Leseprobe
ii
DEDICATION
This piece of work is dedicated for late Prime Minister
Melese Zenawi
who has brought the
beacon of bright hope for this generation and who declared the inauguration of the Grand
Ethiopian Renaissance Dam which has been left untouched in the History of the country.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First of all next to thanking the omnipotence and omniscient God who gives me strength and
patience, it is the exact time to stretch my special intellectual appreciation to my advisor Woldeab
Teshome (PhD) for his innumerable supports and suggestions from the beginning to the
finalization of my research. Without his guidance and follow up the paper couldn't have the current
structure and quality of the full thesis work.
Secondly I would like to give my deepest gratefulness to my benevolent mother and my friends
whose continuous effort picked out me from the dark life of illiteracy and equip me with the torch
of academia to look my world brightly.
I would also need to thank the North Gondar Sustainable Resource Management Program for partly
financing this study. I will not forget to thank all the staff members of the program for their smooth
progress for the financial process of this study.
It is also my great pleasure to thank the Metema woreda rural water supply office and the
communities in general for their willing and genuine information at the time of data collection.
Finally, I would never forget to thank the center of Regional and Local Development Studies
(CRLDS) and all staff members for their immense commitments from the beginning of the MA
program to the final thesis work activities. Without the collaboration and integrity of the all staff
members the success of the MA program couldn't be imagined.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ... iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ... iv
LIST OF TABLES ... vii
LIST OF FIGURES ... ix
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ... x
ABSTRACT ... xi
CHAPTER ONE ... 1
1. INTRODUCTION ... 1
1.1
Background of the Study ... 1
1.2
Statement of the Problem ... 2
1.3
Objectives of the study ... 4
1.3.1
General Objectives ... 4
1.3.2
Specific Objectives ... 4
1.4
Research Questions ... 4
1.5
Significance of the Study ... 5
1.6
Scope of the Study ... 5
1.7
Limitation of the Study ... 6
1.8
Organization of the Thesis ... 6
CHAPTER TWO ... 7
2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ... 7
2.1 Conceptual Issues ... 7
2.1.1 Consumptive and Productive Use of water ... 7
2.1.2 Approaches to Rural Water Supply and Management ... 9
2.1.3 The Shift in Paradigm ... 13
2.1.4 The Conceptual Linkage between Water, Livelihood and Poverty ... 14
2.2 Empirical Studies on Water ... 15
2.2.1 The Water Supply and Demand Situation of the Globe ... 15
2.2.2 The Trends of Rural Water Supply In Africa ... 16
2.2.3 Challenges of Rural Water Supply in Ethiopia ... 18
2.2.4 The Determinants of Home Based Productive Use (HPU) of Water ... 20
2.2.5 Conceptual Frame Work of the Study ... 22
v
CHAPTER THREE ... 24
3. METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY ... 24
3.1 Description of the Study Area ... 24
3.2 Research Design ... 25
3.2.1 Type and Source of Data ... 26
3.2.2 Methods of Data Collection ... 26
3.2.3 Ethical Consideration ... 27
3.2.4 Sampling Techniques and Procedures ... 28
3.2.5 Methods of Data Analysis ... 29
3.3 Definition of Variables and Working Hypothesis ... 32
CHAPTER FOUR ... 35
4. DISCUSSION ... 35
4.1 Introduction ... 35
4.2 Demographic and Socio-economic Profile of the Respondents ... 35
4.2.1 Demographic Profile of the Respondents ... 35
4.2.2 Socio-economic Profile of the Respondents ... 40
4.3 Rural Water Sources and Consumption Nature of Households ... 43
4.3.1 The Main Water Sources of the Study Area ... 43
4.3.2 The Water Consumption Situation of Rural Households' Activities ... 44
4.3.3 The Water Supply and Demand for Households of the Study Area ... 46
4.4 Home Based Productive Use of Water in the Study Area ... 47
4.4.1 The Main Productive Uses of Water in the Study Area ... 47
4.4.2 Factors that Affect Home Based Productive Use of Water ... 50
4.5 The Main Challenges of Rural Water Supply in the Study Area ... 62
4.5.1 Technical Challenges for Rural Water Supply of the Study Area ... 62
4.5.2 Environmental and Physical Challenges to Rural water supply in the Study Area ... 65
4.5.3 Institutional Challenges to Rural Water Supply in the Study Area ... 67
4.5.4 Adaptive Mechanisms of Rural Households for Water Supply Interruption and Inconsistency 71
CHAPTER FIVE ... 73
5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ... 73
5.1 Summary... 73
5.2 Conclusion and Recommendation ... 74
vi
6. REFERENCE ... 77
APPENDICES ... 84
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: The Comparison of the Two of the Approaches
Table 3.1: Selected kebeles and the proportional sampling
Table 4.1: Sex, Age and Family Size Distribution of the Survey Respondents
Table 4.2 Marital status of the sample survey respondents
Table 4.3 Educational Attainment of Household Heads of the Survey Respondents
Table 4.4: Number of Family Attaining Above Primary Education Level
Table 4.5: Religion and Year of Residence of Sample Survey Respondents
Table 4.6: The Main Occupation of the Survey respondents in the Study Area
Table 4.7: The Income Categories of Sample Survey Respondents
Table 4.8: Ownership of Water Sources for Respondent Households' of the Study Area
Table 4.9: The Main Water Sources of Households in Study Area
Table 4.10: Pair-wise Ranking for the Main Home Based Productive Use of Water
Table 4.11: Home Based Productive Uses Water by the Respondent Households
Table 4.12: Respondents Perception on the Profitability of Home Based Productivity Use of Water
Table 4.13: Mean Comparison between productive uses and Non users of water for continuous
variables
Table 4.14: Chi-Square Test for Discrete Variables
Table 4.15: Colinearity Diagnosis for Continuous Explanatory Variables
Table 4.16: Colinearity Diagnosis for Discrete Explanatory Variables
Table 4.17: Logistic Regression Model Output for the Entire Explanatory Variables
Table 4.18: Response of Households for Frequency of Water Interruption per Week
Table 4.19: Response of Households on the Causes of Water Interruption in the Study Area
Table 4.20: Distance Traveled for Water Collection by the Respondents
Table 4.21: The Participation of Nature of Respondents of the Study Area
viii
Table 4.22: The Gap in Price of Water between the Private Vendor and Public Provision
Table 4.23: Adaptation Mechanisms at the time of water interruption and Unreliability
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: World Rural- Urban Water Accessibility in 2010
Figure 2.2: Rural Improved Water Coverage in East Africa
Figure 2.3: Rural- Urban Improved Water Coverage in Ethiopia
Figure 2.4: Conceptual Framework of the Study
Figure 3.1: Map of the Study Area (Metema Woreda)
Figure 3.2: Sampling Design and procedures
Figure 4.1: Households Mean Water Consumption for Different Activities
Figure 4.2: Households Water Consumption and Demand for Water (gap)
Figure 4.3: Ranking of the Home Based Productive Activities of Water in the study area
Figure 4.4: Non-functional Hand dung in Aftit and Kumer kebeles
Figure 4.5: Respondents Perception on the current Price Arrangement of the Area
Figure 4.6: Respondents Satisfaction on the Water Service Provision of the Area
x
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AAU... Addis Ababa University
BCM ...Billion Cubic Meters
CRLDS...Center of Regional and Local Development Study
CSA...Central Statistical Agency
FAO...Food and Agriculture Organization
FGD...Focused Group Discussion
FS...Farming System
HPU...Home Based Productive Use
IC... Intelligence Community Assessment
IPMS...Improving Productivity and Market Success
KII ... Key Informants Interview
Lpd ... Liter per person per day
MDGs... Millennium Development Goals
MUS...Multiple Use System
NAO...National audit Office
NGO...Non-Governmental Organization
OCHA...UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
ODI...Overseas Development Institute
REA...Royal Engineering Academy
RWSN...Rural Water Supply Network
SRI...Sustainability Responsible Investment
SSA...Sub-Saharan Africa
UAP...Universal Access Program
UNEP...The United Nations Environment Programme
UNFPA...
United Nations Population Fund
UNICEF...,...United Nations Children Fund
UN...United Nation
VIF... Variance Inflation Factor
WBCSD...World Business Council for Sustainable Development
WHO...World Health Organization
WWC...World Water Council
xi
Rural Water Supply and the Determinants of Productive use of Water at Household
Level: The Case of Metema Woreda, North Gondar, Amhara Regional State.
ABSTRACT
Water these days becomes highly essential ingredient for the rural household's home based
productive use of water beyond the usual basic needs consumption. In recognition to this, this study
aimed at three main objectives; assessment of the home based productive use of water, the factors
that affect the productive use of water and examining the major challenges of rural water supply
in the study area. In the attempt to deal with these objectives the study selected Metema woreda as
a study area and from which four kebeles were selected randomly to have 130 household
respondents. The major methods of analysis in this study were both descriptive analysis and logistic
model to meet on the aforementioned objectives'. The analysis and discussion of the study revealed
that water is the prime input for home based productive uses in addition to the usual basic needs
consumption. To this effect, traditional brewery, home gardening, water selling, small ruminants,
rural restaurants were the major home based productive uses of water in the study area. Yet the
productive use of water in the study area found to be constrained by demographic and economic
characteristics of the households and physical and environmental situation of the water supply of
the area. Moreover, the study recognized that the water supply of the study area hindered by a
combination of institutional, physical, and technical challenges. Hence in recognition to these, the
concerned bodies at all level should recognize the challenges of rural water supply as multiple and
interlocking that requires a systematic approach. Moreover, the productive use of water at
household level should be mainstreamed in the policy of rural water supply and management
efforts of the country as equally important as the irrigation sector.
Key words: Productive use, Logit model, Traditional brewery, Challenges, Metema Woreda
1
CHAPTER ONE
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
Water is the fundamental resource for survival, livelihood and Prosperity. Unfortunately among
the estimated 1,400 million cubic km of water, it is only 0.003% (about 45, 000 cubic km) of the
vast water are considered as suitable or fresh water resource (SRI (Sustainable and Responsible
Investment), 2008). Such meager amount of fresh water coupled with the exponential population
growth exacerbates the challenges of water supply of the world. Subsequently this world today
obliged to handle 1.2 billion people, or almost one-fifth of the world's population live in areas of
physical water scarcity, while another 1.6 billion people, or almost one quarter of the world's
population, face economic water shortage (OCHA, 2010).
In sub-Saharan Africa, particularly of the horn of Africa countries are the regions that are
geographically vulnerable to climate change which have greater impact on the water situation of
the region. As a result more than 43 % of the people are exposed to water insecurity, drought and
flood. Such events found to highly exacerbate water availability in quantity and quality in the
region (Ndaruzaniye, 2011). In addition evidences portray the presence of extreme regional
variation in rainfall and water availability between years which has been the hindrance for the
development progress of African countries (WWC, 2011). Consequently the goals towards meeting
the demands of water to the historically unprecedented interest of human beings in the region
became the prime challenge to the poor countries.
In Ethiopia, the poor planning and implementation of water projects are indicated as the main
technical constraints for the sustainable water provision to the rural households and thereby
affecting the prospects of rural household water demand (Israel and Awdenegest, 2012). On the
other hand the variation of water availability across seasons created unreliable water supply for
rural households particularly of the dry season. Moreover poorly trained water committee which
mostly led by male leader and being lackadaisical to involve the community during site selection
and design found to lead to the immediate breakdown of the water supply projects. Whatever
reasons that we can enumerate the study of Tewodaj, et al (2009) concluded that access to drinking
water to be as the number one problem to the rural people in Ethiopia.
2
Despite rural water supply challenges remains intact in many of African countries and particularly
in Ethiopia, adequate water provision to the rural poor still considered as an avenue of rural
livelihood improvement. In recognition to this recently greater attention has been given to the
broader livelihood benefits of rural water supply beyond the usual links between improved water
and health (Moriarty and Butterworth, 2003).
As a result adequate provision of water for meeting
the basic needs of the poor are seen as precondition but insufficient if rural livelihood needed to be
improved. Water further than its consumptive position it plays a significant role for the success of
small-scale household economic activities (Odunuga, 2010). Due to these facts, currently rural
poverty reduction lay at the center of adequate water provision to the rural poor (Ogwuche, 2012).
In Ethiopia though it has not gain greater attention by the government, the donor organizations
have shown obsession to the productive role of water in any rural water supply projects
(Butterworth, et al, 2011). Because recently though there is no as such sufficient data like the urban
productive users, the study of Alemayehu (2009) indicated that in rural areas the prospects of using
domestic water for home based income generating activities has shown an increasing trend.
In general the background of this study showed that though rural water supply in the country
remained intact, water to the rural poor has became the others source of home based economic
activity to supplement the meager agricultural income. Therefore, having understood the role of
water for home based productive uses and the persistence of rural water supply challenges, the
study aimed at assessing the major challenges of rural water supply and the factors of home based
productive use of water at household level.
1.2 Statement of the Problem
In Sub-Saharan Africa in general and particularly in Ethiopia beyond the impact of climate change
on water availability, other major factors such as: population growth and poor water governance
are exacerbating the water supply situation of the countries (Ndaruzaniye, 2011). The water supply
in Ethiopia, where large portion of the population are rural dwellers challenged due to poor
institutional, infrastructural and socio-demographic factors. Moreover, poor accountability and
lacks of community participation in water projects were identified as constraints of sustainability
(Yacob, et al, 2010). Similarly the study of Aschalew (2009) revealed the absence of community
participation and technical constraints are responsible for frequent water interruption and
3
sustainability challenges of rural water supply projects. As a result in spite of the vigorous efforts
made to improve the coverage and the system of water supply in country, the functionality rate of
water supply source in Ethiopia in 2007 was about 33 % percent (Tamene, et al., 2011).
On the other side, preoccupied with the traditional approach the specific economic role of water to
the rural household was ignored and thereby the contribution of water to the rural household
economy has been underestimated. Subsequently almost universally, rural water supply
programmes emphasized on the need to provide 20 liters per person per day of clean water with a
mere consideration of basic needs use (RWSN, 2010). In Ethiopia, after the intervention of the
Multiple Use Service approach by the non-government projects, the productive role of water to the
rural people has got great momentum by the Ministry of Water (Butterworth, et al 2011). But except
a mere recognition of the productive role of water, the nature and the factors of productive water
use at household level has no yet studied. Even attempts are shown to give much emphasis to link
water and irrigation while the domestic home based productive use of water by the rural households
are overlooked (James, 2003).
Moreover most of the studies conducted in Ethiopia concerning water supply and sanitation have
been found to focus on either the supply or demand part of water research which overlooked the
equilibrium between rural water supply and multiple needs of water (Kebede, 2003; Zelalem, 2005;
and Gossaye, 2007). Similarly studies that are aimed at identifying the factors that affect the
demand of water by the households found to pay little or no attention to include the productive
demand of water, as a result aggregate demand are used to investigate the determinants of water
consumption level. For instance the study of Bihon, (2006), Sileshi, (2008) and Dessalegn, (2012)
assessed the main factors for water consumption level, demand for improved water and aggregate
water demand respectively without consideration of the productive use of water by the households.
Though the rural water supply challenges remained intact in various parts of the country, adequate
water supply to the rural people remained one of the most crucial resources for survival, health and
prosperity (WHO, 2006). Particularly to the rural poor water plays a significant contribution as a
direct input into agricultural production and as the basis for health and welfare (Narcisse, 2010).
Furthermore, it served as a prime input for rural households home based small-scale income
generating activities, which can help them supplement the subsistence agricultural income
(Mendiguren and Mabelane, 2001). For instance due to the proximity to the Sudan border markets
and the proliferation of economic activities in Metema woreda, the productive use of water at
4
household level as a means of income generation is the common practice of rural livelihood in the
area. However, due to lack empirical studies on the productive uses of water the in the woreda, the
main determinants for these small scale economic activities are not clearly understood.
Taken as a whole despite the fact that ample studies are conducted to bring solution to the unbroken
challenges of rural water supply; the most important element of water demand i.e. the demand for
home based productive activities and its determinants remained unrecognized. Therefore if rural
water supply is required to supplement the subsistence income of rural households and thereby the
livelihood of the poor households, the challenges of rural water supply and the home based
productive use of water should be the central problem in the research agenda of water supply of
the rural households (Ogwuche, 2012). Therefore having recognized the neglect of the issue in
rural areas, this study identified Metema woreda as the most vulnerable area to water shortage and
the area where the home based productive uses of water are practiced well.
1.3 Objectives of the study
1.3.1 General Objectives
Broadly this study is aimed at examining the determinants of home based productive use of water
and the challenges of rural water supply situation in Metema Woreda.
1.3.2 Specific Objectives
This study specifically intended to;
assess the main home based productive use of domestic water by the rural household,
investigate the factors that affect home based productive use of water by the households of the
study area,
examine the major challenges of rural water supply in the study area,
1.4 Research Questions
So as to investigate the specific objectives outlined above, the following questions were designed
to specifically capture the theme of the study. These are;
What are the main home based productive uses of water by the rural households?
What are the factors that affect home based productive use of water in the study area?
5
What are the major challenges for rural water supply in the study area?
1.5 Significance of the Study
Having better understanding on the main challenges of rural water supply and the factors that hinder
productive use of water at household level would have multiple significance. Firstly the study could
have practical implication to local water development agents and actors to undertake immediate
actions with respect to the practical implication that the study forwards regarding the major
challenges and the constraints of productive use of water. Secondly, the study could strike a chord
to policy makers and donor organizations of the sector so that they can show obsession to the home
based productive use of water at household level. Subsequently, actions and strategies will direct
towards improving the rural water supply prospect of the study area in particular and the country
in general, thereby the income and productivity of the rural households can be improved. Moreover,
the study could provide directions for further research extension and development scheme on the
link between water and poverty in recognition to the productive use of water by the rural
households.
1.6 Scope of the Study
Water shortage is the fact of life in most rural areas of Ethiopia. Since it is impractical to have a
detail and wider study, the study delineated it self in particular focus on Metema woreda. At the
same time the issues to be studied regarding to problems of rural water supply are multiple.
However this study mainly focused on the assessment of rural water supply challenges and the
determinants of home based productive use of water. To these end the study limited it self to these
variables: various physical, environmental, institutional and economic challenges to the water
supply and productive use of water at household level.
6
1.7 Limitation of the Study
Due to some major challenges associated with the collection of the data, the study was exposed for
some limitations. The first limitation of the study was associated with Focused Group Discussion
which has been designed for two kebeles but due to the meagre research finance the study limited
for only one kebele for the FGD. Secondly the study suffers from lack of sufficient secondary data
due the inadequacy of works regarding the study area and the poor documentation of the woreda
offices. Thirdly due to poor water resource inventory of the woreda, the study obliged to adopt the
stratification made by IPMS based on farming system nature of the woreda.
1.8 Organization of the Thesis
The thesis was divided into five main chapters in which the first chapter, have presented
background of the study, statements of the problem, objectives of the study and scope and
limitation of the study. Whereas chapter two deals with the review of conceptual and empirical
literatures relevant to the major theme of the study. The third Chapter on the other hand presents
description of the study area, survey methods, data analytical tools and working hypothesis.
Chapter four present results of the study and discusses the results by giving due emphasis on
purpose of the research objectives. The final chapter presents summary, conclusions and
recommendations.
7
CHAPTER TWO
2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.1 Conceptual Issues
2.1.1 Consumptive and Productive Use of water
The role of water is multiple. Water among other natural resource is the basis ingredient for socio-
economic development of the society and health of the environment. However, in this review we
will discuss two of the main role of water i.e. basic needs use and productive use of water to be
specific and geared with the intention of this study. It is apparent that initially the most important
challenge to rural water supply in poor countries is lack of adequate quality for domestic basic
needs use of water. However, recently the quantity of water became equally important as quality
of water due to the fact that rural water supply's contribution as a source of home based income
generating activities (Muluwafu, W., 2003). Therefore this section will discuss the contribution of
water to both of basic needs use and productive use as follow.
A)
Consumptive (Domestic Basic needs Use of Water):
Since safe and secure water is the main ingredient to the survival and health of the rural poor,
meeting the basic needs requirements of water is the mandatory. Hence the requirement of water
by the rural households for only the basic needs such as drinking and sanitation within the
households termed as consumptive (domestic use) of water. Domestic water use is defined
according to the geographic dictionary as: "water which is used for households purpose, such as
drinking, food preparation, bathing, washing clothes, dishes and dogs, flushing toilets, and
watering lawns" (Dictionary.Org, 2012).
As a consumptive use safe drinking water is crucial for human nutrition. In some countries, water
is by itself is regarded as a nutrient and thus treated by the same standards of, and regulations for,
as food. Safe domestic water supply meets two basic water uses: to meet basic human physiological
water requirements, i.e. adequate hydration and to ensure human hygienic conditions, both crucial
for humans to stay healthy and thus highly linked to nutritional aspects. Hence, domestic basic
needs use of water can includes water for drinking, cooking, sanitation and hygiene which are
focused on the health benefit of water (Speelman, et al, 2006). Therefore, so as to meet the basic
needs of water 50 l/d/p are assumed as the minimum requirements that are assumed as the necessity
8
of life (Gleick, 2000). However, different countries are using various standards as low as 25 l/p/d
like Ethiopia and as high as 55 l/p/d to the basic need requirement of water in India (Moriarty, and
Butterworth , 2003).
B) Home Based Productive Use of Water:
The other role water which have been invisible and overlooked due to much emphasis to the health
benefit of water is home based productive role of water. Domestic productive water is defined as
the quantity of domestic water at household level, over and above the `basic needs' quantity, used
by small-scale users to generate an income and improve the quality of their livelihoods Productive
use of water is generally discussed at household level to indicate both the relatively small-scale
nature of the activities involved and the primary social unit at which this type of domestic water
use takes place (Moriarty et al. 2004). Indeed the role of water as productive activity may extend
beyond small scale to include the large scale irrigation use of water, but this study mainly show
home based productive role of water which is the main theme of the study. When we look in to the
water requirement of home based productive activities; the study of Mendiguren and Mabelane
(2001) showed that in addition to the basic needs requirement of 25 l/p/d it needs additional 25 to
40 l/p/d to support these economic activities i.e. both consumptive and productive use of water
requirements ranged from 50 to 75 l/p/d.
Hence the potential benefits of productive water use include income generation, enhanced food
security, improved health, saved time (reduced amount of time spent collecting water), saved
expenditure (reduced expenditure on expensive water supplied by water vendors), and improved
education (with more time and improved health, children are able to attend and perform better at
school) (Moriarty et al., 2004). Different studies identify the commonly practiced types of
productive activities of water in rural areas. Such as; traditional brewing beer; distilling gin; making
fruit juice; brick making; the construction of homes; and Irrigating tree and horticultural crops are
just some few which are identified indifferent case studies. (Thompson, et al., 2001, cited in Naidoo
et al., 2009).
The financial implications of productive uses of water are two-fold: income-generation to poor
households, and cost to the water service provider. Ideally one would hope to find a balance
between the two, where service providers can recover at least some of the costs, and poor
households do not have debt because of their water use for subsistence or income generation (ibid).
9
Hence in water service delivery considering the multiple use of water at planning became the
precondition for willingness to pay principle to be effective.
2.1.2 Approaches to Rural Water Supply and Management
Regarding the supply and management of water sources, different approaches have been utilized.
Basically there are two grand approaches to water supply and management that can we consider
when we discus the nature of water supply and management in rural areas.
A) Supply Side Approach (Basic Needs Approach)
Before 1980, most of the planners and practitioners of the water sector in developing country have
been focused on the traditional approach, the so called supply driven approach. With this approach
construction of more physical water resource to meet the demand of the growing population
without consideration of the technical and technological situation of the provision have been
noticed. The relevance of such investments were acknowledged in part, however the economic and
environmental costs are very high (Gleick, 2000). This approach also named as the basic needs
approach because proponents' consider the poor are very poor to pay and therefore water seen as a
basic necessity that must be given to them freely (Khan, 2003). For the basic needs approach the
World Bank's threshold of 20 to 50 liters per day per person are considered as the minimum
standard requirements to meet the basic needs of the rural poor. As a result the consequent main
task of donors and governments in poor countries were constructing water schemes as soon as
possible to meet the needs of the poor (Kleemeier, 1995).
The supporters of the supply side approach argue that the rural poor households cannot afford to
pay for the expensive systems and should be provided the cheapest and most durable technical
solutions. For instance they have tended to construct hand pumps and their research agenda has
focused excessively on fixing the technical problems with these systems. The proponents also
assumed that the rural poor are not connected to improved water sources because they are assumed
as lacking education and have poor understanding about the benefits of the improved water sources
(Gulyani, 2001). Moreover, since the supply side approach seen the poor not have the capacity to
afforded the high price, large subsidies in the sector are utilized with the assumption to benefit the
poor (Gleick, 2000).
10
However the traditional approach at the end 1970 and at the beginning of the 1980 when the
Structural Adjustment became as a precondition for developing countries transformation, the
approach exposed to serious critics (World Bank, 1993, cited in Wassihun, 2008). Firstly the
implicit assumption that the poor are less aware of the benefit of improved water to the household
health and wellbeing was found to be blind assumption (Gleick, 2000). Secondly, solely physical
solutions to water problems face increasing opposition new methods are developed to meet the
demands of growing populations without requiring major new constructions.
Thirdly, often this approach emphasizes health impacts but does not address the actual demand for
services or the potential for a maintained service level in the long term (Sara and Katz, 1997, cited
in Schweitzer, 2009).
Finally under supply driven project approaches, communities are not
necessarily involved in the planning and design phases, and their contribution, often in-kind (labor,
materials, or land), is not reflective of the actual demand for the service. In addition, provision for
the operations and management phase is not systematic or adequate because of the project based
(and hence finite) scope in which the sustainability of the projects very low as evidenced in various
studies (ibid).
Due to these and other critics on the traditional approach to water supply and management, the new
approaches that can fill the shortcoming of the supply driven approach are necessitated. As a result
the paradigm shift from supply driven to demand responsive policies is became an important step
towards meeting the MDGs in Rural Water Sanitation.
B) Demand Driven Approach
After the 1980, particularly when the international organizations and NGOs recognized the failure
of the supply side approach, the new approaches i.e. demand side have been envisaged. Having
understood the shortcoming of the traditional approach, this approach mainly gives emphasis for
the exact needs of the poor and for which people are willing to pay. The demand driven approach
as opposed to the supply side, assumed the rural water users as rational in their decision making
and are aware the value of clean water for the health of the household, hence whether to have
improved or not is a matter of economic trade-offs. And therefore they assumed that understanding
the nature of behaviours of the household is sufficient as the instrument of policy guild concerning
water supply to the poor (Gulyani, 2001).
11
As discussed in Deverill, et al., (2002) demand-oriented policies in theory should include the
following principles as; as instrument of effective communication; system for individual and
collective decision making; means for considering the vulnerable groups such as women and the
poor; and finally seen as the avenue for informed choice. Here we can understand that the demand
approaches found to be congruent with the Dublin principle of water management in which the
vulnerability of water resource, the participatory requirement, the role of women and consideration
of water as economic good (Arseniuk, 2010).
The study of Gulyani, (2001), clearly indicated the implications of the demand side approach as
follow. In the first case the approach considered as the comprehensive instrument to consider the
multiple variable that determines water supply situation and the needs of the society. Such factors
are the socio-economic characteristics of the household, the nature of the water supply sources and
the attitudes of the household. Secondly the new approaches does recognize the multiple benefits
of water supply projects in which water projects are seen as means for saving the time and energy
spent for water collection and the substantial reduction in the price of that previously un served
households.
Thirdly, the demand side approach found to contribute albeit related to the previous point is the
finding that the poor households pay for high price for water are substantially higher than those
paid by better-off households that are served by public utilities. At the same time the study
confirmed that well-intentioned policies such as block tariffs can hurt the poor, and how projects
might be better to meet the needs of the poor. Finally , the paper of Guyani shows that the demand
side approach is very site specific which has an important implication for the design of the project
so that the needs and the specific characteristics of particular location can be geared with the water
project planning and implementation.
Even though the past traditional approach has been seen as the shortcoming and failure of much of
the water projects in developing countries, the demand side approach also found have weakness in
spite of its' much contribution to the sustainability of water projects. Among these the highly
pronounced weakness of the demand driven approach is it negligence of the institutional factors.
As indicated in Gulyani (2001, cited in Arseniuk, 2010); "the demand-driven approach rather
simplistically assumes appropriate charges are the key problem of water supply (getting the price
right in the water sector). Yet it is not just prices or uses charge that have been correct, but also the
12
institutional and mismanagement of the government and the related actors were and still are
appropriate."
In the second case since the approach is more site specific the recommended best "packages are
not applicable anywhere" due to this many studies have argued that there is no sufficient evidence
to support the notion of that the demand driven approach is superior than the supply side. Thirdly,
the methodological aspects of water study concerning willingness to pay are highly criticized
because of this it suffers from multitude of biases; hypothetical, strategic and compliance bias.
Even greater care is given to the methodological aspect; the reality will not fit with the condition
of the developing counties. Consequently erroneous policy implications may further distort the
water situation of developing countries instead of favoring (Griffin et al, 1995, cited in Gulyani,
2001).
The last shortcoming of the new demand driven approach is concerned with willingness to pay for
improved water. Given that this approach mainly focused on the price aspect of water supply, other
important factors are actually neglected in the project design. For example whether the source is
improved or not if the taste is beyond choice they may neglect the improved source when they get
another source of water.
In general empirical studies showed that even today there is an obsession towards the new
approaches i.e. the demand driven so as to not repeat the past mistakes, there is no as such evidence
that magnifies the superiority of the new approach. Indeed the failure of many water projects in
developing countries were accounted due to the muscular reliance on the supply side approach.
Here is the comparison table developed by Kleemeier, (1995), using five differentiation
instruments as shown below in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1: The Comparison of the Two of the Approaches
Aspects
Supply Side Approach
Demand Driven Approach
Objective
Provide clean and convenient
water supply to as many people as
possible
Provide improvement to water
supply which communities
willing and able to pay for it
Service level
Minimum service level such as
hand pumps, public taps
Service level for which
communities are willing to pay
13
Role of government
Appraise, design, construction,
operation and maintenance,
training
Financing
Donor/governments pays full
capital costs, and subsidizes
operation and maintenance in rural
areas
Community pay full capital,
maintenance and operation
costs; possible subsidies on
capital costs in arid/low
population /low income areas
Community
Participation
Extension
service
mobilizes
participation in water point
location, using free collection etc.
This is not identified due to
vague literature concerning
this aspect
Source: Kleemer, (1995)
2.1.3 The Shift in Paradigm
As discussed in the above section the failure of the traditional thinking to water supply became the
prime motive that initiate the new approaches that can fit with the newly emerged challenges of
the water sector. That is why the past supply driven approach despite the benefits of these
investments are invaluable, finally they came at a high cost requiring enormous economic and
environmental resources (Gleick, 2000). As a result a shift form much emphasis on the physical
aspects to more the needs of the society emerged. This was the first step what is noticed in the
current decade concerning water supply.
The twentieth century water development paradigm, driven by constant growth, has gradually been
shifting as social values, political and economic conditions changed (Arseniuk, 2010). Hence in
line with such dynamic changes the approaches to wards water supply has to be changes if it is
need to meet the unmet need of the poor. Subsequently this time there is a major shift beyond the
supply driven approach to the demand responsive approaches, which includes various change. For
instance the mere consideration of water as a social good has got its economic value, at the same
time the role of community participation for sustainability of water projects has got great
momentum and therefore shifts are noticed from centralized management to decentralized and
participatory approach (ibid).
14
2.1.4 The Conceptual Linkage between Water, Livelihood and Poverty
Since the 1960s, both donors and governmental agencies in developing countries have viewed rural
water supply as an attractive area of investment so as to reducing the poverty condition of the rural
poor (Kleemeier, 1995). Subsequently the link between adequate water supply, its productive use
and the rural poverty have revisited to incorporate the productive use of water which has been in
the past neglected. Hence provision of safe and secure water is seen as essential to poor people's
survival and health, but meeting basic needs is not just about health and hygiene, nor do people
always see clean water as their most pressing need. Providing sufficient water can play a wider role
in poverty reduction and improving livelihoods (Moriarty, and Butterworth, 2003).
Ensuring water accessibility for health and productive activities is one of the most effective ways
of improving equity and reducing poverty through water management. Rural non-farm incomes are
increasingly recognized as being a key component in the livelihoods of poor people. In many sub-
Saharan African countries there is evidence of a shift in rural livelihoods away from agriculture.
Water needs in rural areas are then not just for a bucket to wash, clean and cook at home after a
hard day in the fields; the supply is required to fit in with changing and sometimes new roles such
as home based productive activities (ibid).
Approximately ¾ (three- fourth) of world's poorest people live in rural areas (NAO, 2007). Such
large portion of the population are often suffer from long-term poverty and are more vulnerable to
external factors such as market fluctuations, poor harvests and climate conditions. They often have
limited opportunities to generate income and difficulties in accessing services and infrastructure.
Water is the major scarce resource to the rural poor due to the limited coverage and low
sustainability of the of the water supply projects.
Yet
rural water supply and poverty are highly
intertwined. Hence sustainable rural water supply particularly to the poor has a considerable impact
on the poverty of the rural household. As indicated by Hope et al, (2003) which is cited in
Eyerusalem, (2009) the supply of improved rural water has both forward and backward linkages.
Since water is among the productive resource to the rural poor its improvement and sustainable
provision have a paramount role to the subsistence income of the rural household, this in turn
contributes to their ability to pay for improved water supply.
According to (Ogwuche 2005, cited in Ogwuche, 2012), poverty reduction considered as when the
main features of rural poverty are systematically minimized and when access of the basic needs are
15
ensured substantially. As a result recently there is strong obsession to target at provision of
adequate water supply to the rural poor as a promising strategy for poverty reduction in developing
countries (Ogwuche, 2012). This author clearly also indicated that for achieving sustainable rural
poverty reduction, access to adequate water, within the sustainable livelihood framework, is
compulsory. Moreover, study recommends that since water availability is constrained by multiple
factors, developing countries should address such multitude facets of rural water supply challenges
to bring sustainable solution to the rural poverty (ibid). In general the conceptual linkage of water
and poverty is two fold: in the first case when it is appropriately available to the poor it will be the
panacea of poverty; otherwise its shortage will exacerbate the poverty situation and the livelihood
of the rural poor will remain stagnant.
2.2 Empirical Studies on Water
2.2.1 The Water Supply and Demand Situation of the Globe
Our planet today is at the eve of accepting 7 Billion peoples which brings historically
unprecedented pressure to the natural resource of the globe (UNFPA, 2011). In this case Water,
which is among the basic natural resource to the livelihood of the rural poor, is exposed to
deterioration from time to time. As a result to day bringing immediate remedy to the global water
crisis became an agenda to achieve the target of the millennium development goals of halving the
proportion of people without access to improved water.
Recently thought the global use of improved water sources showed progress from time to time but
still 884 million people don't have access to safe drinking water which clearly shows the pressure
of the population growth (WHO, 2010). Besides the population pressure of the globe, the water
supply and demand gap are exacerbated by various factors of inequitable distribution of water
rights, economic resources and uneven resource availabilities (Whiteford and Whiteford, 2005,
cites in Wutich, and Ragsdale, 2008). Even thought the problem of water supply is the fact for
both urban and rural areas, the world is still predominated by the world rural population which lack
access to improved water as compared to that of urban population. As shown in the Figure 2.1 It is
only 2 % of the world urban populations are considered to be without access to improved water.
Unfortunately this number is much higher for the rural population of the world for whom the
16
population without accessibility to improved water source reached 11% which is six time higher
than the urban population.
The world's water security situation is basically influenced by two grand driving forces: pressure
on the supply of water and pressure on the demand for water. Pressures on water supply include;
impact of climate change, multinational use of water basins and aquifers, poor water supply
infrastructure and intermittency are just only listing some of the major once. On the other hand
pressured on the demand side includes;
population growth and distribution, agriculture (which
currently accounts 70% of all water use), changes in diet and industry (20% of global water use)
are the prime challenges for the spontaneous increment of water demand of the world today (REA,
2010). Hence identifying these two grand drivers of water supply and demand situation, the options
for tackling these challenges will revolve around them. Therefore, integrating supply orientated
and demand orientated measures through policy, governance and regulation, cultural change and
institutional reform, as well as through better approaches to management and application of new
technologies and techniques are promising measures if the two drivers are required to be tackled
and the world water situation needed to be improved (ibid).
Figure 2.1: World Rural-Urban Water Accessibility in 2010
Source: Computed from RWSN, (2010).
2.2.2 The Trends of Rural Water Supply In Africa
In the year 2000 all most all African countries were adopted the millennium development goals
and seeks to "halve by 2015 the proportion of people without access to safe drinking water and
sanitation" (Todaro and Smith, 2011). However in Sub-Saharan Africa it is anticipated to rich the
target to the year 2040, after 25 year from the expected target (Sutton, 2008).That is why still,
47%
2%
40%
11%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
urban access
urban without acces
rural access
rural without acess
World Rural Urban Water accessibiltiy
17
around 400 million of the people living in sub Saharan Africa are left without access to safe water
with a majority of them being women and children living in rural households (ibid). SSA has the
lowest drinking water coverage and the lowest sanitation coverage in the world (WHO, 2010). For
instance in the pressure of population growth in SSA has shown great pressure in the 3year 1999-
2006 where the absolute number of people without an improved water source were reached 190
million people (UN, 2009).
In Africa despite there are recently positive trends regarding the water supply and coverage, still
the problem is pervasive in the region and remain unsolved permanently. Even in the region for
many of those who supposedly already enjoy an improved service, the reality is one of poor
continuity, poor quality and premature failure. As a result Tens of millions of rural people face
continuing problems with systems that fail prematurely, leading to wasted resources and false
expectations (Lockwood, and Smits, 2011). According to the report of (WHO/UNICEF, 2010),
84% of people without access to improved drinking water sources live in rural areas of the region.
In Africa the sustainability of water projects still remains the major challenge for continued
provision of water to the rural population. The Rural Water Supply Network indicates an average
rate of non-functionality for hand-pumps in sub-Saharan Africa is 36% which is shameful wastage
in the sector. Due to this fact huge amount money which estimated to be hundreds of millions of
dollars over the last 20 years are wasted. Having recognizing such trends community managed
projects has been envisaged but still the problem remains intact due to lack real participation of the
community (RWSN, 2009, cited in Lockwood, and Smits, 2011).
Looking in to the trends of rural improved water coverage, in East Africa for instance the progress
is still remained undone. As shown in the Figure 2.2 below only Uganda reaches around 70% of
rural improved water coverage, this percentage is even very low as compared to the urban provision
of the country which is 95%. Unfortunately among the East African countries, Ethiopia has the
lowest rural improved water coverage estimation as compared to Uganda, Sudan, and Kenya. Even
though the prospects of rural water supply have shown some progress, still the trend fails to
converge with the urban water supply.
18
Figure 2.2: Rural Improved Water Coverage in East Africa
Source: Computed from WHO/UNICEF, 2012.
2.2.3 Challenges of Rural Water Supply in Ethiopia
The existence of around 12 drainage basins in Ethiopia made the country to be the "water tower"
in Northeast Africa. Most of the rivers in these basins cross the national boundary. The total
available water (mean annual flow) is estimated at 111 billion cubic meters and the ground water
potential is about 2.6 billion cubic meters. Unfortunately very little amount of it are used for various
purposes (Abebe, 2001). In this regard the financial capacity of the water sector in the country is
the main obstacle to exploit the full water potential of the country (Yacob, et al, 2010). In search
for the challenges that constrained water supply in Rural Ethiopia in addition to finance, various
studies have been conducted in different parts of the country. Firstly one of the highly pronounced
problems in rural water supply is sustainability. To this end the study of (Kebede, 2003; Zelalem,
2005; Selamawit, 2007; Zemenu, 2012) which are conducted in different rural areas of Ethiopia
signified that lack of ownership of the community, absence of real participation of the beneficiaries,
poor planning and design of water projects in another way the a great deal on the supply driven
approach are the grand challenges for rural water sustainability. As a result despite significant
amount of government and NGO funds are invested to improve the rural water supply, still the gap
between rural and urban water coverage for improved water remained unbroken. The Figure 2.3
showed the perpetuation of the rural urban gap in improved water coverage from 1990 to 2010 with
huge discrepancy.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
Ethiopia
Sudan
Kenya
Uganda
19
Figure 2.3: Rural-Urban Improved Water Coverage in Ethiopia
Source: Computed from WHO/UNICEF, 2012.
Secondly in addition to the sustainability issue, water governance today has got great impetus. As
a result the nature and the governance system have found to affect the water supply nature to the
rural households. According to the study of Yacob et al, (2010) the poor governance and political
system have been recognized as the impediment to the success of the ambitious target of achieve
full coverage by 2012 under its universal access program (UAP). At micro level the poor
performance of water committees to effectively administer the overall rural water supply system
found to be the bottleneck for rural water supply improvements (Zemenu, 2012).
Third and the most important failure of the rural water schemes not to satisfy the needs of the rural
households is attributed by the mere provision of water to meet the basic needs without
consideration of the multiple role of water. As a result in rural water supply, communal schemes
hold rather limited potential for MUS since the pressures on these schemes for domestic water
supply are high and the designers are generally not far-sighted enough or able to design for multiple
(Butterworth et al, 2011). Such non-holistic investments in water project are not only failing to
meet the multiple demand of the rural poor, but also brings financial wastage on single purpose
water projects that requires additional investment to convert them in to MUS system. Without a
doubt this problem attached with the poor planning and design of projects and reliance on the
supply driven approach which aimed at to meet the minimum requirements of water for domestic
use only.
5
10
19
27
34
79
82
87
92
94
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
Rural
Urban
20
2.2.4 The Determinants of Home Based Productive Use (HPU) of Water
Various studies have been conducted to signify the most important factors that determine water
demand by the rural household for both consumptive and productive use. For instance the study
conducted in rural Benin by Arouna and Dabber (2009), concluded that the various socio-economic
variables such as the size of the household, possession of water sources, wealth of the household,
and waiting time are the most important determinants of rural water demand for both consumptive
and home based productive uses.
However, even this study found that queue time and distance of travel have negative effect on water
demand, the price of water on the contrary found not to negatively affect the water demand of the
rural households. This is due to the fact that rural households are more sensitive to their needs of
water than its price as portrayed by the study (ibid). Another study by Mendiguren, and Mabelane,
(2001) however evidenced that the price of water in rural areas is the main challenge for water
demand for multiple use. Since water is distributed through informal vendor system the price for
water is not reasonable to the rural poor, as a result rural household fail to use water for home based
productive activities. On the other hand the study conducted in Ghana which attached households'
educational level with productive use of water revealed that education found to be the significant
variable that helps expand household livelihood opportunities at household level. Moreover this
study recognized the keen role of female household members for using household water for home
based productive use of water as compared to that of male members.
Looking in to the studies carried out in Ethiopia the empirical study conducted by Bihon Kassa
(2006), using regression analysis to see factors of water demand portrayed that; income and private
meter connection are positively related to mean daily water consumption per capita. That is income
and possession of water sources are stimulating factors to use more water for various activities
including home based productive uses.
According to Bhatta A. and Nasu, (2010), the residential water demand be it consumptive or
productive is defined as a function of family size, size of the house, numbers of water using
appliance, household income and other socio-economic variables. Additionally this study
identified the environmental factors in addition to the economic and demographic factors. Another
study by Kanyoka, (2008), revealed that the availability of own water sources at the compound of
the households encourages to use more water for multiple activities. On the other hand poor
21
conditions in water availability not only reduce the availability of water for households but also
discourage them to engage in productive activities of water, thereby the affecting livelihood of the
rural poor. Put it differently, when the household are satisfied with the accessibility of water for
their basic needs they will motivated to engage in multiple activities to improve the livelihood of
their family.
Beyond the socio-economic and demographic factors that determine the demand of water for
multiple uses, poor institutional systems such as lack of proper planning and management of rural
water has seen as the factor that constrained rural poor not to have adequate water for multiple use
(Muluwafu, 2003). This study also explicitly indicated that it is not the health and sanitation per
see what matters a lot in planning if rural poverty is needed to be extricate, rather the social and
economic contribution of water should be understood in rural water project planning and
implementation (ibid). So that rural households can be satisfied with the rural water services when
they get the required water for their multiple needs.
In addition to the institutional challenges the trouble in poor countries for addressing equitable
water allocation and environmental sustainability is the lack of capacity at the country level to
provide effective water governance. In this regard developed countries have greater technical,
financial, and administrative capacity to address these issues. On the contrary, the problem in
developed countries like Africa is severe, where poor technical skills of water personnel and lack
of finance are the basic problem now a day (UNEP, 2005). The study of Aschalew (2009), affirmed
that in Ethiopia the continued provision of improved water to the rural household is constrained by
the poor institutional factors in which low community participation and frequent interruption of the
water source are main once. This study also recognized the technical challenges concerning the
sustainability of the water source.
Finally when we consider the sustainability problems as a limiting factor for continues provision
rural water; it is possible to bring ample empirical studies. For instance in Ethiopia the study of
Zemenu Awoke (2012), in the Amhara region showed that due to the prevalence of non-
functionality of water supply source after short period, older people and particularly of women are
obliged to travel long distance to other functional source to fetch water. This condition hindered
them to fetch water beyond basic needs. As a result the water needed for home based productive
activities minimized since they discouraged with the distance and the queue time they confront in
the other water sources.
22
2.2.5 Conceptual Frame Work of the Study
Several empirical studies, practical experiences and observations of the reality have shown that the
combinations of various factors are responsible for the problem of household water demand for
multiple uses. Therefore, to be systematic to deal with the a variety of factors such as socio-
economic, demographic, institutional and technical factors as influencing factors (independent
variables) and engagement of the household in Home based productive activities of water as
dependent variable, it is imperative to depict diagrammatically as show below in Figure 2.4. As
shown in the figure when the domestic household water supply and the demand for water balanced
it is an opportunity to use water for multiple activities. However, it is not the supply and demand
per see what matters in productive use of water by the households; rather the various socio-
economic factors are responsible to affect the decision of households to use water for home based
productive activities.
23
Figure 2.4: Conceptual Framework of the Study
Productive use of Water
· Local brewery
· Home gardening
· Water selling
· Ruminants
· Small Restaurants
Basic needs Use of water
· Drinking
· Personal Hygiene
· Cooking
· Home appliance washing
Demographic Factors
· Family Size
· Sex of HH head
· Education of the
HH members
· Age of HHH
Economic Factors
· Income of HH
· Price of water
· Ownership
Physical &
environmental
· Distance traveled
· Queue time
· Free alternative
water Source
Institutional Factors
· Satisfaction of
services
· Trainings
Factors of Home Based Productive Use of Water
Water Supply
Single use supply
Multiple use
supply
Water Demand
Basic needs
Productive
Multiple use of Water
24
CHAPTER THREE
3. METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY
3.1 Description of the Study Area
Location
The current study area Metema Woreda located 900 Km to the North West of Addis Ababa and
around 180 km West of Gondar town. The woreda is part of North Gondar Administrative zone in
the Amhara regional state which has boundaries of Tigray region in North, Agwea zone and West
Gojjam in South, Wagihimra zone and South Gondar in East and the Sudan in the West.
The
Woreda is one of the 18 Woredas of North Gondar Administrative zone. It comprises 18 rural
kebeles and 2 town associations (IPMS, 2005).
Figure 3.1: Map of the Study area (Metema Woreda) (Source: IPMS, 2005).
Population
According to the CSA report in (2008), the study area Metema wereda comprises 110,231
populations. In which there are around 26,847 total households according to the Woreda office
25
Plan for 2006. About 25% of the total households are female headed. Out of the total, 7,524
households and 9,062 family members are recent settlers living within the Woreda (Cited in
Dessalegn Molla, 2008).
Topography and Climate
The altitude of Metema ranges from as low as 550 to 1608m above sea level, while the minimum
annual temperature ranges between 22
o
C and 28
o
C. Daily temperature becomes very high during
the months of March to May, where it may get to as high as 43
o
C. The mean annual temperature
is 31
o
C. Nearly all of the land in the Woreda is in the lowlands except some mountain tops which
fall outside. Metema is one of the Woredas in the country where the climate is harsh and
government allows a 30% hardship allowance (IPMS, 2005).
According to the available data, the mean annual rainfall for the area ranges from about 850 to
around 1100 mm. About 90% of the woreda receives mean annual rainfall between 850 and 1000
mm. Metema has a uni-modal rainfall, with the rainy months extending from June until the end of
September. However, most of the rainfall is received during the months of July and August (IPMS,
2005). The area is also recognized in terms of erratic rainfall pattern which affects the crop
production and water availability to both human and livestock of the woreda (Dereje et al., 2012).
Based on the agro-climatic conditions, the productive potential of the area and the nature of rainfall,
the woreda delineated in to two farming systems. These are; cotton, rice/livestock farming system
and sesame, cotton, sorghum and livestock based farming system.
3.2 Research Design
To achieve the stated objectives and respond to the research questions, the study used the survey
design throughout the progress of the study. However to supplement the survey design the
qualitative research were necessitated, hence in terms of approach the mixed approach was
followed. However, quantitative (survey design) have been used as a major methodology for the
study. Qualitative data in this study have been used to supplement the quantitative results.
Therefore, in this section, data collection tools and instruments, procedures of sample size
determination, ethical issues and method of data analysis for both quantitative and qualitative data
types are discussed in detail as follow.
26
3.2.1 Type and Source of Data
Both relevant qualitative and quantitative data types were collected from primary and secondary
sources. The sources of primary data for qualitative study were taken from direct observation, key
informants, and FGDs. On the other hand the sources of primary data for quantitative research
were the response of survey respondents which were randomly selected from the four kebeles. At
the same time secondary data sources which are assumed to be important were used from the
document of the woreda water resource development office.
3.2.2 Methods of Data Collection
To gather the various quantitative and qualitative data which are assumed to have relevance to the
objectives of study, various combination of data collection methods have been employed in this
study. To this effect the survey questionnaire, the focused group discussion and the key informant
interview, observation and literature and report review were presented separately as shown below.
I)
Survey Questionnaire
The primary quantitative data were collected from the potential respondents using a pre- tested and
structured interview questionnaire by enumerators who are assumed to be familiar to the existing
social settings. The interview questionnaire encompassed the demographic characteristics of the
respondents, the socio-economic profiles, the institutional factors and the physical and technical
characteristics of water supply of the study area. Before the survey brief orientation for the
enumerators about the objective of the study, the interview techniques during interview were given
to the enumerators. Moreover to maintain the reliability of the instrument the questionnaire which
is interpreted in to the local language has been given to the enumerators to reduce ambiguities.
However, the researcher has made a close supervision for the enumerators throughout the progress.
II)
FGD and KII
To supplement the results of the quantitative data, qualitative data are in this case very imperative.
To this effect, Focused group discussion with purposively selected rural farmers was conducted.
During the FDG semi-structured questions were utilized to direct the discussion towards the
purpose of the study. The main reason of using semi-structure questions was mainly to keep the
discussion not to go in the other way round. Throughout the discussion the role of the moderator
27
was only to maintain the smooth discussion and interjecting points when things went wrong. In
addition to FGD key informants such as water supply and development woreda experts and water
committees who have direct relation with the water supply system were directly interviewed.
III)
Observation (transect walk)
Observation (transect walk) have been done as important method data collection with the support
of check list to see the nature of water supply and the sources of water for domestic use and
productive uses. During the transect walk recording of the situation and taking the picture of the
water sources, the queue nature of water collection and the main water collectors was taken.
IV)
Secondary Sources
Lastly secondary quantitative data were used to supplement the primary data. In this regard
recordings, documents and reports of the water resource development office of the Metema woreda
were used. Moreover, some previous empirical studies were used to compare and supplement of
the result of the study.
3.2.3 Ethical Consideration
The concept ethics in various dictionaries have given the common meaning and mostly associated
with morality. In any social science research identifying what is right and what is wrong during the
collection of data from the subjects are mandatory to really get genuine information (Babbie, 2007).
In recognition to this, the study tried to maintain the confidentiality of the subjects' response not
to disclose their response and identity. In this regard, the researcher gave orientation to the
enumerators to tell the purpose of the study to the respondents only to be used for academic issues
and not to be used and exposed for other hidden purpose. Additional avoidance of deception to the
respondents was the prime concern during the survey, focused group discussion and key informants
interview data collection.
28
3.2.4 Sampling Techniques and Procedures
A multistage sampling technique used to select sites and draw sample households for the study.
First Metema woreda purposively selected in North Gondar since it is found to be vulnerable area
to water shortage. Then stratification of the rural kebeles followed based on farming system, with
the assumption that farming system could determine the nature of water availability, rainfall pattern
and social-economic activities and thereby the productive use of water. Finally the woreda stratified
in to two stratums based on the farming system so that homogeneous categories can be obtained.
Then the sample size was determined by respecting the sample requirement for logistic regression.
In which twelve explanatory variables required 120 or more sample sizes if the researcher desired
to have high-quality results (Gorard, 2004; Long and Freese, 2006). Putting this rule in to
consideration and other factors that determine sample size such as; the availability of budget, time
and the objectives and nature of the research the sample size was finally decided (Kothari, 2004).
Thus study utilized 130 households (see Table 3.1) which were safe even according to the
carvalvho's sample size table
1
. Figure 3.2 shows the overall sampling procedures for selection of
rural kebele and households in the study area.
1
Which proposed 125 sample size as a minimum for this study area
Figure 3.2: Sampling Design and Procedures
One Kebele
Three Kebeles
130
Proportional Sampling
Fourteen (14)
Kebeles
Four (4)
Kebeles
Stratification Based on FS
Metema Woreda (18 Kebeles)
29
Sample size for qualitative research is not as such predetermined like that of qualitative research.
Hence, the required sample size utilized up to the point where the saturation for the study is reached.
However, for the focused group discussion different studies were utilized from six to eight
participants. For instance Tigist, (2010) employed six up to eight members in her study. Similarly
this study incorporated eight participants for the focused group discussion.
Table 3.1: Selected Kebeles and the Proportional Sampling
Rural Kebeles
Total Households
Sample
Metema Yohannis
4,483
65
Kokit
1,729
25
Kumer-Aftit
1,547
23
Meka
1,129
17
Total
8, 888
130
Source: Own survey, 2013. (Collected from each kebele administration)
3.2.5 Methods of Data Analysis
Both descriptive statistics and logistic regression were employed to analyze the quantitative data.
The descriptive statistics used to analyze the demographic and socio-economic variable. In this
case mean, percentage, maximum and minimum computations were executed. Moreover, multi-
colinearity test, the t-test and Chi-square test were used to compare as well to see the association
existed between the dependent and the explanatory variables. On the other hand the logistic
regression i.e. binary logistic regression which signifies the effect of each independent variable on
the dependent variable was utilized.
At the same time once the required data for qualitative data are collected, organization of the data
have been done to have some sorts of logical order at the beginning. Then categorization of the
30
organized data followed based on the meaning similarities of categories. Finally synthesis and
generalization of the qualitative data with the evidence of the quantitative have been made.
Logistic Model Specification
To really isolate the factors that determine the productive use of rural water, model specification
here is required. In this regard various studies have found to use different models that they assume
the models are appropriate to the nature of variables used in their study. This is due to the fact that
in model selection the nature of the dependent and the explanatory variables are essential
determinants to choose the appropriate models that can best predict the interaction between the
variables. Therefore, for this study the model that can best fit for dummy dependent variables are
appropriate. According to Gujarati (2004), there are three alternative approaches for binary
response; Linear Probability Model (LPM), the logit and probit models.
However, this study at outset rejected LPM because of the probability of the events may occur
outside the range of 0 and 1. At the same time this approach is not logically convincing since it
assumes the linear interaction between the response and the explanatory variables (ibid). Indeed
this approach is very simple and straight forward as compared to the logit and probit, but since this
study employed multiple variables that are not normally distributed the LPM have not used to
escape from erroneous results. Therefore, what we left is to choose between the logit and the
probit. Concerning the two models various studies have shown that they have similarities as a result
the choice will left up to the researchers' personal experience with the two models. However, in
many cases the logit model found to be appropriate for binary response due its plainness and
easiness of interpretation of the model outputs. Hence the study used the logit model that can best
fit the variables used in this particular study.
Recently specification of the logit or other econometrics models became irrelevant due to the fact
that the advancement in software development reduced the painstaking work of the manual
derivation of the various econometric formulas. However, to make aware of the readers of this
study, the logit model specified following the book of Gujarati (2004) as follow:
=
=
1
=
1
1 +
(
..
)
... ... ... ... ... ... . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 1
Since,
=
+
+
. . +
the above formula can be rewrite as shown below for
easy of understanding.
31
=
=
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 2
The above formula indicates that as the value of ranges from negative infinitive to positive
infinitive Pi the probability households' decision to use water for home based productive activities
ranged between 0 and 1.
Therefore, when (Pi) is the probability of households to engage in productive use of water, (1-Pi)
then will be the probability of households not using water for productive activities. This can be
represented as:
1 -
=
1
1 +
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . .3
Now the most important element in the logistic regression is the odds ratio that can obtained from
equation (3) which is represented as
as show in the following expression:
1 -
=
1 +
1 +
=
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .4
The odds ratio in logistic mode shows the extent or degree of favoring the households using water
for productive activities.
When we take the natural logarithm of equation (4), we can obtain the following formula for logit
model which mostly represented as Li:
= ln
=
=
+
+
. . +
... ... . . ... . ... . ... ... ... ... . ... ... ... ... ... 5
Then if the disturbance term Ui is taken in to account the logit model becomes:
=
+
+
... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .6
Where:
= the intercept. It is the value of the log odd ratio
1-
, when X or explanatory variable is
zero.
32
the slope, measures the change in L (logit) for a unit change in explanatory variables (X)
3.3 Definition of Variables and Working Hypothesis
Dependent Variable
Since this study in addition to the descriptive analysis explored the main factors that affect the
productive use of water by the rural Households, thus in this regard operational definition of the
variables used in the study is very crucial. Therefore, the dependent variable for this study was
Productive Use of Water by the household which is defined as when households engaged in one or
more productive activities of water at household level, they are assumed as users of water for home
based productive activities. Hence the dependent variable for the study represented as 1 for users
and 0 for non-users.
Definition of Independent Variables
Family Size (TOTFAMSIZ): This variable measured in number individuals within the household
and considered as a continuous variable. As the number of household increased the consumption
requirement also increased at the expense of productive use. Therefore, it was assumed to affect
the productive use of water negatively.
Educated Family Number (EDUFAM): The literacy level of the rural household in this study
was considered as the number of family member who attained the primary education and above
used as a proxy to represent the overall literacy level of the household. Hence as long as the
numbers of family that attained primary education and above increased, the awareness of the rural
household towards the use of water for income generating activities would be high (Odunuga, K.
2010). This variable was therefore seen as continuous variable that can be measured in terms of
numbers of household members that were attained the specified educational level.
Sex of Household Head (SEXHH): The sex of the household head also considered as the main
determinant variable for the productive use of water. The assumption was that female household
head are highly intermingled with water and it is women who know the productive role of water
than male headed household (Dessalegn, 2012). Moreover, women are the house managers who
efficiently allocate water for both domestic and productive use. Therefore, this dummy variable
33
took 1 for female and 0 for male and hypothesized to positively influence Home Based Productive
Activities.
Age of the Household Head (AGEHH): Age of the household head as an independent variable
has been measured in terms of years of life span for the respective household leader. Therefore, it
was a continuous variable that can have influence on the productive use. In this study age was seen
in two ways; age as a proxy for experience on business activities which would contribute positively
for households to engage in small-scale productive use of water and on the other hand older age
can been seen as less innovative and creative than youths. Therefore, it was safe to leave the
direction of age's relation with productive use of water.
Distance traveled (DISTANCEMAIN): This variable is defined as the length of travel made
during water fetching and therefore considered as continues variable that can be measure in terms
of meters traveled. As distance traveled by the household increased, the households would reduce
the quantity and the trip of water collection thereby affecting the water supply of the household
and thereby the productive quantity of water. Hence it was hypothesized that distance and
productive use of water are inversely related.
Queue Time (QUEUETIME): This variable separately treated from distance with the intention to
see the time spent at the source point. Therefore, the time spent at the place of water source
measured in terms of minutes, hence considered as continuous variable. The more the household
stay at the source point, the lesser the trip they do have for water collection thereby affecting the
prospects of productive use of water negatively.
Income of household (MONTHICOME): This variable is a continuous variable measured in
terms of Ethiopian Birr by aggregating the total income that households earn from agricultural and
non-agricultural incomes. Since more income motivates the household to fetch the amount of water
(Bihon, 2006) that the household require for both consumptive and productive use, hence income
of the household was assumed to have positive influence of the productive use of water.
Price of water (PRICEJERICA): The price of water as a continuous
variable which was
measured in terms of liters of water per cents. In this regard the higher the price of water that the
households pay, the more it discourages to fetch more water for productive use beyond the basic
needs use. Hence the price of water was hypothesized to have negative influence on the home based
productive use of water.
34
Ownership of water sources (OWNERSHIP): Ownership to private water supply source
assumed to increase the productive use of water by the households through the trouble-free
availability and accessibility of water at house compound. Since this variable let the respondents
to have two alternatives the variable considered as dummy variable in which those who have their
own water supply would take the value 1 other wise 0.
Satisfaction of water service (SATISSERV): Satisfaction with the water service also considered
as the determinant factor to households productive use of water. For this variable it was
hypothesized that the more the households are satisfied with the water service provision in the
area, the better the households are initiated to use water as the main input to the small-scale income
generating activities. Therefore this variable can be seen as ordinal variable which take 1, 2, 3, 4,
and 5, for highly satisfied, moderately satisfied, satisfied, poorly satisfied and not satisfied
responses respectively.
Training on entrepreneurship (TRAINING): Training on creativity and income generating
activities are assumed to promote households to engage in small-scale productive use of water.
Hence this variable have been assumed to have positive influence on the productive use of water
which can be represented as 1 for those who got training other wise 0.
Alternative Free Source (FREEALTER): The types of rural water supply sources are multiple.
This variable represents the various water sources which are grouped as free access and access with
restriction. This variable can be represented as 1 for households that have alternative of free water
access other wise 0. Therefore, for this variable it was hypothesized in such way that water sources
which are free could have positive contribution to the success of productive use of water as opposed
to the access with restriction.
35
CHAPTER FOUR
4. DISCUSSION
4.1 Introduction
As pointed out in chapter one of this study the main objectives of the study were, to assess the main
home based productive use of water, to investigate the factors that constrained the productive use
of water at the rural household level and to examine the major challenges of rural water supply in
Metema woreda. Hence in the following section depending on the nature of objectives and the
diverse analysis technique requirements, a range of descriptive statistics and logistic regression
model analysis techniques are employed to analyze the aforementioned objectives. The major
descriptive statistics such as frequencies, mean, percentage, maximum and minimum computations
were employed. In addition the chi-square test and t-test were used for dummy and continuous
variables to recognize the presence of association and mean difference between the productive
users of water and non-user households respectively. Moreover, the logistic regression employed
to see the cumulative effect of each variable on the productive use of water at household level.
4.2 Demographic and Socio-economic Profile of the Respondents
The major demographic components and socio-economic variables that were assumed to have
relevance with the objectives of the study are discussed in this subsection. This section clearly
showed the survey respondents profile in terms of the demographic and socio-economic
characteristics of the rural households.
4.2.1 Demographic Profile of the Respondents
As shown in the Table 4.1 below the study interviewed 130 households from which 71 % of the
households are male headed households whereas the remaining 29 % are female headed
households. Looking in to the age distribution of the head of the households, it ranges from 20
years old to 65 years with the mean age of 39 years old. However much of the respondent
households were found under the distribution between 36 55 years old which is 62 % of the total
respondents. Whereas the family size distribution for the survey respondent extended from a
36
minimum of 1 family size to the maximum of 7 (seven) family members per household with 3.92
mean family size per household. The survey result also indicated that the majority of respondent
households' total family size distribution concentrated between 3 5 family members which take
70 % of the total respondents. Hence for this discussion it is possible to understand that most the
respondents are found under the productive age category.
Table 4.1: Sex, Age and Family Size Distribution of the Survey Respondents
Demographic Characteristics
Frequency(n)
Percent (%)
Sex of Household Heads -Male
-Female
-Total
92
38
130
71
29
100
Age of Household Heads A. <= 35
B. 36 55
C. > 55 age
E. Total
42
81
7
130
32
62
6
100
Min. = 20, Max. = 65, Mean = 39
Family size
A. 1 2
B. 3 5
C. 6 7
D. Total
23
92
15
130
18.0
70.0
12.0
100
Min. = 1, Max.= 7, Mean = 3.92
Source: Own Survey Computation, 2013.
In addition to the above demographic profiles of the survey respondents; marital status of the
households, the educational attainment of the household head, religion, and duration of residence
in the study area were assessed in this section. Firstly when we see marital status of the respondents
about 71 % of the respondents are married while the remaining 12 %, 9 %, 6% and 2 % are single,
divorced, widowed and cohabited respectively. The figure noticeably conveyed that all most the
majority of the respondent households were couples than the widow and single household heads.
Table 4.2 Marital status of the sample survey respondents
37
Marital status
Frequency
Percent (%)
Single
16
12
Married
92
71
Divorced
12
9
Widowed
7
6
Co-habited
3
2
Total
130
100.0
Source: Own Survey Computation, 2013
The other relevant variable in this section is the educational attainment of household respondents.
Educational background of the survey household heads is believed to be an important feature that
determines the readiness of the household head to accept new ideas, business creations and so that
tendency to use water for income generating activities. As previewed in Table 4.3 the majority of
the household heads (43 %) are illiterates who are followed by those who reads and write (32 %)
and the remaining respondents for households educational attainment takes 16 %, 6 %, 2 and 1 %
for 1 5 schooling, 6 8 schooling, 9 10 schooling and for college or university respectively.
This presentation clearly showed that much of the respondents are illiterates or only limited in
reading and writing which can be the main hindrance for home based productive use of water as a
means of income generating activities due to the low level of educational attainment of the
household heads. However, in the forth coming sections this variable and other selected variables
are discussed to know the relative effect of each variable of the productive use of rural water supply.
38
Table 4.3 Educational Attainment of Household Heads of the Survey Respondents
Educational attainment
Frequency
Percent (%)
Illiterate
55
43
Read and Write
42
32
1-5 Schooling
21
16
6-8 Schooling
8
6
9-10 Schooling
3
2
College/University
1
1
Total
130
100.0
Source: Own survey Computation, 2013.
At the same time the numbers of families who attained primary education level and above were
also assessed since the presence of family member who are literate are contributing to the
betterment of the households beyond the literacy level of the household heads. However the survey
only takes in to consideration those who are currently present within the households. Hence family
members outside the households are not considered because as their proximity became very low,
their contribution will be less. Taking this in to account, the survey result showed that the total
family member who are attaining primary education level and above were found within range
between zero and five family members. That means there are households with no family member
who are above primary education level, on the other hand there are also households with a
maximum of five family members who are attained primary and above primary education. While
looking in to the distribution of number of family members who are attaining primary education
level and above, Table 4.4 indicated that those who have a total of five family members who are
attaining primary level and above are very low which is 1 % but the majority of households have
two family members which account 49 % of the total. Moreover the table below revealed that 11
% of the respondents didn't have family members who are above primary education level. This is
39
may be due to the separation of literate family member or due to totally absence of literate family
member as evidenced in the above discussion.
In this section it is possible to comprehend that in addition low literacy level of household heads
the total household's literacy level also found to be lower. So this cumulatively may reduce
household ability to use water as a means of income generation.
Table 4.4: Number of Family Attaining Above Primary Education Level
No family above primary
Frequency
Percent (%)
0
15
11
1
31
24
2
64
49
3
19
15
5
1
1
Total
130
100.0
Min. = 0 Max. = 5,
Source: Own Survey Computation, 2013.
Lastly the religious beliefs of the respondents and year of residence in the woreda were analyzed.
As presented below in Table 4.5 the sample survey respondents are predominated by orthodox
Christian followers which are 70.8 % of the total respondents and followed by Muslims followers
which are 26.2 % and the remaining 3.0 % are protestant and catholic Christians. Whereas the
attempt to know the duration of respondents in the study area showed that 77.0 % of the sample
surveys are reside in the area for more than 15 years and the remaining 21 % and 2 % of the
respondents are reside in their respective area for 6-15 years and for less than 5 years respectively.
From this figure it is possible to learn that the majority of the respondents are familiar with the
areas' socio-economic activities and therefore this could contribute positively for the productive
use of water as income generation activity.
40
Table 4.5: Religion and Year of Residence of Sample Survey Respondents
Religion
Frequency
Present (%)
Orthodox
Muslim
Others
Total
92
34
4
130
71
26
3
100
Year of residence
< = 5 years
6 15 years
>15 year
Total
2
28
100
130
2
21
77.0
100
Source: Own Survey Computation, 2013.
4.2.2 Socio-economic Profile of the Respondents
So far in the previous section the major demographic characteristics were presented. Now in this
section the important socio-economic profile of the respondents such as; the main occupation of
households, monthly income of the households, ownership of water sources and their engagement
in productive use of water are discussed as follow. Firstly, the main occupations of the survey
respondents have been assessed and as shown below (Table 4.6) the leading occupation for most
of the respondents was Agriculture which took 79 % of the total respondents. While the remaining
21 % of the respondents are employed in various Non-Agricultural activities such as; (government
employee, as trader, and as daily laborer). Though in this section the main occupations are
presented as agriculture and non-agriculture the survey questionnaire explores the various
occupations as shown in the above bracket. The possible implication of this figure is that still the
rural households' show to depend on more agriculture than the use of other means of income
generation activities.
41
Table 4.6: The Main Occupation of the Survey respondents in the Study Area
Occupations
Frequency
Percent (%)
Agriculture
103
79
Non- agriculture
27
21
Total
130
100
Source: Own Survey Computation, 2013.
The second component under the socio-economic profile of the respondents is the average monthly
income. In this regard household respondents are allowed to indicate the average monthly income
of the household and as shown in Table 4.7, 200 birr was the minimum and 1500 birr the maximum
monthly income of the respondents with a mean income of 545 birr. Looking in to the distribution
40.0 % of the respondents found under the categories between 400 and 600 birr, 32.0 % of them
have income which is below 400 birr. Whereas the remaining 15.0 % ,11.0 % and 2.0 % of them
are found under the categories of 601 800, 801 1000 and above 1000 birr respectively. In this
discussion we can learnt that around 72.0 % of the households have the income level which is
below 601 birr. Therefore, such low level of household income may hinder households to have
their own water connection and working capital to use water as a means of small scale productive
uses.
Table 4.7: The Income Categories of Sample Survey Respondents
Income categories (in ETB
*
) Frequency
Percent
Less than 400
42
32.0 Min. = 200
400 600
52
40.0 Max. = 1500
601 800
19
15.0 Mean = 545
42
801 1000
14
11.0
Above 1000
3
2.0
Total
130
100
Source: Computed from own survey, 2013. * Ethiopian Birr
In addition to the income level of households' ownership of water supply sources also are indicators
of asset and the wealth level of rural households. Therefore, presenting ownership status of
households here found to be appropriate. The Table 4.8 below pointed out that it is only the small
proportions (16 %) of the respondents were found to have their own water supply sources whereas
the majorities (84 %) of the households do not have their own water supply source. This could be
due to the low level of households' income as shown in the above table or due to the low level of
water infrastructure of the woreda which is evidenced with small proportion of households who
have their own water connection.
Finally considering the productive use of water at household level as a means of small scale income
generating activities, the study identified the productive users and non users. To this effect from
the total 130 respondents interviewed 47 (36.2 %) were households that were use water for small
scale income generating activities and 83 (63.8 %) were non-users of water for productive purpose.
Hence though not fully practice by the majority of rural households, nearly one third of the
respondents found to use water to supplement the agricultural income. (See Table 4.8 below)
Table 4.8: Ownership of Water Sources for Respondent Households' of the Study Area
Ownership of
water sources
Frequency
Percent (%)
Yes
21
16
No
109
84
Total
130
100
43
Productive use of water
Frequency
Percent (%)
Yes
47
36.2
No
83
63.8
Total
130
100
Source: Own Survey Computation, 2013.
4.3 Rural Water Sources and Consumption Nature of Households
4.3.1 The Main Water Sources of the Study Area
Rural households use multiple sources for different household activities. Hence having
understanding the diverse nature of the sources for the rural households, the study assessed the
major water sources in the study area. As per the discussion made during the FGD, discussants are
required to present the main water sources. As to their response public hand pump, public stand
pipes and river water were reported as the most important water sources in the study area. Besides
the FGD result, the observation made during the study time affirmed the prevalence of hand pump
and public stand posts were seen where large size of beneficiaries are fetching water.
Though rural households use multiple sources for different purposes the study also assessed the
main water sources that the household uses frequently through the survey questionnaire.
Accordingly as the survey result showed in the Table 4.9 below, 30.8 % of the respondents are
found to indicate the hand pump as their usual water source. While 23 % of the households respond
public stand pipes as their main water sources. And the remaining respondents indicated that
boreholes (16 %), springs or ponds (11 %), river water (10 %) and private connections (9 %) are
the respective water sources for the households. In this discussion, it is possible to understand that
hand pumps and public stand pipes are the main water sources for the rural households of the study
area. While the level of private water connection found at poorer level which is below 10 %
according to the response of households. This clearly portrayed a message that rural households
are still depended on communal water supply than having their own water sources and private
44
connections. This could have reduced the probability of households' engagement in home based
productive use of water by the rural households.
Table 4.9: The Main Water Sources of Households in Study Area
Main water sources
Frequency
Percent (%)
Rank
Hand pump
39
31
1
st
Boreholes
21
16
3
rd
Private(metered) Connection
12
9
6
th
Springs or Ponds
13
11
4
th
Public stand pipe
31
23
2
nd
River water
14
10
5
th
Total
130
100
Source: Own Survey Computation, 2013.
4.3.2 The Water Consumption Situation of Rural Households' Activities
Ahead of discussing the major challenges of rural water supply and the productive use of domestic
water supply it is vital to present the water consumption pattern of the survey respondents. In this
regard households were asked to estimate the amount of water that they consumed for different
household chores including the home based productive use of water. The pie chart below showed
that the various rural household activities have different requirement of water. From the five
common activities, the water requirement for home based productive use of water prevailed more
than the others. According to the average computation households in the study area consumed
60.95 liters per day for productive uses which is followed by personal hygiene and washing of
home appliance. For the latter two activities households consumed on average 23.88 liters per day
and 18.88 liter per day respectively. Whereas the quantity of water used for drinking estimated to
be 16.21 liters per day for the households.
45
Aggregating the mean water consumption for all activities in the study area, households have found
to consume 134.85 liters per day for both basic needs requirement and productive activities. Hence
from the total 134.85 liters of water, a home based productive activity alone takes 45 % of water
from the total consumption. Whereas the remaining 55 % of the total households consumption
devoted for basic needs requirement (drinking, washing, cooking and personal hygiene). The
literature review from international productive use of water showed that 44 % of water
consumptions are used for activities others than basic needs requirement (Naidoo, Chidiley, Main,
& Vrdolak, 2009). This study similarly indicated that 45 % of the water consumptions are used for
home based productive activities for generating income at household level. Therefore it is possible
to conclude that at household level productive requirement of water is very large which implies
that as equally important as quality requirement, the quantity of water supply also has great
importance to the rural households income generation activities.
The pie chart showed that though water requirement for basic needs such as drinking, cooking,
personal hygiene and washing of appliance are the necessities it is the home based productive use
of water which consumes the lions' share as presented above. Hence considerations should be taken
while water projects are designed to be aware of the importance of home based productive use of
water by the rural households.
Source: Own Survey Computation, 2013.
16,21
18,88
14,99
23,82
60,95
Figure 4.1 Households Mean Water Consuption
for different activities
Drinking
Washing
Cooking
Personal hygiene
productive use
Total = 134.85 liters/day
46
4.3.3 The Water Supply and Demand for Households of the Study Area
So far the requirements of water for various activities have been presented. Now to know the
discrepancy between the current water consumption of households and the estimated demand for
various activities, the estimated of water demand for different activities were assessed and analyzed
with the following figure. As Figure 4.2 depicted the discrepancy between the water demand of the
households and the water supply potential of the households remain unmet to all respondents of
the survey. On the other hand a separate analysis was done to signify the mean per capita water
consumption and demand of the study households. The result of the analysis indicated that the
mean per capita water consumption of study households was 22.69 lpd whereas the mean per capita
water demand for the households was 29.41 lpd which showed a 6.72 lpd gap. From this discussion
we can understood that still the households' demand for water doesn't met. As a result of this
households obliged only to use water for the usual basic needs instead of using water for home
based productive activities.
Figure 4.2: Households Water Consumption and the Demand for Water (gap)
Source: Own Survey Computation, 2013.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
1
7
13
19
25
31
37
43
49
55
61
67
73
79
85
91
97
10
3
10
9
11
5
12
1
12
7
l
i
t
e
r
Households
Demand Lpd
Supply Lpd
47
4.4 Home Based Productive Use of Water in the Study Area
4.4.1 The Main Productive Uses of Water in the Study Area
As defined in the preceding chapter productive use of rural water implies the use of water for home
based income generation activities by the rural households. Hence having understood the role rural
water as a means of income generating activities, the study have made attempts to identify the main
productive use of water and the factors that constrained the practice of these activities.
This section is devoted for the identification of the major home based productive use of water
through various techniques, whereas the next section discussed the factors that constrained the
home based productive uses of water by the rural households.
To identify the main productive use of water at rural household level, multiple techniques have
been employed. The first technique was the Focused Group Discussion (FGD) to isolate the major
home based uses of water in the woreda. In this case around eight discussants were selected and
exposed for intensive discussion to identify these activities and to rank them based on the frequent
occurrence of activities in the woreda. To this end traditional brewery (such as tela, tej, and areki),
home gardening, rural restaurant, water selling, small ruminants and rural bath services were
identified during the discussion. After discovery of these home based productive uses of water,
ranking of these activities necessitated to be familiar with the relative importance of activities in
the study area. Hence pair wise-ranking conducted with the discussants to prioritize the identified
activities. All the discussants were asked to compare each pair of activities and put their preference
in each of the boxes as shown in the table below.
Table 4.10: Pair-wise Ranking for the Main Home Based Productive Use of Water
RANK
1.Traditional
brewery
2.Home
gardening
3.Ruminants 4.Rural-
bath
service
5.Water
selling
6.
Restaurant
1.Traditional
brewery
1
1
1
1
1
2.Home
gardening
1
2
2
5
2
3.Ruminants 1
2
3
5
6
48
4.Rural-bath
service
1
2
3
4
6
5.Water
selling
1
6
5
5
5
6.Restaurant
1
2
6
6
6
Source: Computed from FGD, 2013
When the pair-wise ranking presented in terms of percentage for the total discussants, it is the
traditional brewery activity which takes 33 % of the total response. Whereas home gardening, water
selling, restaurant and small ruminants takes 20 %, 20 %, 17 % and 7 % respectively. Finally by
comparing the percentage or frequency of occurrence activities, activities are ranked from 1 to 5
as shown in the Figure 4.3 below. From the focused group discussion it is understood that
traditional brewery was as the main small scale economic activity which is also seen as the main
profitable activity. This is due to the harsh environmental condition of the area which necessitates
the great needs of water and alcohol to compensate the extraction of water due to the high
temperature of the study area.
Figure 4.3: Ranking of the Home Based Productive Activities of Water in the study area
Source: Computed from FGD, 2013.
Though the FGD result presented a head of the survey result, the survey as well confirms the
outcomes of the FGD. The survey result confirmed that traditional brewery activities are taking the
lead which accounted 40.4 % of the total users of water for home based income generating
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Traditional
brewery
Home
gardening
Restaurant
Water
selling
Rural bath
service
Ruminants
33
20
17
20
3
7
1
2
3
2
5
4
49
activities. Then home gardening and water selling takes the second precedence in the study area.
On the other hand rural bath service and restaurants are among the lowest productive uses of water.
The reasons for prevalence of the traditional brewery in the study area were twofold: one as stated
earlier the hot environmental condition of the area and secondly due to the open marketing situation
of the woreda with the town of Sudan known as gelabat.
Table 4.11: Home Based Productive Uses Water by the Respondent Households
Productive use of water for Frequency
Percent (%)
Percent % ( Users only)
Traditional brewery
19
14.6
40.4
Home gardening
10
7.7
21.3
Small Ruminants
3
2.3
6.4
Restaurant
4
3.1
8.5
Rural bath room
1
0.8
2.1
Water selling
10
7.7
21.3
Non- users
43
63.8
Total
130
100
100
Source: Own Survey Computation, 2013.
So as to understand the profitability and how the rural households perceive the profitability of home
based productive use of water, the researcher tried to assess the perception of households on the
profitability of these activities. Of the total respondents Table 4.12 showed that 54.6 % and 27.7 %
of the households believe that home based productive uses of water are moderately profitable and
profitable respectively. It is only 17.7 % of the respondents who perceive productive use of water
as not profitable. Therefore, it is possible to elicit that the woreda's perception on the profitability
of using water as income generating activities have good attitude on the activities.
Table 4.12: Perception on the Profitability of HPU of Water
50
Profitability perception
Frequency
Percent (%)
Profitable
36
27.7
Moderately profitable
71
54.6
Not profitable
23
17.7
Total
130
100
Source: Own Survey Computation, 2013.
At the same time respondents were asked to indicate that water is the prime input if the households
ready them to engage in home based productive activities. As shown in the table above the majority
(60 %) believed that if the households are needed to engage themselves in home based income
generating activities, water is the prime input. However, relatively 40 % of the respondents believe
that it is not only water which is the prime input but there are also other factors according to them.
These are sufficient working capital, presence of sufficient customers and experience were the
important factors for the households to engage in home based income generating activities. Hence
though water found to be the engine for home based productive uses, not only the water supply
situation per see which matters, but also households economic condition and the presence attractive
market in the area.
4.4.2 Factors that Affect Home Based Productive Use of Water
In this section efforts are made to see the presence of significant statistical difference between the
two groups (productive users of water and non-users) in terms of the selected variables and also
the effects of these variables on the productive use of domestic water supply were investigated.
The following section presents these two discussions respectively.
51
4.4.2.1 Descriptive Statistic of HPU of Water
To really witness the presence of significant statistical difference between the two groups
(productive users of water and non-users) in terms of the selected variables, both the t-test and chi-
square test were employed. In this regard variables were initially grouped as continuous and
discrete variables. Then t-test employed for continuous variables whereas the chi-square test used
for discrete variables.
Using independent sample T-test all the continuous explanatory variables were tested to witness
the existences of significance mean difference between the two groups. As shown in the Table
4.14, except age of the household heads all continuous variables were found to be significant at
less than one percent probability level.
As expected the number of literate family and households' monthly income showed a significant
positive association with the productive use of water at household level. Whereas, total family size,
the distance travel for fetching water, queue time, and price of water per jerica showed the expected
negative association with the productive use of water at less than one percent probability level.
Table 4.13: Mean Comparison between Uses and Non users of Water for Continuous
Variables
Variables
Productive Use of
water (Users)
Non- Use of water
(Non - Users)
T-value
Sig.
level
Mean
St.Dv
Mean
St.Dv
AGEHH
39.77
8.89
39.04
8.18
0.473
0.637
EDUFAM
2.00
0.933
1.53
0.86
2.902
***
0.004
TOTFAMSIZ
3.47
1.23
4.17
1.39
-2.867
***
0.005
MONTHICOME
641.28
258.82
490.70
220.80
3.507
***
0.000
DISTANCEMAIN
120.36
121.28
402.05
199.68
- 8.788
***
0.000
QUEUETIME
27.07
12.72
40.43
12.47
- 5.848
***
0.000
52
PRICEJERICA
0.35
0.20
0.55
0.27
- 4.503
***
0.000
Source: Own Survey Computation, 2013. *** represents significance level at 1 %
The number of educated family (EDUFAM) is higher for households who use water for home
based productive activities. The mean value for number of educated family member is 2.00 and
1.53 for productive users and non-users respectively. The significance level for this variable
showed that, the presence statistically significant mean difference between the users and non-users
at below 1 % significance level. The test for this variable agreed with the prior expectation of the
study in that as long as the numbers of families that attained primary education and above increased
the awareness of the rural household towards the use of water for income generating activities to
be high. For this variable the study of Odunuga, (2010) concluded that the education of the family
members play a significant role for the households' livelihood activities as it help members to
become proactive, gained control of their life's and widen a range of livelihood alternatives.
As to the monthly income of the households (MONTHICOME), the survey result indicated that
the mean monthly income for productive users and non-users is to be 641.28 and 490.70
respectively. The t-test affirmed the prior expectation of the study in which the more the income
of the respondents earn, the better the households fetch water for productive activities in addition
to the usual basic needs requirement. The p- value for this variable indicated a significant mean
difference groups at below 1 % significance level. However, the study of Mokgope, & Butterworth,
(2001) concluded that wealth doesn't have effect on the productive use of water at household level.
On the other hand the findings of Gamedze et al, (2012) agreed that the income of the households
as a stimulating variable to have more water to meet the emergent needs of water at household
level.
Whereas the total family size (TOTFAMSIZ) for each group analyzed and showed that the mean
total family size for productive users and non-users showed 3.47 with 1.23 standard deviation and
4.17 with 1.39 standard deviations respectively for each group. The mean difference for the two
groups indicated that there is a statistically significant difference at less than 1 % probability level.
Hence, the previous proposition which implied as the number of household increased the
consumption requirement also increased at the expense of productive use became true with the
statistical test. That means larger family size in the study area constrained the productive use of
53
water at household level. Putting differently, the households with large family size requires large
amount of water which affects the basic needs beyond the productive uses.
With regard to the distance travel during water fetching to the main water sources
(DISTANNCEMAIN); the mean distance difference for productive users and non-users is
statistically significant at less than 1 % probability level. As shown in the above table the distance
traveled for productive users and non-users is 120.36 meters and 402.05 meters for a single trip
respectively. The study also agreed with the expectation of the study which stated that the more the
distance households traveled, the strongly to constrained the productive requirement of water.
Hence distance has negative association with the productive use of water at household level.
Contrary to this, the study of Gamedze, et al, (2012) concluded that distance have low level of
power to determine the need of water for the rural households.
The last continuous variable which shows significant result was the queue time; (QUEUETIME)
the time spent for fetching water at the source point. The mean queue time for productive users and
non-users is 27.07 minutes and 40.07 minutes respectively for the two groups. This variable also
showed a significant mean different between the groups at less than 1% significant level. The
possible explanation is that the longer the households stayed at the point of the water source the
more they discouraged to fetch water frequently. Then this will affect the productive use of water
at household level. The finding for this variable also is in agreement with the prior expectation of
the study.
Similarly the chi-square (X
2
) test was employed to assess the potential power of the discrete
variables that influence the productive use of water and the results of the test are presented in Table
4.14.
Table 4.14: Chi-Square Test for Discrete Variables
Variables
Productive Use of
water( Users)
N = 47
Non- Use of water
( Non-Users)
N =83
Chi-square
Value
Sig.
level
Numbe
r
Percent Number Percent
54
SEXHH Female
Male
24
23
51.0
49.0
14
69
16.7
83.3
16.963
***
0.000
TRAINING Yes
No
29
18
61.7
38.3
30
53
36.1
63.9
7.908
***
0.005
OWNERSHIP Yes
No
17
30
36.2
63.8
4
79
4.8
95.2
21.77***
0.000
FREEALTER Yes
No
30
17
63.8
36.2
23
60
27.7
72.3
16.21***
0.000
Source: Own Survey Computation, 2013. *** represents significance level at 1 %
Table 4.14 clearly shows that the four discrete variables, hypothesized to influence the productive
use of water in the study area, such as sex of the household head (SEXHH), attainment of trainings
(TRAINING) on entrepreneurship, ownership of water sources (OWNERSHIP) and the presence
of free alternative water sources (FREEALTER) were statistically significant at less than 1 %
probability level to show the existence of association between productive users and non-users. This
result is in complete agreement with the a priori expectation.
The table also illustrates that 51.0 % of the productive users and 16.7 % of non-uses are female
headed households with a chi-square result X
2
(1, N=130) =
16.96, p =0.000 which implied the
presence of statistically significant difference between productive users and non-users in terms of
the sex of household heads. Additionally the result indicated that being female household head has
a positive association on the productive use of water. The result of the study also agreed with the
study of Mokgope & Butterworth, (2001). This implies that the role of female households for home
based small scale income generating activities is very positive as compared to the male
counterparts.
Similarly the above table demonstrates that 61.7 % of the productive users and 36.1 % of non-users
had training on entrepreneurship with a chi-square result X
2
(1, N =130) = 7.908, p = 0.005 which
implied the presence of statistically significance difference between productive users and non-users
in terms of training attainment. At the same time the result indicted that training on
entrepreneurship has positive association with the productive use of water. This result also has
55
perfect resemblance with the prior expectation of the study. This implied that households who are
exposed for some sorts of training on creativity and entrepreneurship have a positive association
with productive use of water at household level.
Looking in to the association between productive use and ownership of water sources, the table
indicated that 36.2 % of the productive users and 4.8 % of non-users have their own water supply
sources with chi-square value, X
2
(1, N= 130) =
21.77, p = 0.000 which signify the existence of
statistically significant association between ownership of water sources and the productive use of
water. The result has shown to meet the expectation of the study which states that ownership of
water sources has a positive association with the productive use of water. The same is true for
households which have a free alternative water sources to show a positive association with the
productive use of water at household level. The value of chi-square shows the expected result in
which the presence of free alternative water sources motivates households for home based
productive use of water at household level. Therefore we can say that households who have their
own water source will be motivated to use water as source of income as compared to those of who
didn't have their own water sources. Moreover, the presence free alternative water sources around
the households such as river water and springs were associated with the productive use of water.
Though these sources are not served as basic needs purpose, for productive activities their
contribution found to be significant.
4.4.2.2 Model Output for factors of Home Based Productive Use of Water
In the above discussion mainly the descriptive analysis has been used to investigate the existence
of association and mean difference between the Home Based Productive Use (HPU) of household
water supply and the various explanatory variables. However, looking the associations and mean
difference per see doesn't show the unique effect of each variable on the response variable. Hence
in this section the logit model which is most excellent to predict the numerous variables degree of
effect on the dependent variable were discussed.
However, ahead of the explanatory variables are placed in to the logistic model, the preliminary
diagnosis of the nature of the data, multicollinearity and normality tests are mandatory. Hence the
explanatory variables selected in this study both continuous and discrete variables were undergoing
on a serious of multicollinearity test. In this case VIF tests were used to see the colinearity problem
56
within the continuous variables whereas the coefficient of variation (pair-wise correlation within
variables) employed to detect the colinearity problems within the discrete variable. Yet, whatever
detections are used, multicollinearity problem is not a matter of absence or presence within the
variables rather it is the matter of degree of reduction. Therefore, so as to minimize the degree of
multicollinearity to the lower possible degree, the multicollinearity tests were conducted for both
variables.
In this case for continuous variables if the variance inflation factors (VIF) are found to exceed the
value 10, the variables are obliged for exclusion from the model as per the rule of thumb for logistic
regression. The variance inflation factor is described as:
=
VIF shows how the variance of an estimator is inflated by the presence of multicollinearity. As
2
approaches 1, the VIF increased tremendously. That is, as the extent of collinearity between the
variables increases, the variance of an estimator increases, and in the limit it can become infinite
(Gujarati, 2004). Obeying this rule each continuous variable regressed against the remaining
continuous variables and as shown in Table 4.15, the values of VIF for all variables were found to
be below 2.00, which imply the absence of serious multicolinearity problem for all continuous
variables.
Table 4.15: Colinearity Diagnosis for Continuous Explanatory Variables
Variables
1 - R
2
VIF
AGEHH
0.085
0.915
1.09
EDUFAM
0.114
0.886
1.13
TOTFAMSIZ
0.280
0.720
1.39
MONTHICOME
0.225
0.775
1.29
DISTANCEMAIN
0.304
0.696
1.43
QUEUETIME
0.284
0.716
1.39
57
PRICEJERICA
0.228
0.772
1.29
Source: Computed from own survey, 2013.
On the other hand the discrete variables that were used for logistic regression are required not to
get in touch with the value of 1 which signifies perfect correlation. Governed by this rule; the study
undergoing multicollinearity test for the entire discrete variables using pair-wise correlation
techniques. As shown in the Table 4.16, the correlation coefficient for all discrete explanatory
variables is below 0.316. Hence it is possible to say that there is no as such intricate
multicollinearity problem among the variables. This revealed that from the initial data collection
and measurement there is no as such numerical errors that can affect the model output and the
standard error will be very low to create erroneous output.
Table 4.16: Colinearity Diagnosis for Discrete Explanatory Variables.
Variables
SEXHH TRAINING OWNERSHIP FREEALTER SATISSERV
SEXHH
1.00
0.229
0.223
0.224
0.247
TRAINING
1.00
0.104
0.218
0.192
OWNERSHIP
1.00
0.316
0.202
FREEALTER
1.00
0.009
SATISSERV
1.00
Source: Computed from Own Survey, 2013.
Once checking the multicollinearity problems, it is now time to morph in to normality test. Since
the normality of the variables distribution is the essential test ahead of conducting any statistical
analysis. However SPSS requires normality test if the sample sizes are less than 50, other ways the
test of normality is not as such essential for sample size more than 50 (Elliott, & Woodward, 2007).
At the same time logistic regression does not make any assumptions of normality, linearity, and
homogeneity of variance for the independent variables. Due to these facts, logistic regression is
preferred over other analysis when the data does not satisfy these assumptions. Hence, test for these
is not only irrelevant rather is waste of time. But what matters in logistic regression is the effect of
58
outliers. In this regard standard residuals which can be analyzed using SPSS are employed.
Standard residuals are the techniques used for evaluating the impact of outliers on logistic
regression model. However, a serious of steps were followed to really recognize the whether the
outlier cases have effect on the model or not.
Firstly, the baseline model including all cases was analyzed. In the second case, the model
excluding outliers (whose standardized residual is greater than 3.0 or less than - 3.0) were run.
Secondly comparisons of the classification accuracy rates of both cases were evaluated. The finally
decision whether the outliers to be included or excluded from the model have been decided if the
accuracy rate of the revised model exceed the baseline model by 2% otherwise the original cases
are preferable to be used for interpretation.
As shown in the (Appendix I: A and B) the classification accuracy rate for both cases, the revised
model doesn't exceed the baseline data by 2 % hence inclusion of the outliers doesn't have impact
on the estimate of the model. Therefore, the baseline cases were used throughout the analysis of
the logistic model so as to get the attribute of all respondents.
Before interpreting the model output it is imperative to see how good the model is. To this effect
various techniques were employed. The first technique used was the classification table which
indicated the correct prediction of all samples, sensitivity and specificity. As shown in the Table
4.17 below the correct prediction of all samples is 85.4 %, whereas the sensitivity (correct
Prediction of Productive Users) and specificity (correct Prediction of Non-Productive Use) are 80.9
% and 88.0 % respectively.
Secondly, the model chi-square coefficients were used. As shown in the table below Omnibus tests
of models coefficients that display a chi-square value of 96.98 on 12 degrees of freedom, which is
highly significant beyond 0.001 level indicating that the predictor variables presented in the model
have a joint significant importance in predicting home based productive use of water.
Thirdly hosmer-lemishow result which showed value of this test statistic is 4.490 which is
compared to the cut-off value from the chi-square distribution with 5 degrees of freedom. The SPSS
output for p-value is 0.810, so we do not reject the null hypothesis that there is no difference
between the observed and predicted values, i.e. the model appears to fit the data reasonably well.
In the last the Cox and Snell and Nagelkerke pseudo R-square values of were seen to assess the
how the model fits the variables. The SPSS output showed that the values for cox and snell and
59
Nagelkerke pseudo R-square are 0.526 and 0.720 respectively. However because the Nagelkerke
is an improvement over the cox and snell, it is essential to use the value of Nagelkerke. Therefore,
the value of the Nagelkerke implied the model explains 72.0 % of the variation in the data that
means there are other variables that may influence the productive use of water in addition to the
selected variables.
Table 4.17: Logistic Regression Model Output for the Entire Explanatory Variables
Variables
Coefficient
Odds Ratio
Wald Statistics Sign. Level
SEXHH
1.498
4.471
3.549
*
0.060
AGEHH
-0.081
0.922
3.907
**
0.048
EDUFAM
0.570
1.769
2.566
0.109
TOTFAMSIZ
-0.222
0.801
0.752
0.386
TRAINING
0.099
1.104
0.026
0.872
MONTHINCOME 0.002
1.002
1.605
0.205
OWNERSHIP
-0.770
0.463
0.449
0.480
FREEALTER
0.369
1.446
0.274
0.601
DISTANCEMAIN -0.010
0.999
12.111
***
0.001
QUEUETIME
-0.072
0.931
6.731
***
0.009
PRICEJERICA
-4.695
0.009
7.848
***
0.005
SATISSERV
0.366
1.442
1.071
0.301
X
2
= 96.98
***
Hosmer-Lemishow = 4.490 df = 8 , p = 0.810
Nagelkerke pseudo R-square = 0.720 (72.0 %)
60
Correct Prediction of all samples (%) = 85.4 %
Correct Prediction of Productive Users (sensitivity) (%) = 80.9 %
Correct Prediction of Non-Productive Use (specificity) (%) = 88.0 %
Source: Computed From Own Survey, 2013. ***, **, and * represents the significance level at
1 %, 5 % and 10 % respectively.
As shown in the above table among the explanatory used in the model, five of the explanatory
variables were significant with respect to the productive use of water at household level. These
significant explanatory variables are discussed as follow:
Sex of the household head (SEXHH): as expected the sex of household heads was found to
influence the decision of respondents for the productive use of water positively and significantly
at less than 10 % probability level (p<0.10). The odds favoring the productive users of water
increases by a factor of 4.471 for female headed household respondents. The result also has
resemblance with the finding of Mokgope & Butterworth, (2001). This implies Female household
heads are the house managers who efficiently allocate water for both domestic and productive. As
a result, female headed household respondents are more likely to use water for home based
productive use at household level than male headed households.
Age of the household head (AGEHH) also seen as an independent variable that can influence the
productive use of water at household level. As indicated in the model output the age of household
head influence the productive use of water negatively and significantly at less than 5 % probability
level(p<0.05). In this study age has been seen in two ways; age as a proxy for experience on
business activities which will contribute positively for households to engage in small-scale
productive use of water and on the other hand older age can been seen as less innovative and
creative than youths. The result of the study supports the latter argument in which age has negative
influence on the productive use of water. The odds ratio of 0.922 for age of the household indicates
that, keeping the other factors constant, the odds ratio in favor of the productive use of water
decreases by a factor of 0.922 as the age of the household head increased by one year. The model
output implies that as long as the age household heads increased their motivation to use water for
income generation activity will be diminished, i.e. it is the young household heads are more creative
61
and innovative to use water other than the usual consumption of water. This study showed
resemblance with the result of Wassihun, (2008) which is conducted in Tigray regional state.
The distance traveled (DISTANCEMAIN) during water fetching to the main water source found
to influence the productive use of water negatively and significantly at less than 1% probability
level (p< 0.01) as expected. The odds ratio of 0.999 for the variable distance indicated that other
things being constant, the odds ratio in favor of the productive use of water decreases by a factor
of 0.999 as the distance traveled increases by one meter. In this regard the review of Rosen, and
Vincent, (1999) concluded that on average, reducing the distance to the water source found to
increases per capita water use when at the same time the containers are large. This is due to the fact
that the as the distance increased households obliged to reduce the quantity and the trip of water
collection thereby affecting the water supply of the household and this in turn affects the productive
quantity of water.
Queue time (QUEUETIME): the time spent at the source point for water fetching found to influence
the productive use of water negatively and significantly at less than 1 % probability level (p<0.01).
The odds ratio of 0.931 implied that keeping the effect of others variables constant, the odds ratio
in favor of the productive use of water decreases by 0.931 for an increase in a minute. The model
output shows the expected result in which the more the household stay at the source point, the
lesser the trip they do have for water collection thereby affecting the of productive use of water.
This more queue time at the source point not only affects the quantity requirement of water for
productive use but also reduces the productive times which will be lost at the source by waiting
their turns.
The price of water (PRICEJERICA) also shows negative influence on the productive use of water
at less than 1 % significance level (P< 0.01). Other things held constant, odds ratio of 0.009 for
price of water indicated that, the odds ratio in favor of the productive use of water decreases by
0.009 for every increase of one cents. The result of the study show complete agreement with the
prior expectation which states that the higher the price of water that the households pay, the more
it discourages to fetch more water for productive use beyond the domestic use. Hence water price
is therefore one of the constraint for home based productive use of water by the rural households
to supplement their meager income.
62
4.5 The Main Challenges of Rural Water Supply in the Study Area
The assessment of the main challenges for rural water supply of the study area employed various
techniques to have an overall picture on the main challenges of rural water supply in the study
areas. In this case the survey result, the FGD conclusions and observation of the water supply
situation of the woreda are presented. The study classified the main challenges as technical,
physical or environmental and institutional challenges.
4.5.1 Technical Challenges for Rural Water Supply of the Study Area
When we see the technical constraints for rural water supply situation of the woreda, the prevalence
of Non-functional rural water supply points was one of the most important difficulties for rural
households' water provision. As the survey result showed the majority of the respondents 70% (91)
indicated the presence of non-functional water supply source in their respective kebeles. The survey
result is also agreed with the Metema woreda water resource development office report for the year
2012/13 which showed the presence of 90 rural water supply projects which are now didn't provide
service from the total 18 kebeles. This clearly indicated that on average the presence of at least five
(5) non-functional water supply projects in each kebele.
Figure:4.4 (a) Non-functional hand dung in Aftit
b) Non-functional hand dung (Kumer)
63
In addition to the non-functionality of the rural water source, the frequent interruption of water
supply of the area was assesses as the other technical challenge to meet the growing water demand
of rural population. Attempt has been made to assess the frequency of water interruption using the
survey questionnaire. In this regard response of the households showed that almost the majority
(70 %) of the respondents replayed that they are confronted with frequent water supply interruption.
While the remaining 30 % of the respondents found to have consistent water supply without
interruption. This figure strikes a clear message that water interruption as a technical constraint is
the reality to the rural households of the study area. This could be one of the factor which is
responsible for households' low level of water per capita which is far from their water demands.
In recognition to this fact the study also tried to assess the frequency of water interruption in the
study area. As shown in Table 4.18 except those who didn't face any water interruption, the
majority showed frequency of water interruption from once a week to four times a week. However,
the most frequent response of households for water interruption per week was 27 % and 31 % for
twice a week and three times a week respectively. Hence those households faced water interruption
from 2-3 day per week took the highest percentage which accounts 58 % of the total responses.
Table 4.18: Response of Households for Frequency of Water Interruption per Week
Frequency of interruption
Frequency
Percent (%)
Once a week
13
10
Twice a week
35
27
Three times a week
40
31
Four times a week
3
2
No interruption
39
30
Total
130
100
Source: Own Survey computation, 2013.
So far the percent of households who faced water interruption and the frequency of water
interruption were discussed. Now the reasons for water interruption are going to discussed so as to
64
isolate the most important factors for water stoppage of the study area. While assessing the main
causes for water interruption in the study area, the response of households as shown in Table 4.19
revealed that water shortage at the source point (22 %) and failure of maintenance (37 %) at the
time of technical problems were seen as prime reasons for water interruption of the study area. At
the same time other reasons were also investigated such as absenteeism of water personnel and
sanitation and chlorination of the water sources, though takes the lowest percentage i.e. 7 % for the
former and 9 % for the later reason. However, during the assessment of the main reasons for water
interruption 25 % (32) of the households responded that they have no information regarding the
causes of water disruption in their kebeles. This could be attached with low level of households'
participation in water management and development initiatives of the area.
Table 4.19: Response of Households on the Causes of Water Interruption in the Study
Area
Reasons for interruption Frequency
Percent (%)
Water shortage at source
29
22
Failure of maintenance
48
37
Absenteeism of personnel 9
7
Sanitation and chlorination 12
9
No information
32
25
Total
130
100
Source: Own survey computation, 2013.
65
4.5.2 Environmental and Physical Challenges to Rural water supply in the
Study Area
The other important challenge to the rural households' water supply relates with the physical factor
i.e. distance traveled for water fetching. During the transect walk observation made by the
researcher, it was possible to comprehend that the majority of water points are located far from the
residence of rural households. The reason why water sources are located far from the home of
households was due to two main reasons as described by one of the key informants from the woreda
water resource development office. According to the key informant these two challenges; dispersed
settlement nature of the woreda and the absence of water nearer to the households' residents are
the prime bottlenecks for the woreda water resource and development office. As a result most of
the public water projects are obliged to be constructed at the distance which is not nearer to them.
In addition to the observation and the key informants' discussion, the study tried to triangulate the
survey result with the aforementioned techniques regarding the distance traveled while fetching
water from the main water source. In this case the survey computed the estimated distance traveled
for a round trip from their home to the main water sources. Though the distance various from
household to household the average distance traveled for a round trip was 600 meters to the main
water sources. That means on average for the round trip households took more than half a kilometer
for fetching water, which is far as compared to the minimum recommended distance by WHO (200
meter considered as the reasonable distance) ( WHO, 1996, cited in Rosen, and Vincent, 1999).
Looking at to the frequency of respondents for the distance made by each household the Table 4.20
showed that, households traveled from 200-600 meter for a round trip accounts 37.7 % of the total.
There are also households who traveled from 602 to 1000 meters which accounts 24.6 % of the
total respondents. However, the distance that households made for round trip to other alternative
water source ranged from a minimum of 500 meters to 2 kilometers to fetch water when the main
water sources fail to provide consistent water supply or when households needs to supplement
water from other free water sources.
66
Table 4.20: Distance Traveled for Water Collection by the Respondents
Distance
2
Traveled
Frequency
Percent (%)
Less than 200
26
20.0
200 600
49
37.7
602- 1000
32
24.6
More than 1000
23
17.7
Total
130
100
Distance
1
Distance
2
Minimum
500 meter
10 meter
Maximum
2000 meter
1600
Mean
1080 meter
600
Source: Own Survey Computation, 2013.(1= alternative sources, 2=main water sources)
On January 12, 2013, I made my journey to aftit-Kumer kebele which is one of the kebeles among
my study area. After I am guided by the dwellers of the kebele I soon reached to the water sources
where large gatherings are observed and noises are heard. Soon I became nearer to the large
gathering and noise, its teenagers and young girls who surround the small pond for waiting their
turn to fetch water. On that occasion I dare to ask one of the girls, if she is happy to tell me about
the challenges related with water collection. Though she was reluctant to disclose her name, she
was happy to let me know about the challenges she confronted every day like this:
"Look this row it is queue for water collection, I may wait for more than an hour
till my turn arrives, let leave this alone the bitter thing in my life is the distance I
travel while I carrying this jerica is terrible; this situation will be harsh at the rainy
season where the muddy nature of the soil will puts much Burdon", She adds lastly.
Hence from her saying it was possible to comprehend that the challenges to rural water supply are
manifold which are characterized by long distance coupled with long queue and muddy rural road
that make rural water fetching very difficult.
67
Environmentally, the study recognized that water supply situation of the study area affected due to
the erratic rainfall pattern of the area at the dry season. As most of the respondents explained the
majority of the water sources are dependent of the rainfall situation of the area. As a result the
majority of the respondents which accounted 65 % of the total replayed the unreliability of the
water source throughout the year whereas only 35 % of them replayed the consistency of water
supply throughout the year. According to the response of respondents during the dry season
particularly from February to May the water supply inconsistency will became sever. Therefore, in
addition to the non-functionality frequent breakdown of water sources, the functional water sources
are also experienced unreliability throughout the year to supply water to the emergent needs of
rural households.
On the rainy season since the soil in the study area is predominantly black with vertic, the muddy
situation of the rural roads hinder water fetching as the majority of water carriers are human backs
(70 %) with only 21 % and 9 % of them uses animal back and the vehicles respectively. Hence the
low level of infrastructural development in the study area found to affect the water fetching
situation of households during the rainy season.
4.5.3 Institutional Challenges to Rural Water Supply in the Study Area
This study also sees the water price arrangement, households' participation in rural water
management and performance of water committees as institutional factors that may challenge the
rural household water supply situation. To this effect the participation nature of the respondent
households was initially assessed. The Table 4.21 below indicated that the participation of the rural
households in the area of water project development and management of water was very low. It is
only 31.5 % (41) of the respondents are participated in rural water projects. And the large sums
(68.5%) of the respondents are not participating in any stage of water development projects of the
area.
Even those who respond as participatory are mainly engaged in construction stage which required
communities' labor and material than the soft system needs of the water project. However,
incorporating the communities at all stages of the water project construction and management
activities, not only brought the sustainability of the water projects but also help to fully recognize
the multiple needs of rural households for water. Yet the study confirmed that still the rural
households' participation is not satisfactory. This clearly implied that the communities' local
68
knowledge and their cultural and religious situations are not taken in to consideration. As a result
this may lead to non- functionality of the rural water projects within short life when as most of the
community loss trust and sense of ownership on water projects. However, if the functionality and
the continuous service provision of the water projects are needed, the communities should be the
part and the parcel of any project development in their area.
Table 4.21: The Participation of Nature of Respondents of the Study Area
Participation
Frequency
Percent (%)
Yes
41
31.5
No
89
68.5
Total
130
100
Stages of Participation
Frequency
Percent (%)
Planning
2
1.5
Site Selection
8
6.2
Construction
31
23.8
No participation
89
68.5
Total
130
100
Source: Own Survey Computation, 2013.
The other challenge for rural water supply situation which is seen as institutional factor is the water
price arrangements of the study area. In this regard at first the respondents were asked about the
current price arrangement of public water provision. As shown in the following Figure 4.5, the
more than half of the respondents which accounted 56 % of the total perceived the current price
arrangement of their respective kebele as expensive. Relatively only 44 % of the respondents
perceive the water price arrangement as not expensive. From this figure it is possible to
comprehend that the communities are not satisfied with the current water price arrangement, this
69
could therefore hider households to fetch more water beyond the basic needs use to use water as
source of income generation.
Figure: 4.5: Respondents Perception on the Current Price Arrangement of the Area
Source: Own Survey Computation, 2013.
From the above statistic it is possible to know that the current water price arrangement is expensive
to the majorities of the households in the study area. Furthermore, due to the frequent water
interruption and non-functionality of the public water provision, the households are also relied on
the private water sellers. Hence the price gap between the public provision and private vendors
must be analyzed. As shown below in the Table 4.22, it is only the small proportions of the
respondents (18 %) are showed the absence of water price gap between the public provision and
the private vendor or water sellers. However, the remaining large segment (82 %) of the
respondents affirmed the presence of water price gap which is extended from a minimum of 20
cents to a maximum of 1.70 birr per jerica with a mean gap of 0.45 cents per jerica. The gap
distribution from 0.20 30 accounts 29 %, whereas the gap from 0.40 0.50 cents and above 0.50
cents accounted 38 % and 15 % respectively. Hence such higher water price of the private vendors
plays a paramount role to affect the rural households' water supply situation when the usual
communal water sources fail to provide. This in term may negatively affect the productive demand
of water to supplement the agricultural income.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Expensive
Not expesive
56
44
% of r
esponde
n
ts
70
Table 4.22: The Gap in Price of Water between the Private Vendor and Public Provision
Price gap (in cents)
Frequency
Percent (%)
No price gap
23
18
0.20 0.30
38
29
0.35 0.50
50
38
Above 0.50 cents
19
15
Total
130
100
Source: Own Survey Computation, 2013.
Water committees are the relevant components in the rural water supply system. The main purpose
of water committees is to manage the system, collect tariffs, payment for repairs, recordings of
financial matters and passing sanctions for misbehaves in the water supply system. Hence the
performance of water committees is the essential instruments for the betterment of rural water
supply. Yet the FGD discussion revealed the absence of well organized water committees that can
serve on behave of the community. What highly pronounced during the discussion was the
establishment of traditional leaders that are assumed to have influence on the community. As result
the water management found to expose for a serious of maladministration particularly for financial
administration. The manifestations are difficulty of water committees to cover the cost of repairing,
guardians and fencing expenses. Moreover, private work burdens were seen as the constraints by
water committees for effectiveness of water committees to administer the water supply system. In
all this discussion revealed that the water committees performance in the area are very low, as the
result the currently functional water sources are faced mismanagements to the continuously supply
of water to the multiple needs of rural households.
Lastly the satisfaction of respondents on the water service of their locality was assessed to have an
overall picture on the water provision nature of the area. As shown the in bar chart below the
horizontal long bar graph depicted that about 47 % of the respondents are poorly satisfied with
the current water provision service of their respective areas. On the other hand those who are
moderately satisfied and highly satisfied took 28. % and 2 % of the total responses respectively.
Make use of the satisfaction line as threshed level, it is possible to get two categories; below
71
satisfaction and above satisfaction. As indicated in the figure about 51 % of the response of the
households found below the satisfaction level, where as about 31 % of the respondents are above
the satisfaction level. Hence this ordinary analysis can broadcast that recalling to the
aforementioned challenges in to consideration; the areas' water service prevision is very low which
doesn't satisfy the emergent needs of the rural households. As hypothesized earlier the more the
households dissatisfied with the overall water service of the area, the stronger they are discouraged
to use water beyond the usual basic needs consumption. Yet the study understood that the
satisfaction of the rural households' on the current water service was very low which is seen as the
major constraint for home based productive use of water.
Figure 4.6: Respondents Satisfaction on the Water Service Provision of the Area
Source: Own Survey Computation, 2013.
4.5.4 Adaptive Mechanisms of Rural Households for Water Supply
Interruption and Inconsistency
So far the study tried to investigate the major challenges to the water supply situation of the study
area. In one or in another way those challenges triggered water supply interruption and
inconsistency for rural households. It is inevitable that households are obliged to use adaptive
mechanisms to meet the emergent water needs. Hence identification of the adaptive mechanisms
of rural households during water interruption and inconsistency here became relevant. In this regard
the response of households indicated that 52.3 % of the respondents uses treatment of unimproved
water, 23.8 % of them obliged to postponed some of the needs, 16.9 % of them stored water at the
0
10
20
30
40
50
Not Satisfied
Poorly Satisfied
Satisfied
Moderatly satisfied
Very Satisfied
6 %
45 %
16 %
28 %
2 %
72
time of inconsistency and interruption. And only 6.9 % of the households use reuse of water as an
adaptive mechanism. The aim of this section is only to be familiar with the adaptive mechanisms
that households are using when they face water disruption. As result the adaptive mechanisms are
not touched in depth thought it required rigorous investigation. There this area of study left for
further study to have full understanding on the adaptive mechanisms.
Table 4.23: Adaptation Mechanisms at the time of water interruption and Unreliability
Mechanisms
Frequency
Percent (%)
Water Storage
22
16.9
Reuse of water
9
6.9
Treatment of Water
68
52.3
Postponing consumption
31
23.8
Total
130
100
Source: Own Survey Computation, 2013.
73
CHAPTER FIVE
5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1 Summary
The study has made attempts to analyze the factors of home based productive use of water and the
major challenges of rural water supply in Metema woreda. Hence after a series of analysis and
discussion the study came up with the following summaries on the findings;
In the first case the study came up with the understanding that water is the prime input for home
based productive uses in addition to the usual basic needs consumption. To this effect the result of
the study revealed that traditional brewery (teji, tella, and areki), home gardening, water selling,
rural restaurants, small ruminants and rural bath services were identified as the main home based
productive uses of water. The profitability of these home based productive use of water were
perceived positively by the majority of the respondents with only a limited respondents to view the
productive uses of water as non-profitable. In this regard the traditional breweries were identified
as the major sources of income to the rural households to supplement the agricultural income.
Secondly an attempt to investigate the factors of home based productive use of water revealed that
the combinations of demographic, physical and economic variables were determining households'
decision on engagement in the productive use of water at household level. In this regard only the
sex of the household head from the demographic factors found to positively influence the
productive use of water at household level. On the other hand the age of the household heads as a
demographic factor influenced the productive use of water negatively. Whereas one of economic
factor and two of the environmental and physical factors were found to influence the productive
use of water negatively. These were the price of water, the distance for water collection and queue
time respectively.
Thirdly the study isolated the major water supply challenges related with the physical, technical
and institutional arrangements. In this regard water supply situation of the study area found to be
constrained by multiple and interlocking challenges. Technically the prevalence of non-functional
water source and the frequent water interruption due to maintenance failure were seen as the main
challenges to the water supply situation of the study area. Physically the lengthy distance coupled
with the muddy nature of the rural road at the rainy season found to put greater burden on water
carriers who are mainly use human back as means of water collection. Moreover, the water supply
74
situation of the study area highly affected by water price of private vendors, the poorly functioning
water committees and lack of participation on soft system of the rural water projects.
5.2 Conclusion and Recommendation
Based on the major findings of the study the following conclusions and recommendations, which
are thought to have significant importance for future implementation activities and immediate
actions, are forwarded for all as follow:
· The study concluded that, the usual basic needs approach is a necessity, but not sufficient
if the income of the rural poor and their livelihoods' required to be improved. Hence the
policy makers in the water sector should give emphasis to the home based productive use
of water as equally important as that of basic needs requirement and the irrigation sector.
Therefore, the aim to meet the water needs of rural households should consider the home
based productive use of water at any project design and implementation so that the
discrepancy in water supply and the multiple needs can be met.
· The age of household heads in this study found to be the relevant demographic factor that
influences the productive use of water at household level negatively. The conclusion is that
being an old age is related with low level of creativity for work and income generating
activities. Therefore the woreda officials and concerned bodies should organize adult
learning opportunities and entrepreneurship trainings to activate the oldest age household
heads so that their contribution to the productive use of water at household level can be
harnessed. On the contrary the sex of the household head confirmed that being female
household head found to influence the productive use of water positively. Therefore at
woreda as well at country level the office of gender and empowerment should recognize
the positive role of female household members for household income generating activities
and therefore the necessary empowerment activities has to be arranged for exploiting the
role of female within the households.
· The price of water in the study area is found to be the major challenge to the rural
households' water supply and the determinant factor for home based productive use of
water. In this regard efforts should be made by the woreda water resource development
office and the local water committees to set the reasonable water price that can not affect
75
the cost recovery of water service. However, the important recommendation in this case for
whom it may concerned is arrangement of the credit service to the rural poor so that they
can motivated to use water for home based productive activities and thereby will be capable
of paying the water price of the area. Moreover, the exploitative price arrangement of
private vendors should be seriously followed by local leaders and the required regulatory
measures must be taken to the existing rent seeking private water sellers.
· Non- functional water sources coupled with the frequent water interruption in the woreda
is highly affecting the water supply and the productive use of water by the rural households.
Hence, temporarily for the existing water interruption problems, appropriate water fetching
schedule should be arranged by the local leaders and water committees for equally reaching
to all the households. Additionally the household has to be encouraged to store water at the
time when water is consistently supplied. Yet permanent solutions can be brought by
stretching appropriate cost recovery system to replace the existing instruments with low
cost technologies so that the interruption of water can be no longer the problem the study
area and the constraint to the productive use of water.
· Infrastructural development is the lubricant that can facilitate any social development
initiatives. Hence the national and regional government has to give emphasis for the
expansion of rural roads so that the poor can easily accessed the water sources at both rainy
and dry season. At lower level all the concerned higher officials should be responsible to
coordinate and mobilize the community for establishment of rural roads that can alleviate
the burden of water fetching in the woreda. If possible further expansion of water source at
the reasonable distance to the majority of households could encourage household water
fetching and thereby the productive use of water by the households.
· So as to bring lasting remedy to the Queue time during water fetching the concerned bodies
should take the following measures. In the first case the discharging potential of the public
water supply should be examined carefully a head of constructing the water projects. As a
result the discharging potential of source per second can be improved this will reduce the
queue time. Secondly construction of additional projects can be used as secondary
alternative to reduce the congestion of water collection, thereby the queue time can be
reduced.
76
· Creating sense of ownership can ensure the sustainability and continuous service provision
of water sources. In this regard the concept of participation which has been used for a long
time as fashion will be the main instrument. However, a mere involvement of the
community in terms of labor and martial contribution doesn't signify the real participation.
This can be achievable only if the concerned bodies allowed communities for full
participation from the initial project planning to the final project implementation. So that
the needs of the societies, non-functionality and interruption problems can get lasting
solution by involving the community who are familiar with reality of the area which is odd
for technical personnel.
· Regarding the poor performance of water committee, the woreda water resource office and
any concerned water resource personnel should have appropriate follow up and training on
the financial management and proper water regulation system that can improve the current
poor water committee performance of the study area.
· In general the concerned bodies at all level should recognize the challenges of rural water
supply as multiple and interlocking that requires a systematic approach so as to bring lasting
solution to problems related to technical, physical and institutional challenges that the rural
water supply system confronted. Moreover, the concerned authority at planning and
implementation have to recognize the various socio-economic and physical factors that
influence the productive use of water and take in to consideration of these factors in the
policy of rural water supply and management efforts so that the contribution of water to
rural households income there by the livelihood and poverty situation can be exploited. Put
differently, the productive use of water at household level should be mainstreamed in the
policy of rural water supply and management efforts of the country.
77
6. REFERENCE
Abebe Tadege (ed) (2001). Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Ministry of Water Resources
National Meteorological Services Agency.
Initial National Communication of Ethiopia to the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) June, 2001, Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia.
Alemayehu Mekonen (2009). Multiple Uses of Rural Households Supplies for Livelihood in
Ethiopia. The paper presented in the 34
th
WEDC International Conference, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Arouna, A., and Dabbert, S. (2009). Water Resource Management. Retrieved at
Http//:
www.springerlink.com/openum.asp?genre=article&id
=DOI: 10.1007/511269-009-9504-4
accessed on December 2012.
Arseniuk, D. (2010). Water Supply and Demand in Bukoba, Tanzania. Implications for Local
Economic Development. Unpublished MSc Thesis, International Development Studies, Faculty of
Geosciences, University of Utrecht.
Aschalew Demeke (2009). Determinants of Households Participation in Water Resource
Management: Achefer, Amahara Region, Ethiopia. Unpublished M.S.c Thesis for the Degree of
Master of Professional Studies Cornell University.
Babbie, E. (2007.) The Practice in Social Research. Seventh edition, Printed in United States of
America.
Bihon Kassa (2006). Household Water Supply and Factors Affecting Consumption level; The
Case of Mekele Town, Tigray. Unpublished MA Thesis for RLDS, Documentation Center of
CRLDS AAU.
Bhatt, A. and Nasu, S. (2010). Domestic Water Demand and Management under Changing Socio-
economic Scenarios, Societies for Social Management System (SSMS, 2010).
Butterworth J., Jan Teun V., Frank van S. and Barbara van K. (2011). Multiple Use Water
Service in Ethiopia, Scoping Study Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
CSA, (2008). Summary and Statistical Report of the 2007 Population and Housing Census.
Federal Republic of Ethiopia Population Census Commission.
78
Dereje Ayalew, Kindie Tesfaye, Girma Mamo, Birru Yitaferu and Wondimu Bayu (2012).
Variability of Rainfall and Its Current Trend in Amhara Region, Ethiopia. African Journal of
Agricultural Research Vol. 7(10), pp. 1475, Availabile online at:
http://www.academicjournals.org.AJAR
Accessed on December, 2012.
Dessalegn Chanie (2012). Factors Determining Residential Water Demand in North Western
Ethiopia, the case of Merawi. Unpublished MSc thesis, Cornell University.
Deverill, Paul; Bibby, Simon; Wedgwood, Alison; Smout, Ian (eds.) (2002). Designing Water
Supply and Sanitation Projects to meet Demand in Rural and Peri-Urban Communites. Book1:
Concepts, Principles and Practice, Leicestershire: DFID/Loughborough University, Water,
Engineering
and
Development
Centre,
U.K.,
(available
at:
http://www.gtz.de/ecosan/download/WEDC-
designwatersupply1.pdf
Accessed on November,
2012.
Elliott, A.C. & Woodward, W.A (2007). Statistical Analysis Quick Reference Guide with SPSS
Examples, Sage Publications, Inc. United States of America.
Eyerusalem Fithawork (2009). The Challenges and Opportunities of Multiple-Use Water Systems
(MUS): A case Study from Goro Gutu and Meta Woreda of East Harerghe Zone, Oromiya Regional
State. Unpublished MA thesis IDR Documentation Center AAU.
FAO. (2000). New dimensions in water security. Land and Water Development Division Rome,
Italy.
Gamedze, K.,Tevera, D.S., and Chemhaka, G.B., (2012). Assessment of the Determinants of
Domestic Water Demand in rural Areas of Swaziland. Journal of Social Science 4(3): 196 200.
Gleick P. (2000). The changing water paradigm. A look at twenty-first century water resources
development. Water International, Vol.25, No.1, pp.127-138.
Gorard, S. (2004). Quantitative Methods in Social Sciences: The Role of Numbers Made Easy.
King's Lynn, Norfolk, Great Britain.
Gossaye Fanta (2007). Households' Willingness to Pay For Improved Wter Servicees in Debre-
Zeit Town, Ethiopia. Unpublished MA thesis Documentation of CRLDS, Addis Ababa
University.
79
Gujarati, Damodar, N. (2004). Basic Econometrics. Fourth edition, New York, McGraw- Hill
Book Company.
Gulyani, S. (2001). Demand Side Approaches to planning Water Supply provision. Retrieved
from
http://info.worldbank.org/etools/docs/library/115504/toronto99/assets/t-gulyani-
mod04.pdf
Accessed on December, 2012.
Intelligence Community Assessment ICA (2012). Global Water Security. Intelligence
Community Assessment 2012-08, 2 February 2012 an IC- Coordinated Paper.
IPMS, (2005). Metema pilot learning site diagnosis and program design. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
(Retrieved online at: http://www.IPMS-Ethiopia.org /pilot -learning sites /metema.asp)
James A.J. (2003). Linking Water Supply and Rural Enterprise: Issues and Illustrations from India.
International Symposium on Water, Poverty and Productive uses of Water at the Household Level,
21-23 January 2003, Muldersdrift, South Africa.
Kanyoka, P. (2008). Water Value and Demand for multiple Uses in Rural Areas of South Africa:
The case of Ga-Sekororo. Unpublished M.S.c Thesis, Department of Agricultural Economics,
Extension and Rural Development, University of Pretoria, South Africa.
Kebede Woldie (2003). Assessment of Sustainability of Rural Water Supply Schemes: The Case
of Cowdo in Meskanena Mareko Woreda. Unpublished MA thesis Documentation of CRLDS,
Addis Ababa University. Retrieved online at
http://etd.aau.edu.et
Khan, M.A. (2003). Responding to the Millennium Development Goals: A Strategy for Water
Security, Dushanbe International Fresh Water Forum, Tajikistan. August 29 to Sep 01 2003.
Kleemeir L., (1995). From Supply Driven to Demand Driven Provision of Rural Drinking Water.
Tanzanian Case Study of the Arguments for a Transition. Center for Development Research
Working Paper 95.8.
Kothari, C.R. (2004). Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques. Second Revised Edition.
New Delhi, New Age International publisher.
Lockwood, H. and Smits, S. (2011). Supporting Rural Water Supply: Moving towards a Service
Delivery Approach. IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre and Aguaconsult, 2011.
80
Long, J. and Freese, J. (2006). Regression Model for Categorical Variables Using Stata (2
nd
ed.).
College Station, TX: Stata Press.
Mendiguren, J. and Mabelane, M (2001). Economic of Productive Uses for Domestic Water in
Rural Areas: A case Study from Bushbuckridge South Africa, South Africa Research Policy
Report, July 2001.
Mokgope, K. & Butterworth, J.A. (2001). Rural Water Supply and Productive Uses: A Rapid
Survey in the Sand River Catchment. WHIRL Project Working Paper 4.
Moriarty P. and Butterworth J. (2003). The productive use of domestic water supplies: How water
supplies can play a wider role in livelihood improvement and poverty reduction? Thematic
Overview Paper of May 2003 (IRC) International Water and Sanitation Centre.
Moriarty, P., Butterworth, J., Van Koppen, B. & Soussan, J. (2004).
Water, poverty and
productive uses of water at household level
in Moriarty, P.; Butterworth, J. & Van Koppen, B.
(eds). (2004). Beyond Domestic: Case studies on poverty and productive uses of water at the
household level. Delft, Netherlands, IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre. (Technical
Paper Series, no. 41). 243p.
MoWR (2011). The Ethiopian Water Resources Management Policy [online] Available at:
http://www.mowr.gov.et/index.php?pagenum=2.4
Accessed 4 October, 2011.
Muluwafu, W. (2003). The Use of Domestic Water Supplies for productive Purposes in the Lake
Chiwala Catchment Area in Southern Malawi. For the international Symposium on water, poverty
and productive uses of water at household level , 21-23 January 2003, South Africa.
Naidoo N., Chidiley C., Main G., & Vrdolak, M., (2009). Productive Use of Domestic Piped Water
for Sustaining Livelihoods in Poor Households. Report to the Water Research Commission by
Nemai Consulting CC, WRC Report No. TT 412/09 August 2009.
National Audit Office, NOA (2007). Tackling rural poverty in developing countries. Report by the
Comptroller and Auditor General, HC (House of Commons) 322 Session 2006-2007-14 March
2007.
Ndaruzaniye,V., (2011). Africa, Climate Change, and Environment, security: Water Security in
Ethiopia: Risks and Vulnerabilities' Assessment, Phase 2.
81
OCHA (2010). Water scarcity and humanitarian action: Key Emerging Trends and Challenges.
OCHA occasional policy briefing series No-4.
Odunuga, K., (2010). Analysis of Domestic Water Use for Commercial Activities Among the poor
in Alajo and Sabon Zongo Communities of Accra, Ghana. Unpublished MSc thesis for the
requirement of degree, master of Natural Resource Management. University of Manitoba, Canada
.
Ogwuche, J. (2012). Adequate water supply as a rural poverty reduction strategy in developing
countries: A review of the literature. E3 Journal of Environmental Research and Management Vol.
3(8). pp.0132-0136, September, 2012 Available online
http://www.e3journals.org
Accessed on
December, 2012.
Rosen, S. and Vincent, J.R. (1999). Household Water Resources and Rural Productivity in Sub-
Saharan Africa: A Review of the Evidence. Harvard Institute for International Development.
Royal Engineering Academy, REA (2010). The Global Water Security an engineering
perspective. Available on line at
www.raeng.org.uk/gws
Accessed on November, 2012.
RWSN (2010). Myths of the Rural Water Supply Sector. B y the Rural Water Supply Network,
perspective no. 4.
Selamawit Assefa (2007). Evaluation of Technical Sustainability of Rural Water Supply Projects
in the Amhara Regional State: Case Study in South Wollo. Unpublished thesis for Masters Degree
of Science in Hydraulic Engineering, AAU, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Schweitzer R.W. (2009). COMMUNITY MANAGED RURAL WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS
IN THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC: Assessment of Sustainability of Systems, Built by the
National Institute of Potable Water and Peace Corps, Dominican Republic. Unpublished MSc
Thesis Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in
Environmental Engineering Michigan Technological University 2009.
Sileshi Behailu,(2008). Assessment of households' demand for improved water and sanitation
services in Shebedino Woreda, Sidama Zone, SNNPR, 2008. Unpublished MSc. Thesis Addis
Ababa University. Retrieved on live at
http://etd.aau.edu.et
Speelman S. , D'Haese L. , Ochieng C. , and Vandermeulen V. (2006). Productive water uses at
household level in rural Kenya: case study of the Ukambani district. Poster paper prepared
for
presentation at the International Association of Agricultural Economists Conference, Gold Coast,
Australia, August 12-18, 2006
82
SRI (2008). Resource depletion: the case for water. Quarterly Newsletter on Sustainability
Rsponsible investment (SRI) and the sustainability analysis of companies. Retrieved from
http://sri.dexia-am.com/LibrarySRI%2FLOOKING_AHEAD_PUBL08_EN_200806.pdf
Accessed on
December, 2012.
Sutton, S. (2008). The risks of technology-based MDG indicator for rural water supply, Available
on line at
www.rwsn.ch
Accessed on October, 2012.
Tamene Chaka, Leulseged Yirgu, Zemede Abebe, and Butterworth, J., (2011). Ethiopia: Lessons
for Rural Water Supply; Assessing progress towards sustainable service delivery. The Hague:
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre.
Tewodaj Mogues, Cohen, M.J., Birner, R., Mamusha Lemma, Randriamamonjy,J., Fanaye
Tadesse and Zelekawork Paulos (2009). The Governance of Service Delivery for the Poor and
Women: A Study of Rural Water Supply in Ethiopia. Ethiopia Strategy Support Program 2 (ESSP2)
Discussion Paper No. ESSP2 007 October 2009.
Tigist Petros (2010). Adoption of Conservation Tillage Technologies in Metama Woreda, North
Gondar Zone, Ethiopia. Unpublished M.Sc thesis submitted to the college of Agriculture and
Environmental Sciences, Haremaya University.
Todaro and Smith (2011).
Economic Development. 11
th
edition, printed in Addison Wesley
publisher, United States of America.
UNEP (2005). Challenges of Water Scarcity: A business Case for Financial Institutions. Read
more on
www.siwi.org/documments/resources/reports/Challenges_water-
scarcity_business_case
_study _2005pdf Accessed on December, 2012.
UNFPA( United Nation Population Find) (2011).
Seven Billion People- Contong on Each Other.
Retrieved on live at
http://www.unfpa.org/webdav/site/global/shared/documents/7%20Billion/7B_fact_sheetsen.pdf
accessed on January, 2013.
UN (2009). Water in Changing World. World Water Development Report.
Wassihun Gebru (2008). Assessment of Urban Water Supply Services in Axum Town, Tigray
Regional State. Unpublished MA thesis, CRLDS Documentation Center, Addis Ababa University,
Addis Ababa Ethiopia.
83
WBCSD, (2006). Trends and Facts of Water.
www.wbcsd.org
Accessed on October, 2012.
WHO/UNICEF (2010). Progress on Sanitation and Drinking-water: 2010 Update. Geneva:
WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation.
WHO/UNICEF (2012). Estimates for the Use of Improved Drinking Water Sources, Updated
March 2012. (For Ethiopia, Uganda, Kenya and Sudan).
Wutich, A. and Ragsdale, K. (2008). Water insecurity and emotional distress: Coping with supply,
access, and seasonal variability of water in a Bolivian squatter settlement. Social Science &
Medicine. Retrieved from DOI: 10.1177/0123456789123456
WWC (2011). Water for Growth and Development in Africa: A Framework for An Effective
Mosaic of Investments.
Yacob Arsano, Elsa Mekonnen, Demissie Gudisa and Demeke Achiso. Simon O'Meally, Roger
Calow and Eva Ludi. (2010).
Governance and Drivers of Change in Ethiopia's Water Supply
Sector. A study conducted by the Organization for Social Science Research in Eastern and Southern
Africa (OSSREA) in collaboration with the Overseas Development Institute (ODI).
Zelalem Getachew (2005). Determinants of Sustainable water supply Systems in Ethiopia. The
Case of Two Rural Water Supply Systems: Amuyee Serra and Habru Seftu Schemes: Unpublished
MA thesis in Documentation of CRLDS, Addis Ababa University.
Zemenu Awoke (2012). Assessment of Challenges of Sustainable Rural Water Supply: The Case
of Quarit Woreda, Amahara Region. Unpublished MSc thesis for the Degree of Masters of
Professional Studies, Cornell University.
84
APPENDICES
Appendix I: Some of the model outputs
(A) Classification table of the Baseline data
Classification Table
a
Observed
Predicted
do your household uses water for home
based productive activities
Percentage
Correct
No
Yes
Step 1 do your household uses
water for home based
productive activities
No
73
10
88.0
Yes
9
38
80.9
Overall Percentage
85.4
a. The cut value is .500
(B) Classification table without outliers (revised model output)
Classification Table
a
Observed
Predicted
do your household uses water
for home based productive
activities
Percentage
Correct
No
Yes
Step 1 do your household uses
water for home based
productive activities
No
76
7
91.6
Yes
10
36
78.3
Overall Percentage
86.8
a. The cut value is .500
85
Appendix II: Some Picture taken during Observation, and Focused Group Discussion
(removed for publication)
Appendix III: Survey Questionnaire, FGD Guidelines and Interview Questionnaires for
Officials
A) Survey Questionnaire
Dear Respondents
This questionnaire is designed to gather relevant information on behalf of Kibrom Adino for his
master's thesis pertinent to the title "Rural Water Supply and The Determinants of Productive
Use of Water at Household Level: The Case of Metema Woreda, North Gondar, Amhara
Region.", which is a requirement In Partial Fulfillment for the Degree of Master of Arts in Regional
and Local Development Studies (RLDS) at Addis Ababa University. The aim is to assess the
challenges of water supply and the determinants of home based productive use of water in Metema
Woreda. And the result of the study will not be disclosed to other beyond the above mentioned
purpose. Hence your kind cooperation, response and time are highly appreciated.
NB: Dear enumerators you are kindly requested to fill all the questions as much as your
respondents are willing to let know you.
Name of enumerator_________________ Date of interview_________
Code Number:
I)
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILES
1. The Name of the kebele_____________
2. Name of Household head(optional) ______________ Sex___________ Age__________
3. Religion: 1.
Orthodox 2. Muslim 3. Catholic 4. Protestant 5. Others
4. Marital Status of the Household Head
1. Single
2. Married
3. Divorce
4. Widowed
5. Cohabited
86
5. Educational Status Household Head
1. Illiterate 2. Read write 3. 1-5 Schooling 4. 6-8 Schooling 5. 9 -10 schooling 6. Some other
colleges/University
6. Number of family members attained primary education level and above (only whom now are
lived within the Household) ____________
7. The main occupation of the Household head;
1. Agriculture
2. Trade
3. Government employee
4. Daily laborer
5. Unemployed
8. Number of family size by age categories:
A. Below 15 years old______
B. Above 15 years old______
C. Total Family Size _______
9. For how long you made you residence in this kebele? ______________
II)
SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE
10. Fill the income your household earn from the various sources given below: (skip if not
concerned)
Type of Income sources
Income per month(ETB
*
) Income per year (ETB)
Non-agricultural income
Salary
Income from business
Rent of House
Other non agricultural
Agricultural income
Sale of animal
Animal products
Crop Production
Other sources if any(h)
87
Total income (a+b+c+d+e+f+g+h)
* Ethiopian Birr
11. If households fail to remember the income from various sources please show the average monthly
income of the household? ______________ Birr.
12. The size of your homestead in hectare write 0 if you don't have your own land _____ ha
13. For what purpose you use the homestead_______________________________________
14. Do you think that water is the prime input to engage in home based income generating activities?
1. Yes 2. No
15. If "NO" discuss other relevant inputs that can help you engage in home based income generating
activities?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
16. Does your household use water for home based productive activities? 1. Yes 2. No
17. If yes in which of the small-scale home based economic activities you are involved?
1. Traditional brewery (Tela, areki, tej and others)
2. Home gardening
3. Small ruminants
4. Rural Bath room
5. Small restaurant
6. Water Selling
18. How often you engage in these home based economic activities?
1. Once a week 2. Twice a week 3. Thrice a week 4. Continuously 5. Not recognized
19. Why not you continuously engaged in these home based productive activities?
1. Interruption of water
2. Limited customers
3. Limited working capital
4. Other work burdens
5. Not Applicable
20. How do you perceive the profitability of these home based productive use of water?
1. Profitable 2. Moderately profitable 3. Not Profitable
21. Do you have a family member who received any entrepreneurship or Business Development
Service? 1.Yes 2.No
88
22. What do you think the major reasons for not using water for productive activities?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
III)
WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND QUESTIONS
23. Fill the appropriate response according to the questions bellow?
Activities
Domestic Water
supply(liters)
Requirement for each
activity
(Demand)
Gap
Drinking
Washing Home appliance
Cooking
Cleaning personal hygiene
Home based economic
activities
Total (liter/day/household)
Examination (adjust to size)
24. Do you have your own water supply sources? 1. Yes 2. No
25. List the current different water sources that your household uses for different activities?
1. __________________________
2. __________________________
3. __________________________
4. __________________________
5. __________________________
26. Do you have an alternative to free source of water in your area? 1. Yes 2. No
27. If yes what is that source _______________ Distance of the free water source_________
28. Approximate distance for water fetching to the main water source is __________ meters.
29. Who is responsible for water fetching in your household?
89
1. Women 2. Man 3. Boys 4. Girls 5. All family member
30. Which one are the commonly used carriers of water in household?
1. Vehicle 2. Animal backs 3. Human beings
31. Time spent at the place of water source (Queue time) _________minute _____Hours.
32. How much you pay for water per liter/jerikan __________
33. How do you perceive the price you incur for water per jerrican?
1. Expensive 2. Not expensive
34. Are you willing to pay for the water services you got to maintain the continues provision?
1. Yes 2. No
35. If so what is the reasonable price you are willing to pay per jerikan (20 liters)?
1. 10- 50 cents
2. 50- 100 cents
3. 100- 150 cents
4. Above 150 cents
36. If you say "NO" for water service what is your reason?
1. Water should be free service
2. Low income to pay for it
3. Since the many is not appropriately used for service maintenance
4. Since not satisfied with the service
5. Specify if any ...
37. How do you explain the satisfaction for water service provision of you locality?
1. Very satisfied
2. moderately satisfied
3. satisfied
4. poorly satisfied
5. not satisfied
IV)
QUESTIONS ON MAJOR CHALLENGES OF WATER SUPPLY
38. Do you have participated on water development projects in your kebele? 1. Yes 2. No
39. If yes in which phase of water development you are involved?
1. Planning 2. Site selection 3. Construction 4. In phases 5. Specify in any________
40. What was your contribution at the construction level?
90
1. Money 2. Idea 3. Labor 4. Material 5. In all 6. No Contribution
41. Do you face water supply interruption in your water supply sources? 1. Yes 2. No
42. Do you have information for the causes of water interruption in the kebele?
1. Yes 2. No
43. If YES what are the main reasons for water supply interruption?
1. Shortage of water at the source
2. Failure of maintenance
3. Absenteeism of water personnel
4. Sanitation and chlorination
44. For how many days the interruption will occur per week ______________
45. How do you perceive the response of water resource development personnel's at the time of
service interruption?
1. Fast Response
2. Moderate response
3. Low Response
4. Very low Response
46. Is non-functionality of public water sources is problem in your kebele? 1. Yes 2. No
47. Do you think that there is a huge gap between the price of public provision and private vendor?
1.
Yes
2
. No
48. If YES estimate the gap _________________ cents/ jerikan
49. Is their consistency on the amount of water supply of your kebele throughout the whole year?
1. Yes 2. No
50. If "NO" how do you perceive that rainfall pattern of the area affected the reliability of water
supply situation of the area throughout the whole year?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________
51. Which months of water shortage are severe in your area? _________________________
52. Is there a restriction on the amount of water fetching at the public water points?
1
. Yes
2
. No
53. If yes what is the reason for this
______________________________________________________________________________
91
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
54. How do you perceive the quality of water in terms the taste that have?
1. Good 2. Fairly good 3. Not good
55. Is there any family member who is experienced with water born disease in your household?
1. Yes 2. No
56. Briefly discuss the major challenges of rural water supply in your kebele?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
57. What are the most frequently used adaptive Mechanisms in your household at the time of water
shortage?
Mechanisms
Tick you choice ( 1 possible)
Water storage
Reuse of water
Treatment of unimproved water
Postponing consumption
Specify other options
Thank You
92
B) FGD Guidelines
Opening speech:
Dear Participants first of all I thank you all of you for giving me your precious time by
understanding the theme of my study. To remind you again this research is being carried out for
the requirement of partial fulfillment for master's degree which is entitled as "Rural Water
Supply and The Determinants of Productive Use Water: The Case of Metema Woreda, North
Gondar, Amhara Region." The aim is to assess the nature of household water supply and the
determinants of productive use of water in Metema Woreda. Hence your kind cooperation,
response and time are highly appreciated.
1. What are the major problems of water supply in the area?
Technical/environmental/physical/institutional factors
- Distance? ...
- Infrastructure? ...
- Functionality? ...
Institutional
o
Water price ...
o
Participation...
o
Rules and regulations...
-
How do you see the functionality of water committees in your area?
a. Very good b. Good c. Not good
-
If not good what are the manifestation of the poor functioning of water committees?
...
...
...
Satisfaction with the service?(circle)
o
highly satisfied
o
moderately satisfied
o
satisfied
o
poorly satisfied
o
not satisfied
93
-
How do you evaluate the price gap between public provision and private vendors?
...
...
2. How do you perceive the water availability in the woreda, discuss?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
3. What are the main water sources for your area? Which one prevails in the area? (rank)
Main rural water sources
Ranking
Dug well with pump (hand)
Boreholes
Private (metered) connection
River water
Springs or ponds
Public stand post/pipe
4. What are the main productive uses of rural water supply in your woreda?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
5. Rank the main productive use of water through pair wise ranking?( Compare each pair activities
and put your first preference number in each of pair wise comparison)
94
Pair-ranking
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Traditional brewery
Home Gardening
Small ruminants
Rural bath service
Water selling
Restaurants
NB: The number from 1-6 represents all the vertical productive use of water
6. How do you perceive the profitability of home based productive use of water?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C) Questionnaire for Officials
I thank you in advance for our cooperation for this interview questionnaire.
1. How do you describe the area in terms water availability and supply?...M
3
2. How many households are in need for water in the woreda/ Number of households in the
woreda?...
3. What is the per capita water availability in the woreda?...
4. On average how many households share a single water supply in the woreda?...
5. What are the main water sources in the woreda?...
6. How many households have their own water connection?...
7. How many public water supply are there in each kebele on average...
8. Out of the total how much public sources are non-functional ...
9. The average distance traveled for fetching water in the area is estimated...
95
10. Do seasonal variations affect water availability in the area? If yes please explain...
11. What are the main water sources in the woreda? ...
12. What are the main challenges related to water supply and demand of the woreda?
...
...
...
...
13. How do you perceive the water facilities of the woreda? 1. Very good 2. Moderate 3. Good 4. Worse
14. Who is responsible for the construction of the facilities?
1. Government 2. Private owners and NGOs 3. Community/CBOs 4. Others please specify
15. Is there participatory practice in water management activities of the woreda?
...
16. Do your organization provide training for water committees of each kebele ?
...
...
...
17. Do you know that the water committees of each keble have rules and regulation on water usage?
Discuss if
yes?...
...
...
18. What are the main physical and environmental challenges for water collection of rural households
that your organization perceived?
...
...
...
...
19. Does the rainfall pattern have impact on the water supply situation of the study area?
1. Yes 2. No
20. If
YES explain the reasons?
...
...
...
96
21. Do your office considered the multiple use service approach for water supply i.e. considering the
home based productive activities beyond the basic consumptive use?
22. Explian...
...
23. How do you explain the water infrastructure of the woreda?
1. Very satisfactory
2. Moderate
3. Satisfactory
4. Not satisfactory
Ende der Leseprobe aus 107 Seiten
- Arbeit zitieren
- Kibrom Adino (Autor:in), 2013, Rural Water Supply and the Determinants of Productive Use of Water at the Household Level. Challenges in Metema Woreda, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/334656
Ähnliche Arbeiten
Kostenlos Autor werden
✕
Leseprobe aus
107
Seiten
Kommentare