Appraisal of Water Security in Asia: The Pentagonal Framework for Efficient Water Resource Management

Abstract

Swathes of global water challenges, such as water shortages, water pollution, water-related disasters, and degradation of water environments, have seriously threatened human development. The discussion of water security or insecurity has been instrumental in drawing the attention of political leaders thanks to its political nature and strategic and urgent messages for society to take action. This study introduces a modified concept and definition of water security and a water security assessment framework based on a review of previous works on water security; the water security framework intends to shed light on five core areas: (1) social equity; (2) economic efficiency; (3) environmental sustainability; (4) resilience to water-related disasters; and (5) government competency. A total of 28 countries in Asia and the Pacific have been chosen and appraised for their level of water security. The assessment result unveils that Japan, Malaysia, and South Korea show high levels of water security. In contrast, India, Pakistan, and the Philippines are regarded as the countries with water insecurity. The magnitude of the study lies in critically assessing good or challenging aspects of water security so that the countries can start to consider possible policy options for achieving sustainable water resource management.

1. Introduction

Water is a vital resource that the natural environment provides for living creatures and is the starting point for life on Earth. However, rapid socioeconomic development, urbanization, and climate change are causing a severe imbalance in water demand and supply, and environmental changes related to water are jeopardizing human existence [1].

The world’s population is directly or indirectly exposed to water security threats due to the lack of access to clean water, poor sanitation facilities and services, droughts, and floods. Mekonnen and Hoekstra [2] estimated that four billion people are already facing extreme water shortages considering seasonal and annual changes in water availability, suggesting that more than half of the world’s population may now face water insecurity due to a lack of water resources. Jimenez-Cisneros [3] argued that more than 600 million people do not receive proper water and sanitation services, of which 240 million people live in sub-Saharan Africa as of 2015, exposing rural residents, women, and children to deteriorating environments. Thus, water is urgently evaluated from a security perspective because factors such as food, diseases, economy, disaster, environment, and ecology affect survival, safety, life, and industrial activities.

In addition, the uneven distribution of water resources leads to economic imbalances, poor governance, and institutional failures. Because the consequences of human development, such as population growth, urbanization, and industrialization, affect water resources, the awareness of related problems is an essential requirement for a comprehensive understanding of the interaction of human and water systems [4]. Therefore, the water security assessment framework has the potential to improve water management plans and policies [5].

As above, in a situation where individuals, communities, countries, and the world face various types of water challenges, this study aims to find ways to resolve the water problems by suggesting a refined water security concept and providing a water security assessment framework. Based on the five key areas of social equity, economic efficiency, resilience to water-related disasters, environmental sustainability, and government competence, 28 countries in Asia and the Pacific will be evaluated with regard to their water security status and problems, and improvement measures will be considered. These findings help identify a variety of factors in water security challenges and provide clues to addressing water problems in the Asia-Pacific region.

2. Definition of Water Security

As the hydrological process has changed in recent years due to climate change, the concept of water security as a preemptive response to extreme water crises has spread globally, drawing attention to research and policy on water security compared to the past. Whereas the World Water Forum in 2000 pinpointed the magnitude of water security for policy making and implementation first time, the discussion of water risk has drawn much attention. Water risk accommodates diverse aspects of water challenges, including not only insufficiency but also excessive amounts or over-abundance, which are common phenomena triggered by climate change [6,7,8].

It is crucial to have a good understanding of the dynamics of current availability and future climate change because these elements influence water supply and demand in all water sectors. The capacity to tackle such dynamics enhances more efficient water resource management, which nurtures resilience to climate change-driven extreme events. Countries should be committed to achieving and sustaining water security by adapting to climate change, increasing water productivity and reducing the destructive potential of water [9].

While there are many definitions of water security concepts, various international organizations, including the UNESCO International Flood Plan, the Global Water Partnership, the World Economic Forum and the Asian Development Bank, emphasize the importance of desirable and wise water resource management.

Discussions and various definitions related to water security began to attract policymakers because the term “security” was used, which contributed to the recognition of this concept but also provided a negative perception by implying actionable solutions or military nuances rather than negotiations or cooperation [6]. However, regardless of the controversial part of the concept, water security has become popular as the most concise and widely acceptable term to explain the consequences of sustainable water management and the challenges of the water realm. Furthermore, water security is important in ensuring humanity’s deficiency in water, proper sanitation for socioeconomic development, universal access to sufficient amounts of clean water, and the protection of natural assets for current and future generations [6].

Water security involves a variety of issues, such as the “under-performing,” “over-excessive,” and “very polluted” issues in water resource management, and has a profound impact on politics, economy, society, and the environment [10]. It also contributes to ensuring fair use of water services for all based on appropriate policies and legal systems at all levels and enhancing the resilience of severely damaged communities that have suffered from severe harm. Furthermore, achieving water security requires the restoration and protection of the ecosystem as part of the green economy, and the soundness of rivers should be improved [10]. As such, the definition and concept of water security has developed over time, and it is necessary to investigate the definition of water security in various institutions or disciplines in order to define or understand the status water security at the national level.

Grey and Sadoff [11] defined water security by taking into account acceptable levels of water-related risks to people, the environment, and the economy, along with the acceptable quantity and quality of water for health, livelihood, ecosystems, and production. Bakker and Morinville [12] defined water security as a sufficient amount and quality of water availability to support livelihood, national security, health, and ecosystem services, along with risk associated with adequate water resources for humans and ecosystems. The definition of UN-Water [13] for water security is referred to as the capacity of the population to protect the appropriate amounts of water and water quality that are acceptable for livelihood, human safety, socioeconomic development, ensuring protection against water-related pollution and disasters, and preserving ecosystems.

The Asian Development Bank (ADB) [14,15,16] defined that the reliable water availability and unpredictable water-related impacts on water quality and quantity allowed for production, livelihood, and health were combined with acceptable levels of risk to society. It was also comprehensively expressed as society’s ability to ensure that adequate amounts of acceptable water are still available for livelihoods, human happiness, socioeconomic development, and to preserve ecosystems from water-causal diseases and disasters. The ADB [14,15,16] evaluated water security in Asia-Pacific countries in five areas and made policy proposals on how to improve measures. The first emphasizes the provision of basic services related to water and sanitation as household water security. The second emphasizes the economic efficiency of the entire economy, including agriculture, industry, and energy sectors, as economic water security. The third discusses a stable water supply, water pollution reduction, prevention and management of flood and drought damage, and the restoration of urban ecosystems as urban water security. Fourth, environmental water security is associated with guaranteeing river health, responding to hydrological changes, and establishing and operating environmental governance. Fifth, water-related disaster resilience strengthens the capacity to cope with flood and drought prevention, response, recovery policies, planning, and financing.

Varis et al. [1] defined water security as the ability to ensure water availability and accessibility in response to various crises, vulnerabilities, instability, and inequality policy issues faced by society and ecosystems due to the volatility of water quantity and quality or water-related disasters. This definition included ensuring access to water and sanitation in Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) No. 6, investigating vulnerability, instability, and inequality policy issues along with water, securing and providing adequate sanitation systems, and improving water quality and safety from water-related disasters. Varis et al. [1] maintained that social adaptive capacity should be cultivated to enhance economic, social, environmental and ecosystem resilience in order to achieve and maintain water security.

Based on the previous discussions, this study defines water security as the ability of countries or societies to provide clean water and adequate sanitation services to all members of society, ensure an economic value of water, protect human life and the environment from pollution and water-related disasters, and achieve water and ecosystem conservation and recovery based on desirable governance that includes appropriate institutions and sufficient financing capacity. This study aims to refine the concept and definition of water security and a water security assessment framework based on the review of previous works on water security.

3. Water Security Assessment Framework

In order to achieve water security, diverse efforts must be made in various ways, and in this study, the following five key areas have been set up: (1) social equity; (2) economic efficiency; (3) resilience to water-related disasters; (4) environmental sustainability; and (5) government competence. Social equity in water security refers to the most basic water-related services that guarantee human dignity, such as providing clean water and adequate sanitation services. Economic efficiency means measuring the effectiveness of water use in agriculture and industry to assess the value of water.

Resilience to water-related disasters such as floods and droughts includes constructing and operating infrastructures such as dams, embankments or reservoirs against drought and related systems and regulations. Furthermore, ensuring environmental integrity means implementing efforts to preserve and restore water-related ecosystems and actively introducing and promoting economic regulations based on the polluter-pays principle and the introduction of the payment for ecosystem services (PES).

Finally, securing the government’s capabilities refers to strengthening the institutional capacity in the fields of water management planning and management, law, institutions, and governance. The examples include ensuring a democratic decision-making process, promoting smooth policy progress and strong law enforcement, and guaranteeing diversified and active socioeconomic development. Strengthening government capabilities to achieve water security is, above all, based on multi-layered governance, including multi-stakeholders in various fields, rather than establishing and operating policies led by the government alone. Based on the above discussion, a framework has been constructed so that the five key areas can interact in harmony to achieve water security (Figure 1).

In order to establish sub-indicators for evaluating water resource sustainability and equity, sustainability must be properly defined through consensus among participants in water resource management activities and appropriate sub-indicators for evaluating key indicators in various aspects. In addition, an effective evaluation of water security ensures that appropriate criteria should be made for the quantitative assessment of water security status and that quantitative values can be easily understood and efficiently communicated through the information on water resource status [17].

In this study, 15 sub-indicators have been selected to reflect the characteristics of five key areas affecting national water security (social equity, economic efficiency, resilience to water-related disasters, environmental sustainability, and government competence), considering the clarity, independence, and ease of obtaining data for indicators. The special scope of the analysis has been set for Asian countries, and 28 countries have been selected, with the exception of some countries where data were missing or water resource information could not be obtained.

3.1. Core Area 1: Social Equity

Social equity refers to the most basic supply of water-related services, focusing on access to safe water sources, the possibility of water regeneration, and public health through a clean water supply; that is, the key area of assessing how much the state can meet the criteria of water and sanitation services and the degree of improvement accordingly.

In order to assess social equity, the evaluation criteria, including aspects related to water services, must reflect variables related to water availability indicators. The availability of water is affected by the stability of water resources, so the regeneration of water was selected as a sub-indicator, and waterborne diseases that pose a great risk to water security in public health were also selected as a single detailed indicator to show a link to access to clean water (

Table 1. Core area 1: indicators and variables of social equity.

Core Area	Indicators	Temporal Scales	Definition	Resource
Core area 1. Social equity	Improved drinking water supply rate	2017	Total population with access to improved drinking-water source (JMP)	WHO UNICEF(JMP) [18]
	Renewable water resources per person	2017	Total renewable water resources per capita (m3/inhab/year)	AQUASTAT [19]
	Sewerage rate	2015	Improved sanitation facilities (% of population with access)	INDEX MUNDI [20]
	Diarrheal diseases	2017	Diarrheal diseases death rates in children under 5	Our World in Data [21]

).

3.2. Core Area 2: Economic Efficiency

Economic efficiency is a key area considering the economic aspects of water security. As an indicator to assess the economic value of water used in economic activities such as agriculture and industry in countries to explore how valuable water is used, the indicator measures have an economically positive impact on water security [5].

Three detailed indicators were used to analyze core area 2 (

Table 2. Core area 2: indicators and variables of economic efficiency.

Core Area	Indicators	Temporal Scales	Definition	Resource
Core area 2. Economic efficiency	Value of industrial water consumption	2000:2017	Industrial production/industrial water withdrawal	OECD [22]/AQUASTAT
	Value of agricultural water consumption	2000:2017	Value of agricultural production/agricultural water withdrawal	FAO/AQUASTAT
	GDP (gross domestic product)	2019	GDP per capita	World Bank [23]

). The economic value of agricultural and industrial water was calculated as the amount of water used by industry (USD/m³), and the economic value of each country was evaluated using the gross domestic product (GDP).

3.3. Core Area 3: Resilience to Water-Related Disaster

Resilience to water-related disasters is a key area for assessing the ability to respond to water-related disasters such as floods and droughts, and sustainable management requires consideration of exposure to hydrologic phenomena, vulnerabilities, and social readiness.

Many essential activities in countries are bound to be vulnerable to extreme rainfall fluctuations, and various physical and social structural factors make society unsafe for floods and droughts [4]. One practical way to mitigate the risk from these water disasters is to utilize dams and reservoirs [24,25].

Six sub-indicators were selected to assess resilience to water-related disasters. The first to fourth sub-indicators were classified as focused on exposure and vulnerability to droughts and floods, and the fifth and sixth sub-indicators focused on their ability to respond to flood disasters (

Table 3. Core area 3: indicators and variables of resilience to water-related disasters.

Core Area	Indicators	Temporal Scales	Definition	Resource
Core area 3. Resilience to water-related disasters	Drought frequency	1979:2018	SPI (Standardized Precipitation Index) <−1 or less occurrence frequency	NOAA [26]
	Areas vulnerable to drought	2013:2017	% of total country area cultivated	AQUASTAT [27]
	Flood frequency	1969:2018	Flood occurrence (WRI)	AQUASTAT
	Areas vulnerable to flood	2017	Urban population/total population	AQUASTAT
	Irrigation area ratio	2012	Area equipped for irrigation: total/cultivated area	AQUASTAT
	Flood control ability	1950:2018	Reservoir capacity/total area	ICOLD/AQUASTAT

).

3.4. Core Area 4: Environmental Sustainability

Environmental sustainability is a key area for assessing how well rivers are preserved to maintain ecosystems. It discloses ecosystem conditions related to water and vegetation soundness, evaluates the health of rivers and water-related environmental conditions as river health deteriorates due to human pollution, power generation, and industrial activities, and evaluates rivers and ecosystem restoration by country.

The River Health Index (RHI) has been used as a sub-indicator of core area 4 (

Table 4. Core area 4: indicators and variables of environmental sustainability.

Core Area	Indicators	Temporal Scales	Definition	Resource
Core area 4. Environmental sustainability	River Health Index	2010	Biodiversity threat	RIVERS IN CRISIS [29]
	Value of agricultural water consumption	2000:2017	Human water security threat

). This indicator is a combination of two evaluation groups: human water security threats (HWS) and biodiversity threats (BD). The assessment group consists of 23 individual indicators, which are divided into four topics: watershed disturbance, pollution, water resource development, and biotic factors. Finally, it calculates the RHI by assigning relative weights to each individual indicator [28].

3.5. Core Area 5: Government Competency

Social and institutional management, such as water planning and management methods, institutional capacities, power relations, and governance systems, play an important role in providing water security [30]. Government competency has been set as the last key area for assessing the government’s competitiveness and capabilities for water security. The sub-indicators utilized the Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) provided by the World Bank. The WGI includes: (1) the process by which governments are chosen, monitored, and replaced; (2) the government’s capacity to create and implement sound policies; and (3) the respect for citizens and nations for the institutions that manage socioeconomic interactions [30].

The six indicators, which are correlated with government competency, consist of voice and accountability, political stability and absence of violence, government effectiveness, regulatory quality, the rules of law, and control of corruption (

Table 5. Core area 5: indicators and variables of government competency.

Core Area	Indicators	Temporal Scales	Definition	Resource
Core area 5. Government Competency	Government capacity	2018	Voice and accountability	World Bank
			Political stability and absence of violence
			Government effectiveness
			Regulatory quality
			Rule of law
			Control of corruption

).

3.6. Normalization and Range of Water Security Indicators

Various sub-indicators are used worldwide for water security assessments, and various indicators for water security assessments are collected from a variety of sources (

Table 6. Thresholds of each class for water security indicators.

Water Security Core Area	Indicators	1.	2.	3.	4.	5.	Ref.
Core area 1. Social equity	Improved drinking water supply rate	<60	60~70	70~80	80~90	90~100	Authors
	Renewable water resources per person	0.0~0.2	0.2~0.4	0.4~0.6	0.6~0.8	0.8~1.0	Authors
	Sewerage rate	<60	60~70	70~80	80~90	90~100	Authors
	Diarrheal diseases	<25	25~50	50~75	75~100	100~300	Authors
Core area 2. Economic efficiency	Value of industrial water consumption	0.0~0.2	0.2~0.4	0.4~0.6	0.6~0.8	0.8~1.0	Authors
	Value of agricultural water consumption	0.0~0.2	0.2~0.4	0.4~0.6	0.6~0.8	0.8~1.0	Authors
	GDP (gross domestic product)	<8300	8300~19,900	19,900~33,190	33,190~54,910	>54,910	Authors
Core area 3. Resilience to water-related disasters	Drought frequency	0.0~0.2	0.2~0.4	0.4~0.6	0.6~0.8	0.8~1.0	Authors
	Areas vulnerable to drought	0.0~0.2	0.2~0.4	0.4~0.6	0.6~0.8	0.8~1.0	Authors
	Flood frequency	0~1	1~2	2~3	3~4	4~5	AQUASTAT
	Areas vulnerable to flood	0.0~0.2	0.2~0.4	0.4~0.6	0.6~0.8	0.8~1.0	Authors
	Irrigation area ratio	0.0~0.2	0.2~0.4	0.4~0.6	0.6~0.8	0.8~1.0	Authors
	Flood control ability	0.0–0.2	0.2–0.4	0.4–0.6	0.6–0.8	0.8–1.0	Authors
Core area 4. Environmental sustainability	River Health Index	0.78~1.00	0.64~0.78	0.46~0.64	0.29~0.46	0.0~0.29	AWDO 2013
Core area 5. Government Competency	Government capacity	−2.5~−1.5	−1.5~−0.5	−0.5~0.5	0.5~1.5	1.5~2.5	Authors

). For the effective evaluation of water security, a normalization method with a range of 0 to 1 was applied to convert the results of each component of different units to a common scale and comparable units. For indicators that can be expressed as some distorted results, the range and scale of each indicator were set to be dimensionless in the range between 1 and 5. Table 6 below shows the scores of the scale water security index of 1 to 5 for each variable.

The Water Security Index (WSI) was calculated to fall into the range from 1 to 5 using Equation (1) through the result values obtained using sub-indicators for each core area. A score closer to 1 point indicates worse water security, with 5 points indicating better water security.

$$WSI=\frac{Core area 1+\cdots \cdots +Core area 5}{5}$$

(1)

4. Water Security Assessment of Asian Countries

4.1. Water Security Assessment Results by Key Areas

4.1.1. Core Area 1: Social Equity

Four sub-indicators were selected to assess social equity, focusing on improved drinking water supply rate, renewable water resources per person, sewerage rate, and diarrheal diseases. The results for the 28 countries are shown in

Table 7. Assessment results of social equity.

Nations	Improved Drinking Water Supply Rate	Renewable Water Resources Per Person	Sewerage Rate	Diarrheal Diseases	Result
Bangladesh	1.0	1.0	2.0	4.0	2.0
Bhutan	5.0	5.0	1.0	4.0	3.8
Brunei Darussalam	5.0	2.0	1.0	5.0	3.3
Cambodia	1.0	2.0	1.0	5.0	2.3
China	3.0	1.0	3.0	5.0	3.0
Georgia	4.0	1.0	4.0	5.0	3.5
India	1.0	1.0	1.0	3.0	1.5
Indonesia	1.0	1.0	2.0	4.0	2.0
Japan	5.0	1.0	5.0	5.0	4.0
Kazakhstan	4.0	1.0	5.0	5.0	3.8
Kyrgyzstan	4.0	1.0	5.0	5.0	3.8
Laos	1.0	5.0	2.0	4.0	3.0
Malaysia	5.0	1.0	5.0	5.0	4.0
Mongolia	1.0	1.0	1.0	5.0	2.0
Myanmar	1.0	2.0	3.0	5.0	2.8
Nepal	1.0	1.0	1.0	4.0	1.8
North Korea	2.0	1.0	4.0	5.0	3.0
Pakistan	1.0	1.0	2.0	4.0	2.0
Philippines	1.0	1.0	3.0	5.0	2.5
Singapore	5.0	1.0	5.0	5.0	4.0
South Korea	5.0	1.0	5.0	5.0	4.0
Sri Lanka	1.0	1.0	5.0	5.0	3.0
Tajikistan	2.0	1.0	5.0	5.0	3.3
Thailand	3.0	1.0	5.0	5.0	3.5
Timor-Leste	2.0	1.0	1.0	5.0	2.3
Turkmenistan	1.0	1.0	2.0	5.0	2.3
Uzbekistan	3.0	1.0	5.0	5.0	3.5
Viet Nam	1.0	1.0	3.0	5.0	2.5

. Singapore, Japan, Malaysia, and South Korea, which have relatively high social infrastructure scores such as drinking water and sewage treatment, ranked at the top with 4 in the final average. In contrast, Nepal and India, which have low social infrastructure scores, were analyzed to be the weakest regarding social equity.

4.1.2. Core Area 2: Economic Efficiency

EF helps evaluate the economic efficiency of countries’ use of water to sustain economic growth in food production, industry, and energy and analyzes the value of industrial and agricultural water and the value of production activities representing the national economic level. The results for the 28 countries are shown in

Table 8. Assessment results of economic efficiency.

Nations	Value of Agricultural Water Consumption	Value of Industrial Water Consumption	GDP (Gross Domestic Product)	Result
Bangladesh	1.0	2.0	1.0	1.3
Bhutan	1.0	3.0	-	1.3
Brunei Darussalam	-	-	3.0	1.0
Cambodia	2.0	5.0	1.0	2.7
China	2.0	2.0	2.0	2.0
Georgia	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0
India	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0
Indonesia	1.0	2.0	1.0	1.3
Japan	1.0	5.0	4.0	3.3
Kazakhstan	1.0	1.0	2.0	1.3
Kyrgyzstan	1.0	-	1.0	0.7
Laos	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0
Malaysia	5.0	1.0	2.0	2.7
Mongolia	3.0	1.0	1.0	1.7
Myanmar	-	2.0	1.0	1.0
Nepal	1.0	2.0	1.0	1.3
North Korea	-	-	-	0.0
Pakistan	1.0	2.0	1.0	1.3
Philippines	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0
Singapore		3.0	5.0	2.7
South Korea	2.0	5.0	3.0	3.3
Sri Lanka	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0
Tajikistan	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0
Thailand	1.0	3.0	1.0	1.7
Timor-Leste	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0
Turkmenistan	1.0	-	-	0.3
Uzbekistan	-	-	1.0	0.3
Viet Nam	1.0	-	1.0	0.7

. South Korea and Japan were highly evaluated in the value of the index of industrial water use. The final average value was calculated as the highest at 3.3. Except for those where the data did not exist, most countries showed low evaluation results from an economic efficiency perspective of 1.0 to 2.0.

4.1.3. Core Area 3: Resilience to Water-Related Disasters

Resilience to water-related disasters was analyzed by classifying water-related vulnerabilities into exposure to drought, flood, and recovery capacity to disasters. The indicator helps assess the frequency of water-related disasters, exposure to vulnerable areas, and society’s ability to respond to the event of a disaster. The results of the assessment of 28 countries are shown in

Table 9. Assessment result of resilience to water-related disaster.

Nations	Drought Frequency	Areas Vulnerable to Drought	Flood Frequency	Areas of Vulnerable to Flood	Irrigation Area Ratio	Flood Control Ability	Result
Bangladesh	5.0	1.0	1.0	5.0	-	1.0	2.2
Bhutan	3.0	5.0	1.0	4.0	1.0	1.0	2.5
Brunei Darussalam	3.0	5.0	3.0	2.0	1.0	1.0	2.5
Cambodia	3.0	4.0	2.0	5.0	1.0	1.0	2.7
China	4.0	4.0	2.0	3.0	3.0	2.0	3.0
Georgia	5.0	5.0	2.0	3.0	4.0	1.0	3.3
India	2.0	1.0	2.0	5.0	2.0	2.0	2.3
Indonesia	2.0	3.0	2.0	3.0	1.0	1.0	2.0
Japan	3.0	5.0	3.0	1.0	4.0	1.0	2.8
Kazakhstan	3.0	5.0	4.0	4.0	1.0	1.0	3.0
Kyrgyzstan	4.0	5.0	3.0	5.0	4.0	3.0	4.0
Laos	4.0	5.0	2.0	4.0	2.0	2.0	3.2
Malaysia	3.0	3.0	2.0	2.0	-	5.0	2.5
Mongolia	5.0	5.0	4.0	2.0	-	1.0	2.8
Myanmar	-	4.0	2.0	4.0	1.0	1.0	2.0
Nepal	1.0	4.0	1.0	5.0	3.0	1.0	2.5
North Korea	5.0	4.0	3.0	3.0	-	5.0	3.3
Pakistan	2.0	2.0	2.0	4.0	3.0	1.0	2.3
Philippines	3.0	2.0	2.0	4.0	1.0	1.0	2.2
Singapore	3.0	5.0	3.0	1.0	-	3.0	2.5
South Korea	3.0	4.0	2.0	2.0	3.0	4.0	3.0
Sri Lanka	5.0	3.0	2.0	5.0	2.0	2.0	3.2
Tajikistan	2.0	5.0	2.0	5.0	5.0	2.0	3.5
Thailand	5.0	2.0	2.0	4.0	2.0	4.0	3.2
Timor-Leste	2.0	4.0	3.0	5.0	1.0	-	2.5
Turkmenistan	2.0	5.0	4.0	4.0	5.0	1.0	3.5
Uzbekistan	2.0	5.0	3.0	5.0	5.0	1.0	3.5
Viet Nam	2.0	3.0	2.0	5.0	3.0	3.0	3.0

. In the case of Kyrgyzstan, all sub-indicators showed high evaluation results from the perspective of resilience to water-related disasters with a high score of 3.0 or higher. Singapore was rated at 2.5 or lower.

4.1.4. Core Area 4: Environmental Sustainability

Environmental sustainability of countries was analyzed for the health of rivers by examining pollution and ecological deterioration of rivers due to various activities, including industrial activities, in an assessment of the adequacy of the management status to keep and improve the ecosystem associated with water health. The results of the assessment are shown in

Table 10. Assessment result of environmental sustainability.

Nations	Biodiversity Threat	Human Water Security Threat	Result
Bangladesh	1.0	1.0	1.0
Bhutan	3.0	3.0	3.0
Brunei Darussalam	3.0	3.0	3.0
Cambodia	2.0	2.0	2.0
China	2.0	2.0	2.0
Georgia	2.0	1.0	1.5
India	1.0	1.0	1.0
Indonesia	3.0	3.0	3.0
Japan	2.0	1.0	1.5
Kazakhstan	2.0	2.0	2.0
Kyrgyzstan	2.0	2.0	2.0
Laos	3.0	3.0	3.0
Malaysia	3.0	3.0	3.0
Mongolia	4.0	3.0	3.5
Myanmar	3.0	3.0	3.0
Nepal	2.0	2.0	2.0
North Korea	2.0	1.0	1.5
Pakistan	1.0	1.0	1.0
Philippines	2.0	2.0	2.0
Singapore	-	-	-
South Korea	1.0	1.0	1.0
Sri Lanka	1.0	1.0	1.0
Tajikistan	2.0	3.0	2.5
Thailand	1.0	1.0	1.0
Timor-Leste	3.0	1.0	2.0
Turkmenistan	2.0	2.0	2.0
Uzbekistan	2.0	2.0	2.0
Viet Nam	2.0	2.0	2.0

. Four other countries besides Mongolia, Malaysia, and Bhutan have been analyzed as top-ranked, from 3.0 to 4.0, but all other countries are generally below 2.5, which can be found to be vulnerable to river health and environmental water safety.

4.1.5. Core Area 5: Government Competency

Government competency encompasses six sub-indicators for evaluating the government’s competitiveness and capabilities to achieve water security, and the results are shown in

Table 11. Assessment results of government competency.

Nations	Voice and Accountability	Political Stability and Absence of Violence	Government Effectiveness	Regulatory Quality	Rule of Law	Control of Corruption	Result
Bangladesh	2.0	2.0	2.0	2.0	2.0	2.0	2.0
Bhutan	3.0	4.0	3.0	3.0	4.0	5.0	3.7
Brunei Darussalam	2.0	4.0	4.0	4.0	4.0	4.0	3.7
Cambodia	2.0	3.0	2.0	2.0	2.0	2.0	2.2
China	2.0	3.0	3.0	3.0	3.0	3.0	2.8
Georgia	3.0	3.0	4.0	4.0	3.0	4.0	3.5
India	3.0	2.0	3.0	3.0	3.0	3.0	2.8
Indonesia	3.0	2.0	3.0	3.0	3.0	3.0	2.8
Japan	4.0	4.0	5.0	4.0	5.0	4.0	4.3
Kazakhstan	2.0	3.0	3.0	3.0	3.0	2.0	2.7
Kyrgyzstan	3.0	2.0	2.0	3.0	2.0	2.0	2.3
Laos	1.0	3.0	2.0	2.0	2.0	2.0	2.0
Malaysia	3.0	3.0	4.0	4.0	4.0	3.0	3.5
Mongolia	3.0	4.0	3.0	3.0	3.0	3.0	3.2
Myanmar	2.0	2.0	2.0	2.0	2.0	2.0	2.0
Nepal	3.0	2.0	2.0	2.0	3.0	2.0	2.3
North Korea	1.0	3.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.3
Pakistan	2.0	1.0	2.0	2.0	2.0	2.0	1.8
Philippines	3.0	2.0	3.0	3.0	3.0	2.0	2.7
Singapore	3.0	5.0	5.0	5.0	5.0	5.0	4.7
South Korea	4.0	4.0	4.0	4.0	4.0	4.0	4.0
Sri Lanka	3.0	3.0	3.0	3.0	3.0	3.0	3.0
Tajikistan	1.0	2.0	2.0	2.0	2.0	2.0	1.8
Thailand	2.0	2.0	3.0	3.0	3.0	3.0	2.7
Timor-Leste	3.0	3.0	2.0	2.0	2.0	3.0	2.5
Turkmenistan	1.0	3.0	2.0	1.0	2.0	2.0	1.8
Uzbekistan	1.0	3.0	2.0	2.0	2.0	2.0	2.0
Viet Nam	2.0	3.0	3.0	3.0	3.0	3.0	2.8

. Singapore, Japan, and South Korea showed high evaluation results from the perspective of government competency, with a high score of 4.0 or higher in all sub-indicators, and Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Pakistan, and North Korea were in the lower group of 2.0 or less.

4.2. Asia Water Security Assessment Results

The Water Security Index (WSI) was finally calculated based on the analysis results of each core area (Figure 2). Japan, Malaysia, and South Korea turned out to enjoy better water security than other countries relative to a score of 3.0 or higher, and Turkmenistan, Nepal, North Korea, India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan have poor water security compared to other countries relative to a score of 2.0 or less (

Table 12. Assessment results of Water Security Index (WSI).

Nations	Core Area 1	Core Area 2	Core Area 3	Core Area 4	Core Area 5	Result
Bangladesh	2.0	1.3	2.2	1.0	2.0	1.7
Bhutan	3.8	1.3	2.5	3.0	3.7	2.9
Brunei Darussalam	3.3	1.0	2.5	3.0	3.7	2.7
Cambodia	2.3	2.7	2.7	2.0	2.2	2.4
China	3.0	2.0	3.0	2.0	2.8	2.6
Georgia	3.5	1.0	3.3	1.5	3.5	2.6
India	1.5	1.0	2.3	1.0	2.8	1.7
Indonesia	2.0	1.3	2.0	3.0	2.8	2.2
Japan	4.0	3.3	2.8	1.5	4.3	3.2
Kazakhstan	3.8	1.3	3.0	2.0	2.7	2.6
Kyrgyzstan	3.8	0.7	4.0	2.0	2.3	2.6
Laos	3.0	1.0	3.2	3.0	2.0	2.4
Malaysia	4.0	2.7	2.5	3.0	3.5	3.1
Mongolia	2.0	1.7	2.8	3.5	3.2	2.6
Myanmar	2.8	1.0	2.0	3.0	2.0	2.2
Nepal	1.8	1.3	2.5	2.0	2.3	2.0
North Korea	3.0	0.0	3.3	1.5	1.3	1.8
Pakistan	2.0	1.3	2.3	1.0	1.8	1.7
Philippines	2.5	1.0	2.2	2.0	2.7	2.1
Singapore	4.0	2.7	2.5	-	4.7	2.8
South Korea	4.0	3.3	3.0	1.0	4.0	3.1
Sri Lanka	3.0	1.0	3.2	1.0	3.0	2.2
Tajikistan	3.3	1.0	3.5	2.5	1.8	2.4
Thailand	3.5	1.7	3.2	1.0	2.7	2.4
Timor-Leste	2.3	1.0	2.5	2.0	2.5	2.1
Turkmenistan	2.3	0.3	3.5	2.0	1.8	2.0
Uzbekistan	3.5	0.3	3.5	2.0	2.0	2.3
Viet Nam	2.5	0.7	3.0	2.0	2.8	2.2

).

5. Summary and Conclusions

This study has refined the concept of water security through a review of existing literature, proposed a new definition of water security, and attempted to evaluate the degree of water security of nations in the Asia-Pacific region through the presentation of a water security assessment framework. Various water-related international databases were used for selecting sub-indicators according to the five core areas. As a result of the water security evaluation of 28 Asian countries, South Korea, Japan, and Malaysia have been ranked in the top tier, while Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan have been ranked at the bottom. The level of water security in most Asian countries has been rated below 3 out of 5, except for South Korea, Japan, and Malaysia.

It is challenging to assess the state of water security quantitatively and statistically because it is difficult to select indicators and collect and analyze data. Therefore, the world’s water security assessment results are incomplete, and more scholars should pay more attention to the exercise of water security assessments. It should be recognized that water security is not simply understood and used but an approach that includes enhancing the safety of people and property, environmental sustainability, as well as the ability of the state to manage resources. Water security should be considered a matter of national security that may determine the fate of a country and be linked to sustainable growth. In addition, the world must increase its ability to address water security challenges. As a result of the evaluation at the international level, this study is expected to help identify the status of water problems in each country and can be used as a major means to enhance water resource policy and management in the future.