Cen-
tro Internacional de Água e Transdisciplinaridade (CIRAT). This
paper is a contribution of the Tropical Water Research Alliance—
TWRA.
References
ADASA (Agência Reguladora de Águas, Energia e Saneamento Básico do
Distrito Federal). 2017. Estudo técnico sobre demanda de recursos
hídricos na bacia do Alto Descoberto–Produto 3. Technical Rep. No.
UNESCO 914BRZ2016. Brasília, Brazil: ADASA.
Albuquerque, A. C. L. S., and H. M. L. Chaves. 2011. “Estimativa de re-
carga da bacia do Rio das Fêmeas através de métodos manuais e au-
tomáticos.” Rev. Bras. Eng. Agríc. Ambient. 15 (11): 1123–1129.
https://doi.org/10.1590/S1415-43662011001100003.
ANA (Agência Nacional de Águas). 2018. Conjuntura dos recursos
hídricos no Brasil 2018. Annual Report. Brasília, Brazil: ANA.
J. Environ. Eng.
 Azmi, M., and F. Sarmadi. 2015. “Dynamic modelling of water resources
sustainable development using a mathematical approach.” KSCE J.
Civ. Eng. 19 (6): 1675–1680. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-015
-0341-0.
Babcicky, P. 2013. “Rethinking the foundations of sustainability measure-
ment: The limitations of the Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI).”
Social Indic. Res. 113 (1): 133–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205
-012-0086-9.
Baker, C., et al. 2020. “A deep dive into freshwater: Living Planet Report
2020.” Accessed December 3, 2020. https://www.wwf.org.uk/sites
/default/files/2020-09/LPR2020_freshwater.pdf.
Campos, J. D. O., and H. M. L. Chaves. 2020. “Tendências e Variabilidades
nas Séries Históricas de Precipitação Mensal e Anual no Bioma Cerrado
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNB - Universidade de Bras?lia on 08/19/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
no Período 1977–2010.” Rev. Bras. Meteorol. 35 (1): 157–169. https://
doi.org/10.1590/0102-7786351019.
Catano, N., M. Marchand, S. Staley, and Y. W. Guillermo. 2011. “Water-
shed sustainability index (WSI) for the Reventazón River basin in
Cartago, Costa Rica, 2000–2005 period.” In Proc., 2nd Int. Symp.
on Building Knowledge Bridges for a Sustainable Water Future,
271–277. Paris: UNESCO.
Chaves, H., J. Rosa, R. Vadas, and R. Oliveira. 2002. “Regionalização de
Vazões Mínimas em Bacias Através de Interpolação em Sistemas de
Informação Geográfica.” Rev. Bras. Recursos Hídricos 7 (3): 43–51.
https://doi.org/10.21168/rbrh.v7n3.p43-51.
Chaves, H. M. L. 2011. “Integrated sustainability analysis of six Latin-
American HELP basins.” J. Hydrol. Environ. 7 (1): 149–153.
Chaves, H. M. L., and S. Alipaz. 2007. “An integrated indicator based on
basin hydrology, environment, life, and policy: The watershed sustain-
ability index.” Water Resour. Manage. 21 (5): 883–895. https://doi.org
/10.1007/s11269-006-9107-2.
Chaves, H. M. L., and D. R. Lorena. 2019. “Assessing reservoir reliability
using classical and long-memory statistics.” J. Hydrol.: Reg. Stud.
26 (Dec): 100641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2019.100641.
Chaves, H. M. L., and T. M. N. Santos. 2020. Water risk and sustainability
of strategic basins of the Federal District, Brazil. Rep. No. 1/2020.
Brasília, Brazil: Secretaria de Meio Ambiente do Distrito Federal.
Cortés, A. E., et al. 2012. “Application of the watershed sustainability
index to the Elqui river basin, North-Central Chile.” Obras y Proyectos
12: 57–69. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-28132012000200005.
Costa e Silva, D. D., H. M. L. Chaves, W. F. Curi, J. G. V. Baracuhy, and
T. P. S. Cunha. 2020. “Application of the watershed sustainability index
in the Piranhas-Açu watershed.” Water Policy 22 (4): 622–640. https://
doi.org/10.2166/wp.2020.011.
Dudgeon, D., et al. 2006. “Freshwater biodiversity: Importance, threats,
status and conservation challenges.” Biol. Rev. Cambridge Philos. Soc.
81 (2): 163–182. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1464793105006950.
Elfithri, R., et al. 2018. “Watershed sustainability index for Langat
UNESCO HELP River Basin, Malaysia.” Int. J. Eng. Technol. 7 (3.14):
187–190.
Esty, D. C., M. Levy, T. Srebotnjak, and A. de Sherbinin. 2005. 2005 envi-
ronmental sustainability index: Benchmarking national environmental
stewardship. New Haven, CT: Yale Center for Environmental Law &
Policy.
Falkenmark, M., and C. Widstrand. 1992. “Population and water resources:
A delicate balance.” Popul. Bull. 47 (3): 1–36.
Flörke, M., C. Schneider, and R. I. McDonald. 2018. “Water competition
between cities and agriculture driven by climate change and urban
growth.” Nat. Sustainability 1 (1): 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1038
/s41893-017-0006-8.
Franz, C., F. Makeschin, H. Weiß, and C. Lorz. 2014. “Sediments in urban
river basins: Identification of sediment sources within the Lago Paranoá
catchment, Brasilia DF, Brazil–using the fingerprint approach.” Sci.
Total Environ. 466–467 (Jan): 513–523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.scitotenv.2013.07.056.
Frederiksen, H. D. 2005. “Addressing water crisis in developing countries.”
J. Environ. Eng. 131 (5): 667–675. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9372(2005)131:5(667).
Gan, X., I. C. Fernandez, J. Guo, M. Wilson, Y. Zhao, B. Zhou, and J. Wu.
2017. “When to use what: Methods for weighting and aggregating
© ASCE 04021047-9
J. Environ. Eng., 2021, 147(11): 04021047
sustainability indicators.” Ecol. Indic. 81 (Oct): 491–502. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.05.068.
Garriga, R. G., and A. P. Foguet. 2010. “Improved method to calculate
a water poverty index at local scale.” J. Environ. Eng. 136 (11):
1287–1298. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0000255.
Grant, S. B., et al. 2012. “Taking the ‘waste’ out of ‘wastewater’ for human
water security and ecosystem sustainability.” Science 337 (6095):
681–686. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1216852.
Hoffmann, W. A., and R. B. Jackson. 2000. “Vegetation-climate feedbacks
in the conversion of tropical savanna to grassland.” J. Clim. 13 (9):
1593–1602. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2000)013<1593:VCFITC>
2.0.CO;2.
Hunsaker, C. T., B. L. Jackson, and A. Simcock. 1998. “Regional assess-
ment of watershed management in the Mid-Atlantic states.” In Water-
shed management: Practice, policies and coordination, edited by
R. Reimold, 1–33. New York: Mc Graw-Hill.
IBGE (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística). 2020. “Main pro-
vider of geographic information and statistics in Brazil.” Accessed
December 1, 2020. https://www.ibge.gov.br/.
IBGE (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística). 2021. “Estimativas
da população residente com data de referência 1 de julho de 2017.”
Accessed January 4, 2021. https://cidades.ibge.gov.br/brasil/df/panorama.
Juwana, I., N. Muttil, and B. J. C. Perera. 2012. “Indicator-based water
sustainability assessment—A review.” Sci. Total Environ. 438 (Nov):
357–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.08.093.
Kottek, M., J. Grieser, C. Beck, B. Rudolf, and F. Rubel. 2006. “World map
of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification updated.” Meteorol. Z.
15 (3): 259–263. https://doi.org/10.1127/0941-2948/2006/0130.
Lee, M., B. Tansel, and M. Balbin. 2013. “Urban sustainability incentives
for residential water conservation: Adoption of multiple high efficiency
appliances.” Water Resour. Manage. 27 (7): 2531–2540. https://doi.org
/10.1007/s11269-013-0301-8.
Luthy, R. G., J. M. Wolfand, and J. L. Bradshaw. 2020. “Urban water
revolution: Sustainable water futures for California cities.” J. Environ.
Eng. 146 (7): 04020065. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870
.0001715.
MapBiomas. 2019. “Hydrological information system of Paraná’s water
institute.” Accessed November 25, 2019. https://mapbiomas.org.
Mayer, A. L. 2008. “Strengths and weaknesses of common sustainability
indices for multidimensional systems.” Environ. Int. 34 (2): 277–291.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2007.09.004.
McDonald, R. I., et al. 2014. “Water on an urban planet: Urbanization and
the reach of urban water infrastructure.” Global Environ. Change
27 (1): 96–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.022.
Mititelu-Ionuş, O. 2017. “Watershed sustainability index development and
application: Case study of the Motru river in Romania.” Pol. J. Environ.
Stud. 26 (5): 2095–2105. https://doi.org/10.15244/pjoes/69935.
Nunes, G., R. T. Minoti, and S. Koide. 2020. “Mathematical modeling
of watersheds as a subsidy for reservoir water balance determination:
The case of Paranoá Lake, Federal District, Brazil.” Hydrology 7 (4):
85. https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrology7040085.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development). 1999.
Environmental indicators for agriculture: Concepts and frameworks.
Paris: OECD.
Paton, F. L., H. R. Maier, and G. C. Dandy. 2014. “Including adaptation and
mitigation responses to climate change in a multiobjective evolutionary
algorithm framework for urban water supply systems incorporating
GHG emissions.” Water Resour. Res. 50 (8): 6285–6304. https://doi
.org/10.1002/2013WR015195.
Pedro-Monzonís, M., A. Solera, J. Ferrer, T. Estrela, and J. Paredes-
Arquiola. 2015. “A review of water scarcity and drought indexes in
water resources planning and management.” J. Hydrol. 527 (Aug):
482–493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.05.003.
Plummer, R., R. de Loë, and D. Armitage. 2012. “A systematic review of
water vulnerability assessment tools.” Water Resour. Manage. 26 (15):
4327–4346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-012-0147-5.
Poff, N. L., J. D. Allan, M. A. Palmer, D. D. Hart, B. D. Richter, A. H.
Arthington, K. H. Rogers, J. L. Meyer, and J. A. Stanford. 2003. “River
flows and water wars: Emerging science for environmental decision
J. Environ. Eng.
 making.” Front. Ecol. Environ. 1 (6): 298–306. https://doi.org/10.1890
/1540-9295(2003)001[0298:RFAWWE]2.0.CO;2.
Preciado-Jiménez, M., J. Aparicio, A. Güitrón-De-Los-Reyes, and J. A.
Hidalgo-Toledo. 2013. “Aplicación del índice de sustentabilidad WSI
en la cuenca Lerma-Chapala.” Tecnol. Cienc. Agua 4 (4): 93–113.
Rasul, G. 2014. “Food, water, and energy security in South Asia: A nexus
perspective from the Hindu Kush Himalayan region.” Environ. Sci.
Policy 39 (May): 35–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2014.01.010.
Rijsberman, F. R. 2006. “Water scarcity: Fact or fiction?” Agric. Water
Manage. 80 (1–3): 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2005.07.001.
Rockström, J. 2003. “Resilience building and water demand management
for drought mitigation.” Phys. Chem. Earth 28 (20–27): 869–877.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2003.08.009.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNB - Universidade de Bras?lia on 08/19/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Senent-Aparicio, J., J. Pérez-Sánchez, and A. M. Bielsa-Artero. 2016.
“Evaluación de la sostenibilidad de cuencas mediterráneas semiáridas.
Caso de estudio: Cuenca del Segura, España.” Tecnol. Cienc. Agua
7 (2): 67–84.
Singh, R. K., H. R. Murty, S. K. Gupta, and A. K. Dikshit. 2007. “Develop-
ment of composite sustainability performance index for steel industry.”
© ASCE 04021047-10
J. Environ. Eng., 2021, 147(11): 04021047
Ecol. Indic. 7 (3): 565–588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2006.06
.004.
Sullivan, C. 2002. “Calculating a water poverty index.” World Dev. 30 (7):
1195–1210. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(02)00035-9.
UNDP (United Nations Development Program). 2020. “Human develop-
ment report 2020.” Accessed October 22, 2020. http://hdr.undp.org/en
/2020-report.
UNESCO. 2010. “HELP: Hydrology for the environment, life and policy.”
In Brochure. Paris: UNESCO.
United Nations. 2019. World urbanization prospects 2018: Highlights.
New York: United Nations.
Vörösmarty, C. J., et al. 2010. “Global threats to human water security
and river biodiversity.” Nature 467: 555–561. https://doi.org/10.1038
/nature09440.
Xu, Z. X., K. Takeuchi, H. Ishidaira, and X. W. Zhang. 2002. “Sustainabil-
ity analysis for Yellow River water resources using the system dynamics
approach.” Water Resour. Manage. 16 (3): 239–261. https://doi.org/10
.1023/A:1020206826669.
J. Environ. Eng.