ECONOMIC AND EFFICIENCY INDICATORS IN NON-REVENUE WATER (NRW) PERFORMANCE

Transcription

1 International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET) Volume 8, Issue 10, October 2017, pp , Article ID: IJCIET_08_10_144 Available online at ISSN Print: and ISSN Online: IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed ECONOMIC AND EFFICIENCY INDICATORS IN NON-REVENUE WATER (NRW) PERFORMANCE Nor Azlina Mohamad Yazid, Nabilah Zaini Department of Environmental Engineering and Green Technology, Malaysia-Japan International Institute of Technology (MJIIT), Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Jalan Sultan Yahya Petra, 54100, Kuala Lumpur, MALAYSIA Shreeshivadasan Chelliapan*, Norazli Othman, Roslina Mohammad, Samira Albati Kamaruddin Department of Engineering, UTM Razak School of Engineering and Advanced Technology, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Jalan Sultan Yahya Petra, 54100, Kuala Lumpur, MALAYSIA *Corresponding Author Noor Shawal Nasri Sustainable Waste-To-Wealth, UTM-MPRC Institute for Oil & Gas, Resource Sustainability Research Alliance, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310, Johor Bahru, Johor, MALAYSIA ABSTRACT High rates of Non-Revenue Water (NRW) have adverse impacts on water supply services, environment, and finances of a country. It is a reflection of the country s performance in managing its water supply. Efforts to bring down the NRW rates are done at various levels of authority in different states. Despite a huge capital investment by the federal government in Malaysia and sector reformation, a majority of states in Malaysia still could not bring down the rates to optimal levels. The NRW reduction progress is often hindered by the lack of funding, inadequate involvement of the public, lack of motivation of the water service providers, political interference, corruption, and limited private sector involvement. However, what is also lacking is a holistic view in setting targets and KPIs, monitoring the implementation of the plan, reward programmes as well as awareness of consumers. In Malaysia, NRW performance indicator is still based on percentages and the function of economics and efficiency indicators are still not widely used and understood. A majority of water operators are still focusing on reducing the NRW percentage level and the target set at the national and state levels is also looking into a reduction in NRW percentages. It is empirical that NRW performance is assessed on its economic aspects so editor@iaeme.com

2 Nor Azlina Mohamad Yazid, Nabilah Zaini, Shreeshivadasan Chelliapan, Norazli Othman, Roslina Mohammad, Samira Albati Kamaruddin and Noor Shawal Nasri that investments are rightfully targeted for areas that bring the highest economic value to the country. The aim of this study is to demonstrate the use of economics and efficiency indicators in NRW performance. The specific objective of this research is to determine the actual volume and cost of NRW through the following components; i.e., unbilled authorised consumption and apparent and real losses. Key words: Non-Revenue Water, Water Management, Infrastructure, Water Leakage. Cite this Article: Nor Azlina Mohamad Yazid, Nabilah Zaini, Shreeshivadasan Chelliapan, Norazli Othman, Roslina Mohammad, Samira Albati Kamaruddin and Noor Shawal Nasri, Economic and Efficiency Indicators In Non-Revenue Water (NRW) Performance, International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 8(10), 2017, pp INTRODUCTION Water is essential to life. A continuous supply of good quality water enables people and cities to grow. It is a vital ingredient in the health and well-being of humans and the ecosystems and important for social and economic development. Developing countries are significantly challenged in managing increasing demand for urban water due to industrialisation, urbanisation, rapid economic growth, and potential impact of climate change. According to the United Nations World Water Development Report, approximately 3.5 million deaths occur each year related to inadequate water supply, sanitation, and hygiene, which predominantly take place in developing countries [1]. In Malaysia, where water is abundant, water is always the highest demand in the urban areas that providing a stable supply is always a challenge. Like any other Asian countries, Malaysia is also facing the issue of sustainable water management. The common problems of water supply are closely related to sources and use of raw water, intermittent supply, and quality of tap water [2]. The federal government of Malaysia recognised the needs and importance of achieving longterm sustainability in providing clean water to the people [3]. Therefore, the Malaysian water services have been going under major restructuring since 2006 with the introduction of the Water Services Industry Act 2006 and the establishment of the National Water Services Commission (SPAN) in SPAN jurisdiction covers water supply and sewerage services in Peninsular Malaysia including the federal territory of Labuan. However, the restructuring did not integrate with water resource management and provisions in Sabah and Sarawak, where water management remains separated. Since the restructuring of the services, the Malaysian population has enjoyed the improvement in supply and quality levels of seasonal water shortages in high demand areas and during drought. Despite numerous measures being imposed on the water industry, challenges faced by the water services remain eminent. Malaysia has successfully transformed its economy, which previously depended on primary commodity exports in the 1950s and 1960s (e.g., rubber and tin) to manufacturing-based activities that were enabled with investments in infrastructure development [4]. Water infrastructure is crucial in heightening economics and social development where the availability of efficient infrastructure was one of the enabling factors in attracting foreign direct investment. Development of sustainable water infrastructure and delivery of efficient water services are also fundamental enablers to improve people s standard of living. This is evident through the Malaysia Wellbeing Index 2013 that showed the water supply component index improved by 56.1 points from 89.9% editor@iaeme.com

3 Economic and Efficiency Indicators In Non-Revenue Water (NRW) Performance in 2000 to 93.9% in This improvement largely contributed to the expanding water supply coverage of 10 urban centres whereby 90% of rural areas are now covered with treated water supply, except in Sabah and Kelantan, which remain at 60% coverage. In terms of water quality index, it increased by 43.3 points, which were largely contributed through the pollution prevention programme and campaigns targeted to improving river water quality and rehabilitating the natural ecosystem. In addition, stringent enforcement ensures that pollution from sewage, domestic waste, land use, agricultural activities, and industries is in control [5]. One of the prevalent issues facing the water services industry is water loss or technically coined as Non-Revenue Water (NRW). NRW is defined as the difference between supplied water from water treatment plant and metred quantity to the consumers. NRW components consist of physical and commercial losses when water is consumed but provides no income [6]. According to Malaysia Water Industry Guide 2016, the national NRW rate for 2015 was at 35.5% or 5,743 million litres per day (MLD) and some states were even at higher rates of more than 50% such as Pahang (52.8%), Perlis (56.3%) and Sabah (55.1%) [7]. In comparison, the NRW rate for developed countries is between 5% and 10% such as Singapore (5%) and Denmark (10%) [8]. Higher NRW rate indicates management inefficiency which affects financial sustainability of a country since water utilities are heavily financed by public funds. Despite numerous initiatives and large public infrastructure investments, the industry was not able to lower down NRW to the targeted levels due to lack of holistic approach. Therefore, the water supply services require a better execution mechanism for its National NRW Action Plan to be effective and able to achieve the 2020 NRW nationwide target level of 25%. NRW performance is often assessed in percentage form. Many experts view that such indicators could be misleading. According to Liemberger [9], people, in general, do not understand the magnitude of NRW problem and therefore still accept a simplistic percentage indicator over economic efficiency indicators such as Economic Level of Leakage (ELL) and Economic Network Efficiency (ENE). NRW in percentages does not take the aspects of the economy into account. In Malaysia, NRW performance indicator is still based on percentage and the use of economic and efficiency indicators is still not widely used and understood. A majority of water operators are still focusing on reducing the NRW percentage level and the target set at national and state level is also looking into a reduction in NRW percentages. It is empirical that the NRW performance is assessed on its economic aspects so that investments are rightfully targeted for areas that bring the highest economic value to the country. The specific objective of this research is to determine the actual volume and cost of non-revenue water by components; i.e., unbilled authorised consumption, and apparent and real losses. 2. METHODOLOGY There are 14 water supply companies or organisations in Malaysia. Majority of these companies are state-owned operators who were formerly established as State Water Works Department. When the water industry transformed in 2008, these entities were upgraded and incorporated to become state-government linked organisations in Johor, Selangor, and Melaka. However, a small number of operators are still operating as State Waterworks especially Sabah and Sarawak which are not under the ambit of the federal government laws and regulations related to waterworks. Majority of these companies have made their information available on their official websites and are members of the Malaysia Water Association. The questionnaires were distributed to 10 companies. The questionnaire forms were not distributed to four companies in Selangor, Melaka, Perlis, and Sarawak due to complexity, level of NRW, and being in rural editor@iaeme.com

4 Nor Azlina Mohamad Yazid, Nabilah Zaini, Shreeshivadasan Chelliapan, Norazli Othman, Roslina Mohammad, Samira Albati Kamaruddin and Noor Shawal Nasri The instruments for this study included face-to-face interviews, questionnaire survey, site observations, and website research. The interview sessions served as qualitative research which was designed to provide descriptive information on the opinions of respondents. The survey questionnaire functioned as a quantitative research technique that sought to obtain empirical evaluations on the industry performance, action plan, and strategies. Site observations gave general understanding on respondent s working condition and operational issues related to NRW management. In addition, website research provided the best practices or international benchmark on NRW management practices in this region and worldwide. The questionnaire form was divided into five sections consisted of 41 questions. The questionnaire began with demographic information such as the background of the respondents. In Section A, nine questions related to NRW management programme were asked. The second section (Section B) consisted of eight questions focused on water infrastructure. Section C dealt with pipe leakages (seven questions) while Section D was on metering (nine questions) and Section E asked the respondents in relation to illegal practices (eight questions). Interview sessions carried out for this study were using the semi-structured informal approach in obtaining information from the participants. This approach was considered the most suitable to gain perspective and overall opinions from the respondents in relation to NRW management programme at their respective organisation and jurisdiction. 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 3.1. Malaysia NRW Performance Currently, Malaysia is still facing water shortages despite the high volume of annual rainfall between 1,500 mm to 2,500 mm yearly. This water scarcity crisis has adverse impacts on the livelihood of Malaysian citizens especially in the urban canvas as well as national economic development. According to KeTTHA [10], a few states such as Selangor, Kedah, Kelantan, and Negeri Sembilan have experienced declining capacity of treated water where reserve margins were below the critical level of 10%. This situation worsens with high occurrences of water losses or NRW. High level of NRW has dampened the ability of the water operators to cater to increasing demand and put great financial stress on them in infrastructure investment as well as finance their operating costs. Efforts to reduce NRW to an optimal level were seriously carried out by all stakeholders. The government of Malaysia acknowledged that NRW reduction programmes have to be continuously implemented in a more pragmatic and orderly approach. Therefore, the National NRW Action Plan was promulgated in 2015 with a target of achieving NRW level of 25% by There are 17 water operators in Malaysia mostly being set-up under the ambit of the state government body. Figure 1 illustrates the 2015 NRW levels according to states and shows that Melaka reached the lowest NRW at 19.3%, and Perlis remained the highest at 56.3%. The levels of NRW were lower in Melaka, and Pulau Pinang was partly contributed by their small land size despite high connection density coupled with the establishment of a dedicated and efficient NRW management team. On the other hand, the NRW levels in Perlis and Sabah were very high at 56.3% and 55.1%, respectively. This was partly contributed by poor management and governance [11]. In terms of volume, the system input volume (SIV), billed authorised consumption (BAC), and NRW during the same period for each state are shown in Table 1. In general, the highest NRW volume was in Selangor which consisted of 1,497 MLD or 26.1 % from the national volume of 5,743 MLD. Selangor produced and used a high volume of water because it served a large editor@iaeme.com

5 Economic and Efficiency Indicators In Non-Revenue Water (NRW) Performance population and the demand from the industry was high, especially for manufacturing and tourism industries. In terms of NRW cost, 5,743 MLD was valued at RM2.52 billion Calculation of NRW Components and Performance Indicators It is empirical to determine the NRW volume by each of its components and performance indicators. The use of simple indicator like percentage of system input volume could mislead the authorities in formulating the NRW reduction programme [9]. Also, a straightforward NRW level in percentage forms only offers a general scenario of the degree of leakage in a system. However, it does not provide a meaningful analysis on each sub-component that contributed to leakage occurrences. Therefore, expressing NRW as a percentage of volume input shall be acceptable if supplemented by at least two performance indicators such as ILI [12]. Figure 1 NRW level by Malaysian states in 2015 [7] Table 1 NRW components [7] States SIV BAC NRW % MLD Melaka Pulau Pinang 1, Johor 1,702 1, Perak 1, Labuan Terengganu Selangor 4,675 3,178 1, Sarawak 1, Negeri Sembilan Kedah 1, editor@iaeme.com

6 Nor Azlina Mohamad Yazid, Nabilah Zaini, Shreeshivadasan Chelliapan, Norazli Othman, Roslina Mohammad, Samira Albati Kamaruddin and Noor Shawal Nasri States SIV BAC NRW % Kelantan Pahang 1, Sabah 1, Perlis MALAYSIA 16,195 10,452 5, In calculating NRW level by each component, general NRW data sets of Kedah for 2016 were obtained from Syarikat Air Darul Aman Sdn. Bhd. (SADA) and used to input into the WB- EasyCalc excel template. In addition, historical data for the period of 2010 to 2014 were also gathered from SPAN s Water Services Industry Performance Reports 2011, 2013, and The annual data on Kedah water services were collected and are presented in Table 2 which include the level of raw water resources, number of water treatment plants in the state, the lengths and types of pipes, water consumption rate, number of service connections in the area, the age of metering equipment, level of NRW, percentage of population served, and employment data. Table 2 Water services data of Kedah [13] Kedah Unit Raw Water Resources MLD 1,262 1,292 1,341 1,386 1,436 1,388 Direct Extraction from River MLD 1,246 1,277 1,328 1,371 1,425 1,367 Storage Dams (Direct) MLD Ground Water MLD na na na na na na Water Treatment Plant Nos of WTPS Unit Design Capacity MLD 1,185 1,620 1,251 1,293 1,300 1,300 Production MLD 1,173 1,476 1,237 1,292 1,322 1,299 Reserve Margin % Length of Pipes by Type KM 14,643 14,778 10,698 10,723 11,430 11,771 Asbestos Cement (AC) km 5,816 3,442 6,360 6,359 6,419 6,501 Mild Steel (MS) km 2,104 2,142 1,098 1,101 1,350 1,468 Cast Iron (CI) km Ductile Iron (DI) km 820 1, Polyethylene incl. HDPE km 3,798 4,345 1,623 1,651 1,939 2,082 (PE) Unplastisized km 1,958 1, Polyvinylchloride (upvc) Others incl. Galvanised Iron (GI) & ABS km Water Consumption MLD Domestic MLD Non Domestic MLD Number of Connections Unit 518, , , , , ,638 Domestic unit 470, , , , , ,602 Non Domestic unit 48,699 56,861 56,564 53,395 54,796 56, editor@iaeme.com

7 Economic and Efficiency Indicators In Non-Revenue Water (NRW) Performance Kedah Unit Meter by Age Nos 519, , , , , , year nos 300, , , , , ,781 >7 year nos 219, , , , , ,493 Domestic Consumption Per Capita Per Day litre/ cap/day Non-Revenue Water System Input Volume MLD 1,173 1,198 1,226 1,288 1,326 1,294 Billed Authorised MLD Consumption Real Losses MLD NRW Level % Percentage of Population % Served Urban Rural State Employment Nos ,200 1,235 1,255 1,208 Management nos Executive nos Non-Executive nos , Meter Reader nos From Table 2, it can be summarised that Kedah s water services have not undergone any drastic improvement in terms of service efficiency. However, water demand was increasing, and the amount of water losses increased in tandem. Moreover, the domestic consumption per capita per day did not show any significant improvement and remained at MLD. In terms of employment, the overall number of workers increased by half, mainly at the executive level (70 persons) and non-executive level (178 persons), while the management team also expanded by 150%. Kedah is a large state with a total land area of 9,492 km 2 located in the northern part of Peninsula Malaysia. In 2014, the total population of Kedah was 2,046,200 [14]. The whole of urban areas in Kedah received their water supply from SADA and only 2% of the population in the rural areas were not covered. The management of water services in Kedah was divided into four regions; Kedah Utara, Kedah Tengah, Kedah Selatan, and Langkawi supported by 1,200 employees. In 2016, the total length of water distribution network was 12,002 kilometres with 569,166 active connections. The domestic consumption per capita per day is 229 litres, which is among the highest in the country. Meanwhile, the total system input volume was 498,410,556 m 3 with a daily average of 1,361, m 3. Out of this, the volume being billed was only 265,446,402 m 3 or a daily average of 725, m3 and a total of 232,964,154 m 3 were accounted as water loss. The NRW level in Kedah was expressed in percentages of the system input volume and complied with the IWA Water Loss Task Force and SPAN s minimum requirement. The calculation formula used by SADA is as follows: editor@iaeme.com

8 Nor Azlina Mohamad Yazid, Nabilah Zaini, Shreeshivadasan Chelliapan, Norazli Othman, Roslina Mohammad, Samira Albati Kamaruddin and Noor Shawal Nasri NRW % = System Input Volume (MLD) Billed Authorised Consumption (MLD) x 100 System Input Volume (MLD) Figure 2 shows Kedah NRW level from 2008 to 2015 as compared to the national level. From this graph, we can see that the NRW level remained high at more than 40% annually. The only drop was recorded in 2010 at 42.99%. According to SADA, the reduction was made possible with the establishment of a dedicated NRW team and outsourcing of services. However, SADA was not able to further reduce the losses onwards where the NRW level jumped to 47.80% in 2011 and remained high since then. In comparison with the national NRW level, Kedah NRW was in an increasing trend. Despite this trend, the graph is not able to showcase the components that made up the high water losses in Kedah as experienced by SADA NRW Level (%) Kedah Malaysia Figure 2 NRW level of Kedah vs Malaysia [13] The graph in Figure 2 does not include NRW data for 2016 as they were not officially published by the authority. However, SADA has given the data on Kedah for this analysis as presented in Table 3. It shows that Kedah Utara region registered the highest real losses in 2016 of 105, m 3 or 51.05% as compared to other regions which ranged between 40 to 46%. In terms of real losses category, Kedah Utara region also contributed the highest in percentage at 45.7 %. The data presented in Table 3 is limited and unable to be used for detailed analysis in the IWA Water Balance calculation. The IWA Water Loss Task Force recommends the use of IWA Water Balance Table to identify the NRW components. It can be done in two approaches: top-down or bottom-up. Either way, data systems and assumptions for margin of errors must also be counted. Therefore, this study used WB-EasyCalc excel template developed by Liemberger and Partners [16] in calculating NRW and its components for Kedah. Due to limited data availability, most of the sub-components were estimated according to IWA variables. The template produced was easy to help understand reports on IWA Water Balance Table, the performance indicator, and the provided what if functions to test the parameters. Table 4 shows Kedah Water Balance Table for 2016 using the WB-EasyCalc excel template editor@iaeme.com

9 Economic and Efficiency Indicators In Non-Revenue Water (NRW) Performance Region Table 3 NRW data of Kedah in 2016 [15] System Input Volume Billed Metered Consumption Real Losses (m3/year) (m3 / year) % (m3 / year) % Kedah Utara 207,547, ,584, ,963, Kedah Tengah 125,693, ,168, ,524, Kedah Selatan 129,586, ,414, ,172, Langkawi 34,467, ,278, ,188, Total 497,294, ,446, ,848, Table 4 Kedah Water Balance Table for Infrastructure Leakage Index The infrastructure leakage index (ILI) is a ratio between the current annual real losses (CARL) and unavoidable annual real losses (UARL) that measures performance efficiency of the distribution systems. SADA submitted Kedah s ILI for 2016 which was in category D. However, the ILI that was calculated manually and with WB-EasyCalcs showed that the Kedah ILI was at and 23, respectively, which was slightly lower but remained in the same category. Figure 3 shows ILI generated from WB-EasyCalc editor@iaeme.com

10 Nor Azlina Mohamad Yazid, Nabilah Zaini, Shreeshivadasan Chelliapan, Norazli Othman, Roslina Mohammad, Samira Albati Kamaruddin and Noor Shawal Nasri 3.4. Estimating the Economic Level of Leakage In general, any leakages are not good to the economy because they have negative impacts to revenue and cause high operating costs. Hence, water operators will work very hard to reduce or maintain leakages as lower as possible. However, they are not an easy task to be carried out because of various factors, especially when they required a large financial cost. The IWA water loss task force acknowledged various performance indicators used to measure water losses. The application of performance indicators such as ILI and economic level of leakage (ELL) was demonstrated with the data provided by SADA. Figure 3 Kedah Performance Indicator in Manual Estimation of Economic Level of Leakage The following section shows a step-by-step estimation of the ELL derived from SADA s data by the BABE methodology. The equation used in this process is described as follows: ELL (m 3 x10 3 /year) = MSL + VRB + UBL + EURL In short, ELL is the total volume of leakage from the main trunk; service reservoirs reported bursts, unavoidable background leakage, and economic unreported real losses. Table 5 shows the result of ELL estimation using SADA s 2016 data, which adapted the Lambert empirical figures [17]. From the estimation of EURL, the Economic Intervention Frequency (EIF) can also be determined. When given the data and assumptions made, active leakage control survey should be carried out on 7.17% of the system per year so that unreported losses from the main distributions and service connections can be further reduced to an economic level. However, to achieve this, it will require huge investments which can be calculated as the annual budget for intervention (ABI). The ABI for SADA is about RM1, 721,087. From Table 5, the estimated economic level of leakage for Kedah was 26,751,944 m 3 per year. The highest portion of losses was from reported bursts that editor@iaeme.com

11 Economic and Efficiency Indicators In Non-Revenue Water (NRW) Performance comprised of 19,500,000 m 3 per year which were related to the high volume of complaints received on pipeline bursts and leakages. Infrastructure Component Table 5 ELL estimation for Kedah for 2016 Trunk mains and service reservoirs leakage (MSL) Real Losses from reported bursts (VRB) Estimated background leakage (UBL) Economic unreported real losses (EURL) (m 3 / year) Trunk mains (km) 1,744, Service Reservoirs 801, (m3) Distribution mains - 3,500, ,211 - (km) Connections - 16,000,000 2,072,573 - Total 2,545,939 19,500,000 2,771,784 1,934, Estimation of Economic Level of Leakage using ECONOLEAK The ELL management or better known as ECONOLEAK is one of the models used to evaluate the level of leakage developed through the South African Water Research Commission. The ECONOLEAK was developed for the use of water operators in South Africa [18]. It comes in the Excel-based template and is free to download from the Internet. For the purpose of this study, SADA data was used and compared to the result generated from ECONOLEAK to generate estimation manually. Similarly, technical and operational data from SADA were required for this exercise. For data that were not available, the estimations were made based on Lambert s empirical data [18]. Consequently, results generated from ECONOLEAK were much simpler and faster. Figure 4 shows the ELL graph generated by the ECONOLEAK software Costs (1000's R/yr) Real Losses (1000's m 3 /yr) Active leakage control curve Total Cost Curve Total Cost Unavoidable Background Losses Accepted Background Losses Base Level (Incl Reported Bursts) Figure 4 ELL estimation with ECONOLEAK editor@iaeme.com

12 Nor Azlina Mohamad Yazid, Nabilah Zaini, Shreeshivadasan Chelliapan, Norazli Othman, Roslina Mohammad, Samira Albati Kamaruddin and Noor Shawal Nasri According to Mckenzie and Lambert [18], the curve for total intervention costs should indicate a minimum cost somewhere between the 6-month intervention and the 24-month intervention. In Figure 4, it shows that the total cost appeared to level out between the 12-month interval and the 24-month interval. This suggests that implementing active leakage control every year or two will be appropriate for the system used in the example. The graph also presented that the costs increase dramatically as the period of active leakage control is reduced below 12 months. In addition, this graph also highlights that no matter how much money and effort were done for leakage control, a certain level will be reached which cannot be reduced. This level was referred as below the economic level of leakage which is represented by the point where the cost of water equals the cost of the active leakage control. 4. CONCLUSION The volume of apparent or commercial losses and their sub-components comprised of unauthorised consumption, meter inaccuracies, and data handling were identified. Consequently, WB-EasyCalc identified the volume of real losses. However, it was a constraint at a total volume of real losses. The template did not allow further analysis on sub-component level of real losses. The volume of real losses can be further broken down to the location of the leakage. The use of ELL provided such analysis. Therefore, the SADA data were again being used to determine ELL that occurred on Kedah s water distribution network. In this process, two methods were used; manual estimation and excel template. Both methods gave similar results. From the results, intervention plans were formulated and funding resources were allocated and secured. ELL was also used to identify the volume of potentially recoverable real losses. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The authors wish to express their greatest appreciation and utmost gratitude to AUN/SEED-Net JICA for funding under the Collaborative Research Program for Common Regional Issues (CRC); Project Vote number R.K B227. They also thank Universiti Teknologi Malaysia and Syarikat Air Darul Aman Sdn. Bhd. (SADA) for all the supports in making the study a success. REFERENCES [1] World Water Assessment Programme (WWAP). (2012). The United Nations World Water Development Report 4: Managing Water under Uncertainty and Risk. Paris, UNESCO. [2] Frauendorfer, R. and Liemberger, R. (2010). The Issues and Challenges of Reducing Non- Revenue Water. Asian Development Bank. [3] Chin, Y. K. (2008). The Water Tablet: Malaysian Water Reform. Ministry of Energy, Water and Communications Malaysia. [4] Lee, C. (2007). Social Policies and Private Sector Participation in Water Supply The Case of Malaysia. United Nation Research Institute for Social Development project on Social Policy, Regulation and Private Sector Involvement in Water Supply. [5] Economic Planning Unit, Prime Minister s Department of Malaysia (EPU). (2013). Indeks Kesejahteraan Rakyat Malaysia [6] Mohammad Salleh, H. and Abd. Malek, N. (2015). Non-Revenue Water, Impact to the Service, Environment and Financial. Retrieved from Malaysia s Department of Water Supply website: [7] Malaysian Water Association. (2016). Malaysia Water Industry Guide editor@iaeme.com

13 Economic and Efficiency Indicators In Non-Revenue Water (NRW) Performance [8] International Water Association (2017). [9] Liemberger, R. (2002). Do You Know How Much Misleading the Use of Wrong Performance Indicators can be? IWA Managing Leakage Conference. November Cyprus. [10] Ministry of Tenaga, Teknologi Hijau dan Air (KeTTHA). (2015). Laporan Tahunan KETTHA 2014, Sektor Air. 2015(7), 77. Accessed on 12 December 2016 from Tahunan%20KeTTHA%202014%20-%20web.pdf [11] Lai, C.H., Chan, N.W. and Roy, R. (2017). Understanding Public Perception of and Participation in Non-Revenue Water Management in Malaysia to Support Urban Water Policy. Water 2017, 9, 26. [12] Hamilton, S., Mckenzie, R., and Seago, C. (2006). A Review of Performance Indicators for Real Losses from Water Supply Systems. [13] Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Air Negara (SPAN). (2015). Water Services Industry Performance Report [14] Kerajaan Negeri Kedah Buku Statistik Kedah Tahun (2014). Retrieved on 20 April 2017 from Statistik/STATISTIK_ KEDAH_2014.pdf [15] Syarikat Air Darul Aman Sdn. Bhd. (SADA). (2017). Laporan Perancangan Perbelanjaan dan Aktiviti Jabatan Agihan/ NRW. [16] Liemberger, R. (2008). Economic Aspects of Water Loss Reduction. WATER21, 48. IWA Publishing. [17] J. Swaroop and Dr. Poosapati Padmaja. CES: A Framework for Efficient Infrastructure Utilization through Cloud Elasticity as a Service (CES). International Journal of Computer Engineering and Technology, 6(8), 2015, pp [18] B. Ramyaa Sree and SS. Asadi A Remote Sensing and GIS Based Critical Evaluation of Change Detection Study in Thimmaipally Watershed for Land Resources Management, International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 8(4), 2017, pp [19] Kiran Raj Bukkarapu, Y. Jyothi, L. S. Raju, G. Chitti Babu and Karthik Narayanan, A Review on Current Trends in Water in Oil Emulsions, International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology, 8(4), 2017, pp [20] McKenzie, R. and Lambert, A. (2002). Development of an Economic Model for Evaluating Leakage in South Africa. South Africa: Water Research Commission. [21] Muñoz-Trochez, C., Smout, I., and Kayaga, S. (2011). Economic Level of Leakage (ELL) calculation with limited data: an application in Zaragoza. 35th WEDC International Conference Loughborough, UK editor@iaeme.com