Risk Management Associated with Surface Sources of Public Water Supply in Urban and Rural Areas in a Developing Country

This research aimed to apply a risk management methodology to multiple surface water sources in urban and rural areas of a developing country. The applied methodology enabled the identification of hazards, classification, and the prioritization of risks at 21 collection points in the rural area and...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Water (Basel) 2024-10, Vol.16 (19), p.2732
Main Authors: de Araújo Reis, Isabel Francisco, Leôncio, Hamilton Cristiano, de Castro, Ana Letícia Pilz, da Fonseca Santiago, Aníbal
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Access to information
Animal culture
Animal husbandry
Aquaculture
Aquatic resources
Brazil
Classification
Communication
Costs
Developing countries
Hazardous materials
Land use
LDCs
Management
Multidisciplinary teams
Public utilities
Risk management
Rural areas
Sanitation
Sediments
Sparsely populated areas
Vandalism
Water
Water quality
Water shortages
Water supply
Water treatment
Watershed management
Watersheds
Wildlife conservation
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:This research aimed to apply a risk management methodology to multiple surface water sources in urban and rural areas of a developing country. The applied methodology enabled the identification of hazards, classification, and the prioritization of risks at 21 collection points in the rural area and 9 collection points in the urban area. Both rural and urban areas exhibited common events with a high-risk level, such as human access (100% in urban areas and 90% in rural areas), climatic events, and inadequate collection structures (100% of points in both urban and rural areas). However, rural areas presented specific risks associated with animal husbandry (70% of points with high risk), a lack of monitoring, limited infrastructure (30% of points with high risk), and wildlife, including birds and worms (50% of points with high risk in rural areas and 10% in urban points). On the other hand, urban areas faced challenges related to vandalism and sabotage (high risk in 40% of points). Understanding these similarities and differences permits integrated risk management among the various stakeholders who can contribute to risk management within a watershed.
ISSN:2073-4441
2073-4441
DOI:10.3390/w16192732