*5.3. SWRM-AF for ASAR*

After going through the systematic literature review, it was clear that no dedicated SWRM-AF had been explicitly made for or applied to ASAR—these areas lack any permanent rivers or river basins. That said, the frameworks reviewed in Sections 5.1 and 5.2 had considerable use in being developed (in whole or part) for such purposes.

By furthering the scope of the review to the grey literature outside the two databases that were checked previously, another two additional frameworks were identified, namely the Arab Water Sustainability Index (AWSI) [98] and the Abu Dhabi Water Index (ADWI) [99]. Thus, an overview and brief analysis is provided in the following sections to check their effectiveness.

### 5.3.1. Arab Water Sustainability Index (AWSI)

The AWSI is presented as a monitoring tool to address the water sustainability state relative to a base condition or period [98]. The scale of its application could be considered a national scale. In this index, 22 Arab countries, where 82.2% of their weather is either arid or semi-arid, were evaluated through four main components that were divided into only eight indicators. These components can be classified by checking their indicators and main themes or categories from Figure 5, as follows:


Based on our comparative analysis above, it can be said that four components are an adequate number; however, the number of indicators (eight only) is lower than the average number of indicators, which was found to be approximately 18. Other main elements of indicator-based framework were used, such as the benchmark, the aggregation technique (i.e., arithmetic), and the final index value ranging between 0 to 100%. The normalization method of AWSI is based on a statistical method (i.e., principal components analysis (PCA)), which was also used to assign weights, which were not equal, for each component and indicator. A unique advantage of AWSI is the consideration of conventional and non-conventional WR (e.g., GW and desalination water, respectively), which is crucial for ASAR.

Meanwhile, the continuous rescaling method as a normalization method was mentioned, but whether that was for application or just information was unclear. Overall, even though the pillars of sustainability were considered, the stakeholders' participation in all phases did not exist in AWSI, which does not match the general guidance in developing such a framework. Therefore, to avoid such limitations, it is still required to have a more helpful framework that can gain public trust and cooperation.

### 5.3.2. Abu Dhabi Water Index (ADWI)

The other framework is the ADWI, which was developed through the adoption of the cause–effect approach (DSR—Driving force, State, Response) to deal with the challenging context of WRM of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) (i.e., very much at a local scale) [99]. The selection of indicators was based on a review of the literature, followed by checking of the availability of their data and whether they were relevant to the UAE environment. This process resulted in four categories (i.e., components), nineteen indicators, and twelve subindicators. Then, the benchmark for most of the indicators was obtained from the literature. These components with our main themes or categories from Figure 5 are as follows:


Overall, the methodology for building ADWI was well-organized and systematically illustrated. In addition, taking the conventional and non-conventional WR into account is essential for the context of ASAR, which is another advantage similar to AWSI.

On the other hand, while considering all sustainability pillars in any SWRM-AF is significant, little attention was given here to the economic pillar. Additionally, ADWI seemed to lack any stakeholder participation or involvement. However, an indicator to measure the public participation in water activities existed, but it was based only on the researchers' evaluation. Moreover, the normalization method seems to equate to categorical rescaling. Still, the scoring criteria were not entirely clear (i.e., all scores were either good, represented by happy face, or poor, represented by sad face, while only one seemed neutral).

Furthermore, the weighting scheme, aggregation technique, and final index value did not exist in this methodology, except for the calculation of sub-indicators. Therefore, it can be said that ADWI was an attempt to develop a particular framework for ASAR, but with many limitations. Hence, it is important to build or develop an SWRM-AF that could avoid these flaws and is suitable to fit the main requirements and contexts of ASAR by considering stakeholder participation. A summary of the main elements that form the above two SWRM-AFs is presented in Table 3 to make the process of comparing them simpler.


**Table 3.** Summary and comparison of existing SWRM-AF for ASAR.
