Stream restoration as a basis for Israeli–Palestinian cooperation: a comparative analysis of two transboundary streams

Figures & data

Figure 1 Area of study

Figure 2 Components of total economic value of water resources (adapted from Birol et al. 2006)

Table 1 Stages of restoration

Stage 1	Water quality is safe for non-contact recreation, such as boating, and allows minimal restoration of wildlife and habitat
Stage 2	Health of fish and other aquatic populations is ensured. Thus, fishing is possible. It is also safe for consumption for domestic animals (sheep and goats)
Stage 3	Swimming and other contact recreational activities are possible
Park and Trails	This involves creation of a park and walking trails along the restored stream, independent of the above stages

Table 2 Comparison of demographic data of national populations versus surveyed respondents

	Israel		West Bank
	National data^a	Survey	National data^a	Survey
Gender (%)
Male	49.4	52.6	50.9	68.3
Female	50.6	47.4	49.1	31.7
Family size	3.74	4.1	6	3.71
Urban population^b (%)	91.2	92.4	69	84.1
Age group-relative (%)
18–64	85	97.6	93.1	100
65+	15	2.4	6.9	0
Highest education level (%)
Secondary	54	36.5	61.9	25.4
Professional	22	14.4	4.4	8.8
Academic	19.8	49.1	4.3	60.2
Relative income (out of five)	2.5	2.8	2.5	2.4
^aTunstall et al. (1999).
^bFor Israeli data, ‘urban’ refers to communities greater than 2000. For the West Bank, it is for 10,000 or more.

Table 3 Response rate in Israel and the West Bank

	Israel		West Bank
	Alexander	Besor	Zomar	Khalil
Total responses (N)	169	196	181	197
	365		378
Non-response	200		25
Response rate (%)	64.6		93.4

Table 4 Stream type preferences (%)

	Israel		West Bank
	Alexander	Besor	Zomar	Khalil
Perennial	93.3	91.1	78.5	77.5
Ephemeral	6.7	8.9	21.5	22.5

Table

If the government needs to decide between using treated wastewater supply for meeting agricultural water needs, or to stream restoration, which do you prefer? Please circle your response.
Agriculture	Streams

Table

There are two main issues regarding the Wadi Zomar restoration:

Water supply and Environment.

Water Supply: Since the wadi is located in a dry area, not so much water is available for people's consumption. So if the sewage in the wadi were treated, people could use the water again.

Environment: If the sewage is treated, the ecosystem would improve, the wildlife would improve, and the entire area would become healthy whether there is water in the wadi or not.

Which issue is more important to you?

Table 5 Water use preferences in Israel and the West Bank (%)

Israel	Agriculture	Streams
	67.6	32.4
West Bank	Water supply	Environment
	63.1	36.9

Figure 3 Mean household willingness to pay by stream and stream type preference (in US dollars: 4 NIS = 1 USD)

Table 6 Calculation of total mean WTP (in US dollars: 4 NIS = 1 USD)

Stream	Mean WTP, perennial	Percent preference	Mean WTP, ephemeral	Percent preference	Total mean WTP
					Perennial	Ephemeral
Alexander	76.01	93.3	37.50	6.7	72.17	37.97
Zomar	106.41	78.5	44.53	21.5	88.32	51.34
Besor	45.24	91.1	32.21	8.9	42.65	23.47
Khalil	45.87	77.5	19.94	22.5	37.79	22.26

Table 7 Israeli and Palestinian WTP bid responses

Value	Israel		West Bank
	Count	Percent	Count	Percent
Non-use	385	57.89	336	64.62
Use	280	42.11	184	35.38

Table 8 Calculation of total use value

Watershed	Stream	Mean household use value ($US)	Annual visiting households	Total use value (million $US)		Annual use value^a (million $US)
Perennial stream variant
Northern	Alexander	35.15	100,000^b	3.52	3.94	0.176	0.197
	Zomar	31.27	13,342^c	0.42		0.021
Southern	Besor	17.96	100,000	1.80	1.98	0.090	0.099
	Khalil	13.37	13,342	0.18		0.009
Ephemeral stream variant
Northern	Alexander	15.96	100,000^b	1.60	1.84	0.0798	0.0919
	Zomar	18.16	13,342^c	0.242		0.0121
Southern	Besor	9.88	100,000	0.988	1.09	0.0494	0.0547
	Khalil	7.88	13,342	0.105		0.053
^aAnnual benefit = total benefit  ×  interest rate. We assume interest rate = 5%.
^bBecker et al. (2007).
^cProportional visitors based on demographic data (Salha 2005).

Table 9 Calculation of total non-use value

Watershed	Stream	Mean household non-use value ($US)	Total households	Total non-use value (million $US)		Annual non-use value^a (million $US)
Perennial stream variant
Northern	Alexander	48.33	1,968,000^b	95.1	110.1	4.76	5.51
	Zomar	57.07	262,568^c	15.0		0.75
Southern	Besor	24.69	1,968,000	48.6	55.0	2.43	2.75
	Khalil	24.42	262,568	6.4		0.32
Ephemeral stream variant
Northern	Alexander	21.95	1,968,000^b	43.2	51.9	2.16	2.60
	Zomar	33.18	262,568^c	8.71		0.436
Southern	Besor	13.59	1,968,000	26.7	30.5	1.34	1.53
	Khalil	14.38	262,568	3.78		0.189
^aAnnual benefit = total benefit  ×  interest rate. We assume interest rate = 5%.
^bBecker et al. (2007).
^cProportional visitors based on demographic data (Salha 2005).

Table 10 Estimated market benefit of diverting treated effluent to agriculture

Watershed	Reusable effluent – present (MCM/year)	Reusable effluent – 2025 (MCM/year)	Annual market benefit – present ($US)	Annual market benefit – 2025 ($US)	Average annual benefit – 2025 ($US)
Northern	2.5	12.5	450,000	2.25 million	1.35 million
Southern	5	25	0.9 million	4.50 million	2.7 million
Projected effluent estimates from Volvendo Consulting (2005) and USAID (2001).

Table 11 Calculation of net benefit

Watershed	River recharge treatment cost ($US/m^3)	Mean annual discharge (MCM/year)	Mean annual cost ($US million/year)	Mean annual benefit ($US million/year)	Net benefit ($US million/year)
Perennial stream variant
Northern	0.41	7.5	3.08	7.06	3.98
Southern	0.41	15	6.15	5.55	−0.60
Ephemeral stream variant
Northern	0.36	7.5	2.7	4.04	1.34
Southern	0.36	15	5.4	4.28	−1.12

Figure 4 Mean WTP for incremental stages of restoration of a perennial stream (in US dollars: 4 NIS = 1 USD)

Table 12 Reduced form regression analysis of factors affecting total WTP

	Israel		West Bank
R ^2	0.0925		0.299
N	159		240
	Coefficient	t-Stat	Coefficient	t-Stat
Intercept	25.42	0.288	82.37	0.751
Visitation rate (per year)	14.06	3.611***	NA	NA
Stream	67.79	1.700*	210.84	4.621***
Satisfaction with water reliability	NA	NA	61.72	2.714***
Satisfaction with water quantity	NA	NA	−64.83	−3.029***
Marital status	NA	NA	−93.01	−2.101**
Income	NA	NA	140.17	6.801***
Perennial/ephemeral	NA	NA	−138.94	−2.687***
*P < 0.10, **P < 0.05, ***P < 0.01.

Figure 5 Satisfaction with household water quantity (top) and water reliability (bottom), percentage of responses

Table 13 Explanations chosen to justify WTP bid, and percent of affirmative responses (out of total valid WTP bids, excluding protest bids)

Reason	Israel (%)	West Bank (%)
1. I identify with restoration causes and it's important to me to return life to streams in the land	57.6	43.0
2. I am planning to visit/recreate the stream	57.6	50.0
3. I want to ensure that future generations will have a healthy environment	46.3	48.6
4. I am not able to spend money on stream restoration	12.4	9.0
5. There are more important issues on which to spend money	3.1	7.3
6. It is not my responsibility to pay for restoration	8.8	2.2

Table 14 Palestinian public's ranking of social investment preferences

Issue	Mean rank (out of 6)	Standard deviation	N	Rank
Drinking water	1.99	1.22	378	1
Sewage	2.81	1.38	378	2
Nature preservation	2.98	1.47	377	3
Solid waste	4.21	1.38	378	4
Transportation	4.21	1.61	378	5
Phone/electricity	4.73	1.44	377	6

Birol , E. , Karousakis , K. and Koundouri , P. 2006 . Using economic valuation techniques to inform water resources management: A survey and critical appraisal of available techniques and an application . Science of the Total Environment , 365 ( 1–3 ) : 105 – 122 .

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Tunstall , S. , Tapsell , S. and Eden , S. 1999 . How stable are public responses to changing local environments? A ‘before’ and ‘after’ case study of river restoration . Journal of Environmental Planning and Management , 42 ( 4 ) : 527 – 547 .

 Google Scholar

Becker , N. , Friedler , E. and Hadad , M. 2007 . Case study report: The Alexander River – Wadi Zomar basin , Jerusalem : Israel-Palestine Center for Research and Information .

 Google Scholar

Salha , R. 2005 . Family structure in the Palestinian territory , Ramallah: Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics .

 Google Scholar

Volvendo Consulting . 2005 . Assessment of different options for the treatment of wastewater of the Wadi Zeimar Short term expert mission. Draft Report. 7 June. Hamburg: Volvendo Consulting

 Google Scholar

USAID . 2001 . Stormwater, domestic wastewater and industrial wastewater master plan for Hebron , West Bank Integrated Water Resources Program Phase III . USAID Contract No. 294-C-00-00-00063-00

 Google Scholar