Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi, UgandaFindings and Recommendations for the Sustainability       ...
Table of Contents                Abstract           Acknowledgements              Introduction              Organizations ...
AbstractIn this paper, the long-term sustainability of Institutional Rainwater Harvesting (IRWH)tank systems is investigat...
AcknowledgementsI would like to thank several people and groups; without them this research project wouldnot have been pos...
Introduction  1. Organizations  The Progressive Health Partnership (PHP) is a student-led organization from Duke  Universi...
2. Project BackgroundWhen a team from PHP went to Southwest Uganda in the summer of 2009 to conducta maternal health proje...
Research ThesisHow does Mayanja Memorial Hospital Foundation (MMHF) ensure the long-termsustainability of the Institutiona...
Methods          8
Methods1. Focus groupsFive focus groups were conducted with the intention to discern information regardingthe current mana...
interviewed as a key informant in charge of 2 rainwater tanks located in the       sub-county office.       c. Byembogo Le...
of surveys regarding the sustainability of IRWH systems; however, when actuallysurveyed, a number of them indicated that t...
Research Findings                    12
Research Findings1. Interviews with Key Informants      a. Mr. Tim Specht, Director, of African Community Technical Servic...
the right committee members through elections is key; they must be focusedon community development, and live close to the ...
tanks at that point. Also, ACORD did not monitor the construction of thetanks, leading to some contractors and residents t...
2. Focus Group Summary Report     a. Key points from Community Members     On Water-user Committees:     Current water-use...
On Tank Usage:The community members are worried that tanks built in schools will only bereadily available to families livi...
b. Key Points from Water-user Committee Members   On the Structure of the committees:   Every tank should have a water-use...
On the Usage of the Tank:Committee members feel that there should be a timetable for the fetching ofwater so that the coll...
3. Household Survey Summary Statistics     a. Household Characteristics, by Parish                                      Nu...
BreadwinnerIncome        11   2227.273   2158.045                                         21
HouseholdRWANYANGWE   Size                  12   6.083333   2.503028             Uses a             Rainwater             ...
b. Distribution of Usage of Tank Water                      1                                  .931                     .8...
d. Willingness to Pay for Tank Water                     Max Amount Willing to Pay for 20-Litres of Water                 ...
e. Willingness to pay for Yearly Tank Maintenance                                        By Parish                    BYAN...
Willingness to Pay, terms of Percentage of One Month’s Income                      40                      30             ...
f. Distribution of People or Groups Contacted for Maintenance                Problems                                .3   ...
Effectiveness of current main source water user committees                              1                            .8   ...
4. Tank Holders Survey Summary Statistics            a. Survey Respondent Characteristics            Type of Establishment...
b. Tank Characteristics                                           Who Built the Tank                                      ...
Distribution of Type of Tank                                           By Parish                    BYANAMIRA             ...
c. Tank Management                          Number of Committee Members                                       Frequency of...
Time Taken for Government Funds to Arrive                                                                                 ...
e. Maintenance and Repair                                        Number of Contractors Known                              ...
Number of Ways Respondents Know How to Maintain a Tank                             50                             40      ...
f. Negative Impact of Community Usage                             Number of 43.33                                       Ho...
Frequency of Disruption                                                                               Per Week            ...
38
Regression Analysis of Survey Data                                     39
Regression Analysis of Survey DataRegression Analysis provides the means to determine the presence, strength andreliabilit...
The last model is a multiple regression model that tests the various factors influencinghow often a tank breaks down, an i...
1. Willingness and Ability for Indigenous FundingWillingness to Pay = -6.7TankWater + 1646UseIRWH + 0.76Income***+ 31.4Mon...
The dummy variable for whether a respondent relies on water from an institution isstatistically insignificant. Thus, altho...
2. Potential Institution Cooperativeness AnalysisProbability of Sharing Tank= -0.0605DaysDry***+1.73NumberTanks** + 2.67Nu...
likely that for schools with more than one tank, they would find it less easy to get offsharing tanks with the community b...
3. Factors Influencing the Effectiveness of Water-user CommitteesProbability of Water Source Problem Solved = 3.02Contacte...
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Uganda; Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi

1,534 views

Published on

Uganda; Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi

Published in: Design, Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,534
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Uganda; Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi

  1. 1. Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi, UgandaFindings and Recommendations for the Sustainability of IRWH Installation Mayanja Memorial Hospital Foundation Progressive Health Partnership, Duke University
  2. 2. Table of Contents Abstract Acknowledgements Introduction Organizations Project Background Research Thesis Methods Research Findings Interviews with Key Informants Focus Summary Report Household Survey Summary Statistics Tank Holder Survey Summary Statistics Regression Analysis of Survey Data Research Key Points Tank Committees Demand Management Funding Sensitization of the Community Recommendations Actions to be taken by MMHF and PHP Appendices A- Key Informant Interview Transcripts B- Focus Group Transcripts C- Regression Analysis Tables D- Work Done by DukeEngageE- Household and Tank Holder Survey Forms F- Photographic essay G- Bibliography 2
  3. 3. AbstractIn this paper, the long-term sustainability of Institutional Rainwater Harvesting (IRWH)tank systems is investigated through performing field research on the IRWH tank systembuilt by the Progressive Health Partnership of Duke University and the MayanjaMemorial Hospital Foundation in Kashongi Sub-county, Uganda. IRWH tank systems,being a communal water source built by agencies external to the community, have had along history of being difficult to manage as compared to Domestic RWH (DRWH) tanks,leading to problems with the funding, maintenance and repair. Solutions to theseproblems were constructed after research conducted using surveys of households andowners of existing tanks, interviews with key informants, and focus groups with bothlocal community members and current water-user committees. A key finding was that thelocal community was able to raise its own funding for the maintenance and repair of thetanks, and that the willingness of a community to support an IRWH tank system relied onfactors such as the strength of community institutions, perceived potential impact of thetank and socio-economic conditions of the locals. Based on the results of the research, itwas found that factors influencing the sustainability of the IRWH tank system were localmanagement and maintenance systems, the presence of shrewd water demandmanagement, community sensitization, and the role played by the NGO in masteringintangible aspects of community dynamics. 3
  4. 4. AcknowledgementsI would like to thank several people and groups; without them this research project wouldnot have been possible.First of all, I would like to thank Dr Benon Mugerwa, the Executive Director of MayanjaMemorial Hospital Foundation (MMHF), and the staff of the Foundation. They havegiven me invaluable support in providing logistics, opportunities with the localcommunity in Kashongi, and with much encouragement throughout my project. Specialthanks goes out to Jordan Bateisibwa, the Project Manager of the Rainwater HarvestingTank project, who has helped me coordinate many aspects of both fieldwork and officework.Next, I would like to thank the Progressive Health Partnership (PHP) for spearheadingthe project to build rainwater tanks in Kashongi. They have rendered life-changingservice to the people of Kashongi, and I am honored to be part of this project. Specialthanks to Joshua Greenberg, who provided much valued advice in shaping the directionof my research. Thanks also to Eddie Zhang, who invited me onboard, for giving me thistreasured opportunity.Moreover, the DukeEngage team and their ground coordinator Jacques Slaiher have beenindispensible during the course of this project. The DukeEngage team provided me withgroundwork that they had done in the two months they worked in Kashongi, and I reliedon much of this prior work in my research. Kudos goes to Mr. Slaiher, who helped me agreat deal with the day-to-day aspects of living in Uganda.The members of my survey team- Becky Kemigisha, Bob Ashabahebwa, GabrielNuwagaba, Mbabazi Zam and Joram Amanya- were crucial to helping complete themassive field research phase of the research. Without their knowledge of the field,translation skills and cheerfulness, covering so much ground in such a short period oftime would have been beyond reach.Edward Kung, one of my lecturers in Econ 139 - Econometrics, was extremely patientand helpful in providing technical advice regarding the regression analysis.Professor David Schaad, my faculty mentor from Duke University, gave much-neededguidance during both the preparation and research phases. His experience with water-related projects gave me much insight, and helped me avoid blind spots with my researchmethods.Last but not least, very special thanks to Alma Blount and the staff of the Hart LeadershipProgram. It would be an understatement to say that this project would not have started inthe first place without their guidance, training and funding. I am more grateful than youknow for this opportunity. 4
  5. 5. Introduction 1. Organizations The Progressive Health Partnership (PHP) is a student-led organization from Duke University, USA, which focuses on global health issues. Mayanja Memorial Hospital Foundation (MMHF) is an NGO based in Mbarara that has been prominent in providing health-related services such as HIV testing to the local community, since 2008. PHP and MMHF have jointly cooperated on two projects, the Safe Motherhood Program and the Rainwater Harvesting (RWH) project. The former provides services such as ultrasound scans and prenatal advice to pregnant women in the rural Kashongi sub-county, while the latter aims to build public rainwater harvesting tanks to alleviate water deprivation in the same area. DukeEngage is a program under Duke University that focuses on giving students opportunities to provide service to communities around the world. 5
  6. 6. 2. Project BackgroundWhen a team from PHP went to Southwest Uganda in the summer of 2009 to conducta maternal health project, they found that community members in Kashongi Sub-County almost unanimously complained of poor access to and quality of water astheir most urgent need, frequently expressing the problem in terms of its detrimentaleffects on children. Children often bear the burden of carrying water for domestic use,spending several hours a day in drudgery and rendering them unable to go to school.The poor quality of water also greatly impacted health and mortality rates. PHP thenapplied for and received a $180,000 grant to build a system of over 70 InstitutionalRainwater Harvesting (IRWH) tanks throughout Kashongi, with the partnership ofMMHF. For the second year running, PHP brought a team of DukeEngage studentsto run both Safe Motherhood and Rainwater Harvesting projects.The team has conducted baseline surveys of more than 2000 randomly sampledhouseholds in Kashongi, E. coli. and coliform tests of household and water sourcesamples, and focus groups with the community. The team also ran a water andsanitation education campaign. Construction of 38 tanks has started as of the summerof 2010, and the remainder of the tanks will be completed in the summer of 2011.Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi, Uganda is a researchproject investigating the sustainability of IRWH tank systems based on theexperiences with RWH and other water source system management, and has beenundertaken with the collaboration of PHP, MMHF and DukeEngage.This project‟s aim is first to provide solutions to the problem of the sustainability ofthe IRWH tank system in Kashongi, in order to preserve its effectiveness in providinga clean water source to the severely water-deprived residents of Kashongi. The project‟s second aim is to answer the broader question of what it means to makean IRWH tank system effective in the long-term. There is very little researchliterature on IRWH systems; many IRWH projects fail due to difficulties inmanagement, and as a result, many NGOs switch over to Domestic RainwaterHarvesting (DRWH) (Thomas and Martinson 1-160). By providing key insights intothe various issues facing IRWH tank systems, this project aims to fill this gap inresearch literature, thus aiding water-based NGOs who are involved in or consideringproviding IRWH systems for their beneficiaries, thus reaping the potential benefitsIRWH systems can bring if it is managed well and sustained. This is especiallycrucial given the increased attention being given worldwide to the rising importanceof RWH systems around the world, and the role it can play in solving waterdeprivation issues globally (Helmreich and Horn 118-124). 6
  7. 7. Research ThesisHow does Mayanja Memorial Hospital Foundation (MMHF) ensure the long-termsustainability of the Institutional Rainwater Harvesting (IRWH) Network it has set up,and the water it provides? How can management, maintenance and fundingmechanisms be set up for the continued effectiveness of the RWH project, givenphysical, economic and social limitations? 7
  8. 8. Methods 8
  9. 9. Methods1. Focus groupsFive focus groups were conducted with the intention to discern information regardingthe current management of water sources in Kashongi. Participants within each of thefocus groups were from the same parish, but from different villages. Some focusgroups consisted of general community members, others of different water-usercommittees, and the rest of a mix of both. Five of the seven parishes were picked afterconsultation with the project manager from MMHF; Rwenjubu, Kitabo, Byanamira,Kitura and Mooya, while Rwanyangwe and Rwemamba were left out. CVCs wereemployed to recruit the participants; for the first 3 parishes, they met us in the sub-county meeting hall after local primaries were held. For the latter 2 parishes, we metthem in parish public buildings designated by their respective CVCs. In each focusgroup, it was ensured that no one else was around so that each group could feel free tovoice their opinions honestly. Each focus group member was compensated for travelexpenses at the end of the focus group.2. Interviews with Key InformantsInterviews were held with key informants that held important and relevantinformation. They were contacted through email or the phone, and informedbeforehand of the nature of the interview. Key informants that were identified ashaving RWH tanks on their premises were surveyed regarding their experiences withthe tank during the interview. a. NGOs involved in Institutional Rainwater Harvesting (IRWH) projects Two NGOs were interviewed; African Community Technical Service (ACTS), a Canadian Christian organization that has been working in other districts in western Uganda, and the Diocese of Kigezi Water and Sanitation Program, a local church-based organization that was the largest RWH-related group in the nation. The respondents of each NGO, Mr. Tim Specht and Reverend Reuben Byomuhangi, were interviewed in their respective offices in Ruharo and Kabale. b. Sub-County Chief, Kashongi Sub-County The Sub-County Chief of Kashongi, Edward Rwanyima, is a civil servant appointed by the government to oversee the running of the sub-county, and is responsible for all government actions in the area. As a representative of the government, he was interviewed on his opinion on the actions that should be taken on the sustainability, management and funding of the tanks. He was also 9
  10. 10. interviewed as a key informant in charge of 2 rainwater tanks located in the sub-county office. c. Byembogo Leaders- Chairperson of Local Council 1 and Councillor of Local Council 3 Byembogo village is hailed as the Model Village in Kashongi. ACORD, an NGO that runs a program that does cost-sharing with villagers for the construction of DRWH tanks, chose to start with Byembogo due to its distance from major local water sources such as dams. Groups of villagers were organized to build tanks collectively, where villagers would pool their resources to build tanks on their houses in turns. They would share the tanks in the meantime, thus this arrangement has some resemblance to an IRWH system. Their local leaders were contacted through the phone, and then interviewed outside the sub-county meeting hall. d. RWH Tank Contractor Asiimwe Justus is one of the contractors who are responsible for the construction of the tanks commissioned by PHP. He is a trained mason, and has prior experience constructing tanks, as well as other water and sanitation facilities such as latrines. He was contacted through the telephone, and was interviewed regarding questions on tank construction and maintenance, costs, and volume of repairs. e. Tank Holders Key informants that owned IRWH tanks in their premises were identified by PHP in an exercise to map water sources in Kashongi. These included school head teachers, church leaders, health workers, and other public officials. They were surveyed regarding tank characteristics, management of the tanks, and demand management of the water. Several public tank holders that were not included in the PHP mapping exercise were identified, and surveyed. Furthermore, several private tank owners were identified and surveyed as well. They were pointed out by CVCs and several respondents in the household survey. A total of 38 tank holders were interviewed.3. Surveys of HouseholdsPHP conducted a baseline survey of more than 2000 households regarding theirfinancial, water and sanitation situation. From this survey, 81 households self-identified as using RWH tanks that were located outside of their household duringeither the dry or rainy season. Such households were assumed to use water fromeither IRWH tanks or from neighbors. These households were included in this round 10
  11. 11. of surveys regarding the sustainability of IRWH systems; however, when actuallysurveyed, a number of them indicated that they had never used RWH tanks before. Itis unclear why the discrepancy had arisen. In another set of households, CVCs weremobilized to identify additional households in their respective parishes who usedRWH tanks located in public buildings, or in a neighbor‟s residence.In these surveys, households were either surveyed in their homes, or the householdhead was invited by the CVC to be surveyed in public buildings located in theirvillage, or in a neighboring village. The latter group would be compensated for travel.Also, a small number of respondents were pointed out by owners of tanks, andsurveyed in their village trading centers.A total of 116 households were surveyed. 11
  12. 12. Research Findings 12
  13. 13. Research Findings1. Interviews with Key Informants a. Mr. Tim Specht, Director, of African Community Technical Services (ACTS) Mr. Specht was interviewed on his experience with IRWH projects. He mentioned that most of the problems with his previous projects were with the intangible dynamics of each community, and that there was a great need for the NGO to spend time building trust, resolving hostility, and creating understanding about the tanks through discussions with the community and its leaders. He also spoke of solutions to the problems IRWH projects face. Firstly, sign a contract with stakeholders to hold them accountable. Secondly, engage in massive upfront education and sensitization of the community. This can be done through testimonials of people who benefitted through previous IRWH projects, touring of the technology. This will persuade the community to see the health and economic benefits of the tank, build transparency and trust, and increase willingness to pay for access to clean water. Also, speak with the whole community before acting so that you are seen as working for the whole community, and as a mediator. Furthermore, he spoke of how he knows that communities in the village do have enough funds to keep the tank maintained indefinitely; it is just a matter of convincing them that it is worth it. b. Reverend Reuben Byomuhangi, Deputy Program Coordinator, Diocese of Kigezi Water and Sanitation Program The Diocese of Kigezi (KDWSP) has much experience with the construction of RWH systems, and Rev. Byomuhangi spoke on aspects of IRWH that are needed to boost rates of success. First of all, the technology and the approaches used in implementation must be adapted to local geography and varying community situations. KDWSP ranks communities according to need, and maximizes resources by pulling out of communities that are uncooperative. He also spoke regarding the structure and duties of tank committees, which are essential to ensuring the effective management of the tanks. Selection of 13
  14. 14. the right committee members through elections is key; they must be focusedon community development, and live close to the tanks and to the localcommunity. Reelections should be held every few years to drop ineffectivemembers. Committees should formulate a constitution, by-laws and otherrules regarding community funding and water use. They should anticipatefuture problems so as to be prepared for crises.Rev Byomuhangi also advocated a hands-off approach, and let committeesdecide what is best for their own communities. The only guideline he wishedto see was that special provisions be made for marginalized populations.c. Mr. Edward Rwanyima, Chief of Kashongi Sub-countyChief Rwanyima, as the leader of the local government, spoke of how thegovernment was unable to fund the maintenance and repair of the tanks, andthat communities should take ownership of the tank by funding and managingthem themselves.The tank committees should meet regularly about once a month. They shouldalso call meetings with the community, and discuss how to split the cost ofmaintenance. Enough money should be collected before repairs are needed.They should hold a tank commissioning where they sensitize householdsaround the tanks to show them that they own the tanks.The committees should also create collection schedules, and to only allowessential use of the water such as drinking and cooking if the dependantcommunity is large.He also suggests doing a Domestic RWH (DRWH) tank scheme in the future,such as the one ACORD is doing. In such a cost-sharing scheme, funds areused to subsidize households in a 60/40 split.d. Mrs. Kavundi Beretha, Councillor LCIII , Mrs Faith Guma, Chairperson Byembogo, LC IThe community leaders of Byembogo described the tank construction processin Byembogo, the impact the tanks had had, and the problems they have facedthus far.18 of the 45 tanks built by ACORD were individual tanks, but the rest werebuilt in a group-sharing scheme. One of the problems they faced was thatresidents were reluctant to form tank committees because not all of them had 14
  15. 15. tanks at that point. Also, ACORD did not monitor the construction of thetanks, leading to some contractors and residents trying to cut corners onmaterials, leading to tanks that spoilt quickly. Furthermore, quarrelshappened because some people in the group fail to bring their share of themoney. Disputes also arose due to some marginalized groups not being able tojoin tank groups. However, during the dry season, people who share theirwater with those who did not have tanks.Mrs Kavundi and Mrs Guma felt that transparency in committees was key,and they needed to write accountability reports monthly. Moreover, the tankcommittees needed to be trained on how to manage the water, and then spreadthe knowledge to the community.e. Mr. Asiimwe Justus, Rainwater Tank ContractorMr. Asiimwe was trained under a program organized by KDWSP, and hasstarted contracting water tanks in both Kashongi and Kikatasi sub-counties.He is the only contractor in Kashongi, but has trained 3 other masons that heworks with in tank construction.He constructs 40 tanks per year on average, and has built 135 tanks in total. 23of these tanks are private. He also builds soak pits for existing tanks. Heprovides maintenance tips to his clients usually, but for the PHP tanks, he willwait for a chance to pass the maintenance advice on to the tank committeesdirectly.Repair costs range from 700,000 shillings for replacing the top cover of a20,000 liter tank, to 20,000 shillings for a soak pit, to 50,000 shillings for taps.The cost of repairing tank walls depends on the extent of the damage. 15
  16. 16. 2. Focus Group Summary Report a. Key points from Community Members On Water-user Committees: Current water-user committees are receiving mixed results; some of them are effective, but some of them are not active. The community wants water-user committees to have representatives from each village, so as to ensure that their rights are taken care of, and to have someone nearby to contact in case of problems. Corruption is a very real threat, and the community is extremely concerned about the possibility of the elected water-user committees being corrupt, especially when large sums of money are collected to fund maintenance and repair The community appreciates the idea of having 2 CVCs taking on a supervisory role over all the committees in a parish to ensure accountability. The newly elected tank committees should have members who are seen as being faithful in their respective villages. Their duties should include: o Creating a constitution, and by-laws that would guide the usage of the tanks o Guarding, and protection of the tank by building fences o Collecting funds for maintenance o Supervision for equal distribution of water o Control of tank services o Cleaning of the tank, and around it by clearing grass. o Sensitizing the community on aspects of the tanks‟ maintenance and usage They would like school head teachers, water-user committees and the local people to all be educated on the maintenance of tanks, so that they will understand how it is like. They are also willing for the tanks to be taken over by the schools should the community fail in their management of the tanks. o Note: set some service level thresholds for the definition of a failure in management. 16
  17. 17. On Tank Usage:The community members are worried that tanks built in schools will only bereadily available to families living around it; other families will still have totravel long distances for the waterThey prefer students not to use water from the public tank, but will still allowthem to fetch since the children are theirs.Also, the community is ready to adopt strict demand management practicessuch as using the water only in the dry season in order to avoid water scarcity. o In the rainy season, most households already have access to rainwater from their own rooftops, so they should not be getting more water from the tank.Community members would pay for maintenance of the tank, but not per unitof water they obtain from the tank.There must be equal distribution of water; the rich cannot get more than thepoor.There should be by-laws to guide the usage of the tanks. For example, a rulecan be set by the committees that each household can only use 2 jerry cans aday. o Any household that requires more than 2 should pay for the extra water that they use, and this money will go towards the maintenance and repair of the tanks. o Note: This would be like a tier-based fee structure that is commonly used o Note: This amount can be varied through the season e.g. households are only allowed 1 jerry can in the rainy season; for any extra they have to pay.Community members would like to demonstrate that they are cooperative; forexample they had participated in communal labor for the tanks by helping toget materials for the construction of the tanks, as well as water to keep in tankfor prevention of cracks 17
  18. 18. b. Key Points from Water-user Committee Members On the Structure of the committees: Every tank should have a water-user committee Water-user committees have the general structure of: o A chairperson o A vice-chairperson o A treasurer o A secretary o 2 caretakers The committees want one of the members to be the leader of the establishment where the tank is built e.g. school headmaster. The other 5 members would be elected by the community The committees would have the backing of local government, such as the Local Council 1 Chairperson (LC1) at the village level, and the LC5 chairperson at the district level. The LC1 chairpersons should and would have the power to penalize those who refuse to pay up for maintenance of the tanks, such as giving them fines. This system is already being carried out in some villages for collection of fees for boreholes and other water sources. On the Duties of the Committees: Water-user committee members feel that they are not aware of how to carry out their duties o They feel like they need to be sensitized and trained on how to use and maintain their tanks, so that they can pass this information on to others as well. As a result, water-user committees face many challenges in doing their work. Committee members made the point that the group that built the tank should step in to sensitize the community on how to use the tank water, especially for stricter rules such as a limit of water per day, even if the rules are decided upon by the committee. This is because the people will not believe people on the water committees, and they will require outsiders to step in. o Note: this follows what was echoed in interviews with ACTS. In that interview, it was mentioned that the NGO needs to constantly communicate with the community and the community leaders 18
  19. 19. On the Usage of the Tank:Committee members feel that there should be a timetable for the fetching ofwater so that the collection would be orderlyAlso, there should be a calculation to estimate the amount of water eachhousehold should collect.They feel that water from the tank should only be used for drinking during thedry season. 19
  20. 20. 3. Household Survey Summary Statistics a. Household Characteristics, by Parish Number of Mean Standard Parish Variable Observations Value Deviation Household BYANAMIRA Size 9 5.444444 1.589899 Uses a Rainwater Tank 9 0.444444 0.527046 Uses an IRWH Tank 9 0.333333 0.5 Considered Constructing a Tank 9 0.666667 0.5 Breadwinner Income 9 1722.222 1394.433 Household KITABO Size 17 7.117647 3.551098 Uses a Rainwater Tank 17 0.588235 0.5073 Uses an IRWH Tank 17 0.470588 0.514496 Considered Constructing a Tank 17 0.764706 0.437237 Breadwinner Income 16 5572.25 9682.87 Household KITURA Size 23 7.304348 3.322578 Uses a Rainwater Tank 23 0.434783 0.50687 Uses an IRWH Tank 22 0.363636 0.492366 Considered Constructing a Tank 23 0.434783 0.50687 Breadwinner Income 23 3784.348 4861.412 Household MOOYA Size 11 6.454545 1.967925 Uses a Rainwater Tank 11 0.454546 0.522233 Uses an IRWH Tank 10 0.5 0.527046 Considered Constructing a Tank 10 0.7 0.483046 20
  21. 21. BreadwinnerIncome 11 2227.273 2158.045 21
  22. 22. HouseholdRWANYANGWE Size 12 6.083333 2.503028 Uses a Rainwater Tank 12 0.75 0.452267 Uses an IRWH Tank 11 0.181818 0.40452 Considered Constructing a Tank 12 0.75 0.452267 Breadwinner Income 12 3333.333 2699.607 HouseholdRWEMAMBA Size 9 10.33333 6.614378 Uses a Rainwater Tank 9 1 0 Uses an IRWH Tank 9 0.777778 0.440959 Considered Constructing a Tank 9 0.888889 0.333333 Breadwinner Income 9 8777.778 15732.35 HouseholdRWENJUBU Size 35 8.6 6.730964 Uses a Rainwater Tank 35 0.657143 0.481594 Uses an IRWH Tank 35 0.4 0.49705 Considered Constructing a Tank 33 0.757576 0.435194 Breadwinner Income 35 9403.8 23114.87 HouseholdTotal Size 116 7.551724 4.804608 Uses a Rainwater Tank 116 0.603448 0.491304 Uses an IRWH Tank 113 0.415929 0.495077 Considered Constructing a Tank 113 0.690266 0.464444 Breadwinner Income 115 5776.774 14267.62 Figure 1 22
  23. 23. b. Distribution of Usage of Tank Water 1 .931 .8 .594 .6 .540 .492 .4 .207 .212 .171 .2 .018 0 0 Drinking Bathing Handwashing Cooking Animals Agriculture Cleaning Other Non-potable use of waterFigure 2. The majority of respondents used water from the tank only for potable uses, such as drinking,cooking, hand washing and bathing, in that order of frequency. A small number of them used it for non-potable purposes such as cleaning the house. For those that indicated „Other‟, a large proportion used thewater to wash their clothes. This is encouraging, because it means that respondents do know the value ofthe water and use it appropriately. This is likely due to the fact that they have to either pay for it, or receiveit in limited quantities from an institution. c. Impact of Existing Tanks on Respondents, by Parish 8 6 4 2 0 YA BA A E BU A O R IR W B O AM JU TU TA G AM O N EN KI KI EM M YA AN W W AN BY R R W R mean of dectimespentcolwater mean of incwaterqual mean of decdisttravelledFigure 3. Note: Although increase in water quality is high across the board, we see that for some parishes,there is a negative impact of tanks in terms of time spent and distance travelled. This indicates that there aremany respondents who are willing to spend a large amount of time travelling long distances just to getclean water from the RWH tanks. For Kitura Parish, though, one of the respondents had an anomalouslylarge distance travelled and time spent collecting water from the RWH tank. The surveyor was questionedabout the anomaly. Apparently, the respondent goes to great lengths to travel 10km away to Ibanda tocollect water, and spends roughly 12 hours doing so. This greatly distorts the figures shown, and thus theobservation was dropped. 23
  24. 24. d. Willingness to Pay for Tank Water Max Amount Willing to Pay for 20-Litres of Water As a Percentage of Daily Income, By Parish BYANAMIRA KITABO KITURA 10152025 20 17.752 13.2222 15 12.5 6.66667 05 MOOYA RWANYANGWE RWEMAMBA 24.1802 10152025 10 10.0972 10 10.4306 3.25 0 5 RWENJUBU 10152025 15.2733 9.09091 0 5 Mean Percent of Daily Income Median Percent of Daily Income Graphs by parishFigure 4. This graph describes the mean and median amounts a household is willing to pay per 20-litrejerry can of water from the tank, as a percent of their household breadwinner‟s daily income. This wouldserve as an indicator of the maximum value of clean water to a household, taking into account not only thehigher quality of water experienced but also the distance travelled and time spent to collect the water. Thedisparity between the mean and the median amounts serves as a rough indicator of how much variancethere is between respondents.Astonishingly, we see that households are willing to pay up to 15% of their daily income just for 20 litresof clean water. 24
  25. 25. e. Willingness to pay for Yearly Tank Maintenance By Parish BYANAMIRA KITABO KITURA 32911.1 0 00 00 00 00 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 10 20 30 40 12558.8 10000 8704.76 5000 3000 MOOYA RWANYANGWE RWEMAMBA 0 00 00 00 00 25444.4 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 10 20 30 40 20000 14363.6 12416.7 4000 5000 RWENJUBU Total 0 00 00 00 00 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 10 20 30 40 16579.4 15860.2 8250 5000 Mean Amount Median AmountGraphs by parish Figure 5 25
  26. 26. Willingness to Pay, terms of Percentage of One Month’s Income 40 30 20 10 0 YA BA A E BU A O R IR W B O AM JU TU TA G AM O N EN KI KI EM M YA AN W W AN BY R R W RFigure 6. These graphs show the respondents‟ willingness to pay for yearly tank maintenance, first as theraw amount, then as a percentage of a month of their income, where a month income is calculated bymultiplying the breadwinner‟s daily income by 30. The figures shown seem to be relatively high; as we cansee from the graph below, some respondents demonstrate abnormally high willingness to pay high, withsome going as high as more than 300% (willing to pay 3 months worth of income for tank maintenance).This may reflect the respondent‟s inability to make proportional estimation, as the surveyors pointed out.On the other hand, many respondents indicated the importance of clean water to them; therefore, theabnormally high percentages should not be discounted as well.Again, the disparity between the mean and median amounts reflects the amount of variance between thewillingness to pay of respondents. Since the data reflects that a small handful of individuals earndisproportionately more than the other individuals, some going up to 50 or 100 times more, we shall takethe median value as the more accurate figure.The key figure here to take note of is the overall median amount willing to pay for the maintenance of thetank: 5000 shillings. This seems to be a sound figure, since it is roughly 4 days of the median income inKashongi. Yet, with this figure, 20 families that rely on an IRWH tank would be able to raise 100,000shillings per year, for example. This seems to adequately meet the recommended guideline of a yearlymaintenance, cleaning and repair fee of 7% of the initial cost of building the tank, which stands at about 1.7million shillings(Thomas and Martinson 1-160). 26
  27. 27. f. Distribution of People or Groups Contacted for Maintenance Problems .3 .2 Fraction .1 0 0 2 ER R ER ER VT Y R E T E G D C TE O KE O AD TH BO R AD M AY IT G R U R O LE LE O M SO O M AL FO W N M S AL C O ER T. E U LO C N BL IO N AT IO T AI IG SI EN W IT M N EL AD EM E F PO R O ID TR AG ES ER TS AN R U N O W N M SO O ER R AT PE WFigure 7. This graph shows the distribution of people/groups that community members approach whenthey encounter problems with the main water source. Note: For a small number of cases, the surveyorsreported that in a few initial cases they asked respondents to report the person they contacted for problemswith the tanks that they used.We see that a large percentage of respondents do not approach anyone when they encounter problems withtheir main water source. This might reflect the community‟s lack of faith in water-user committees, whichcorroborates with focus group findings. The remainder is relatively equally spread amongst the watermanagement committees, a person responsible for maintenance (usually the owner of the source, if it is aprivate well), and the local government (LC 1 chairperson was the most commonly contacted). 27
  28. 28. Effectiveness of current main source water user committees 1 .8 .6 .4 .2 0 YA BA E A BU A O R IR W B O AM JU TU TA G AM O N EN KI KI EM M YA AN W W AN BY R R W R mean of have you ever contacted this person or group before? mean of was the person or group helpful? mean of was the problem solved? mean of Do you know whether anyone else has contacted them?Figure 8. We see a disparity between the performances of water committees between different parishes.The best performing committees would be in Rwanyangwe, and the committees with the lowest scoreswould be in Byanamira. The disparity between parish water-user committee reflects a troublinginconsistency, and there is a need to find out what are the practices of each committee that result in thisdifference in performance. This also gives evidence for an argument that measures should be taken toprovide training to strengthen performance consistently through different regions. g. Strength of Community Institutions By Parish BYANAMIRA KITABO KITURA .889 .889 .778 .882 .765 .765 1 1 .957 .913 .696 .696 .789 1 .667 .667 .2.4.6.8 .111 .235 .043 0 MOOYA RWANYANGWE RWEMAMBA 1 1 1 1 1 1 .818 .818 .909 .8 .75 .833 .75 .889 1 .75 .2.4.6.8 .455 .417 .222 0 RWENJUBU Total .971 .914 .956 .904 .771 .714 .735 .807 .75 .784 1 .2.4.6.8 .343 .259 0 Discuss Water Issues with Neighbours Village Meeting in the Past Year Village Meeting Attendance Village Cooperative in the Past Year Household Participation in Cooperative Village Health Fund in the Past Year Graphs by parish Figure 9 28
  29. 29. 4. Tank Holders Survey Summary Statistics a. Survey Respondent Characteristics Type of Establishment Location of Respondents by Parish BYANAMIRA KITABO KITURA MOOYA School Place of Worship RWANYANGWE RWEMAMBA Health Centre Private RWENJUBUFigure 10. The majority of existing tanks were located in schools, due to government programmes. Theprivate tanks in Byembogo (Rwenjubu Parish), where ACORD chose to build its tanks, were group tankslocated in homes, and were usually shared by several households. The private tanks located outsideByembogo were commercial tanks, where the owner would sell water from the tank to other communitymembers. 29
  30. 30. b. Tank Characteristics Who Built the Tank By Parish BYANAMIRA KITABO KITURA 1 .2.4.6.8 0 MOOYA RWANYANGWE RWEMAMBA 1 .2.4.6.8 0 RWENJUBU Total 1 .2.4.6.8 0 Self Built Government NGO Campaigner Community Other Graphs by parish Figure 11 Distribution of Tank Capacities 50 40 30 Percent 20 10 0 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 tank1_whatisthecapacityofthetankFigure 12. The majority of existing tanks are built by the local district government, and then a sizeablepercentage of tanks are self-built. Most of the tanks are 10,000 litre tanks; this is the most common by far,followed by capacities smaller than 10,000 litres. 30
  31. 31. Distribution of Type of Tank By Parish BYANAMIRA KITABO KITURA.2 .4 .6 .8 .6 .625 .5 .5 .4 .25 0 0 0 0 MOOYA RWANYANGWE RWEMAMBA .7.2 .4 .6 .8 .667 .667 .333 .333 .2 0 0 0 0 RWENJUBU Total .688.2 .4 .6 .8 .538 .385 .188 .125 .038 0 Ferrocement Plastic Other Graphs by parish Figure 13 31
  32. 32. c. Tank Management Number of Committee Members Frequency of Committee Meetings per Year 40 50 40 30 30Percent Percent 20 20 10 10 0 0 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 25Figure 14. Note: Many committees, especially in schools, were not specifically for the tank, but rathergeneral committees that took care of the entire establishment, including the tank. Such committees wouldmeet several times a year, and would act whenever they receive a report regarding the status of the tank.Most committees had about 6 members, which was a standardised number throughout the sub-county. Thefrequency of meeting per year varied, but most of them met less than 5 times a year, which was verytroubling. A benchmark set by KDWSP was once a month, which is a far higher number. Types of People on Existing Tank Committees Duties of Existing Tank Committees 1 1 .8 .8 .6 .6 .4 .4 .2 .2 0 0 Leader of Establishment Member of Establishment Meeting Repairing Tank Night Watchman Student/Child Cleaning the Tank Collecting Funds Member of Community Mobilising Community Other Figure 15 d. Funding 32
  33. 33. Time Taken for Government Funds to Arrive In Months School Place of Worship Source of Funds for Maintenance 1 1 Grouped by Type of Establishment School Place of Worship 1 .8 .5 .45 .6 .4 .2 .2 .1 .1 .1 .05 0 Density 0 Health Centre Private Health Centre 1 Other 1 1 .8 .6 .4 .2 .5 0 Government Establishment Community Other Graphs by whattypeofbuildingisthis 0 -2 0 2 4 6 -2 0 2 4 6 Graphs by whattypeofbuildingisthisFigure 16. Note: Funding from the private owner of the tank is the most common source of responseslabelled “Other”.For the establishments that are schools, they are supposed to be funded quarterly (once every 3 months).Hence, responses that contain values higher than this reflect lags in government response time thatnegatively impact the establishment‟s ability to act on problems, in this case should a tank require repair. 33
  34. 34. e. Maintenance and Repair Number of Contractors Known Frequency, by Parish BYANAMIRA KITABO KITURA 0 2 4 6 8 3 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 MOOYA RWANYANGWE RWEMAMBA 0 2 4 6 8 4 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 RWENJUBU 8 0 2 4 6 8 5 3 1 Contractor 2 Contractors 3 Contractors Graphs by parish Figure 17 Frequency of Tank Cleaning Per Year 80 60 Percent 40 20 0 0 2 4 6 howoftenisthetankcleanedayearFigure 18. We see that the highest frequency of cleaning occurs twice a year. This is consistent withexpectations, since the most efficient way to clean the tank is to do so before the start of every rainy season,which happens twice a year.Note: It is very likely that the respondents over-report the number of times they clean the tank. For example,a respondent who was a school teacher in one of the primary schools indicated that the tank had never beencleaned since she had arrived, and that it gave bad water. However, the headmaster of the same schoolresponded in another encounter that the tank was cleaned many times a year. The responses might indicatethe respondent‟s benchmark frequency of cleaning rather than the true number of times they clean the tank. 34
  35. 35. Number of Ways Respondents Know How to Maintain a Tank 50 40 30 Percent 20 10 0 0 1 2 3 4 Figure 19 Areas of the Tank that are Cleaned 1 .8 .6 .4 .2 0 Tap Inside of the Tank Gutters Around the Tank OtherFigure 20. The inside of the tank is the most commonly cleaned area; since this is the area which the waterhas the greatest length of exposure to, it has the largest impact on the taste of the water. Respondents oftenclean around the tank as well, and by this they mean the water collection area, as well as clearing nearbyvegetation. 35
  36. 36. f. Negative Impact of Community Usage Number of 43.33 Households which use the Establishments Tank 40 30 30 Percent 20 16.67 10 10 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 howmanyhousefromthecommunityuse Figure 21 Disruption Caused by Community Proportion, by Type of Establishment School Place of Worship 1 1 .857143.2 .4 .6 .8 .666667 .5 .5 .5 .5 0 Health Centre Private 1 1.2 .4 .6 .8 .5 .428571 .333333 .333333 0 0 0 Disruption Experienced Class/Work Interrupted Need to Supervise Community Noise Other Disruption Graphs by whattypeofbuildingisthis Figure 22 36
  37. 37. Frequency of Disruption Per Week 100 50 School Place of Worship Percent 0 Health Centre Private 100 50 0 0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 howoftendoesthisdisruptionoccurp Graphs by whattypeofbuildingisthis Figure 23. Disruption faced by the establishment during the collection of water by the community is a good indicator of the problems they face as the host of an IRWH tank, and thus how likely they are willing to cooperate. In the next graph, the ability of the establishment to overcome the disruption is shown: Ability to Overcome Disruption School Place of Worship 100 50Percent 0 Health Centre Private 100 50 0 No Yes Sometimes No Yes Sometimes doyoufindsolutionstoovercomethes Graphs by whattypeofbuildingisthis Figure 24 37
  38. 38. 38
  39. 39. Regression Analysis of Survey Data 39
  40. 40. Regression Analysis of Survey DataRegression Analysis provides the means to determine the presence, strength andreliability of relationships between different variables. Survey data from the householdand tank holder surveys were analysed to investigate exactly which factors play a role indetermining indicators of tank sustainability, and how these factors affect the indicators.The value of coefficient of the independent variable (on the left-hand side of the equation)determines the strength of the correlation. The direction of the sign (positive or negative)determines whether the variable positively or negatively affects the dependant variable(indicator variable on the right-hand side). The statistical significance of the variabledetermines how reliable the finding is; for example, a significance level of 10% indicatesthat there is just a 10% chance that the relationship is just due to error. In other words,there is 90% confidence.The benchmark of 10% significance is used instead of the usual 5% significance todetermine statistical significance, because of the subjective nature of some of thequestions. For variables that have a *, this indicates a 10% significance level; ** indicates5% significance; *** indicates a 1% significance. Thus, the more stars there are, the morereliable the finding. A + indicates a 15% confidence level, which indicates 85% reliability.Note that the relationship could go either way; in other words, the cause/effectrelationship is not definite, and the indicator variable could be the cause of the change inthe left-hand variable.The first analysis performed using a multiple regression model, and tests for therelationship between the willingness of community members to pay for the maintenanceof the tank. This is the key indicator as to whether the tank is sustainable, as it measureshow willing community members are in supporting the tank, and in turn whether the tankwill receive sufficient funding for maintenance and repairs. From this analysis, we candetermine which other factors are significant in influencing community support of thetank.The second analysis is a binary probit regression model for the probability of a schoolsharing its tank with the community. A probit regression measures the probability of thedependant variable having a positive outcome, which in this case refers to the schoolsharing its tank. This gives us information on what factors influence the likelihood of aschool being cooperative, and in turn affect the chances of a school compromising on itspromise to share the tank with the community in the future.The third analysis is also a binary probit regression model that measures the effect ofvarious indicators of the strength of community institutions on the effectiveness ofexisting water-user committees. Other respondent characteristics are also controlled for. 40
  41. 41. The last model is a multiple regression model that tests the various factors influencinghow often a tank breaks down, an indicator of the long-term functionality of the tanks.This would give us a basis to determine how influential certain establishmentcharacteristics are in determining tank sustainability, controlled for tank characteristics.For more detailed analysis, and also for the results of various equations tested for eachindicator, please refer to Appendix C.The format of this regression analysis was constructed with reference to similar literatureregarding econometric analysis of rainwater harvesting systems (He, Cao and Li 243-250). 41
  42. 42. 1. Willingness and Ability for Indigenous FundingWillingness to Pay = -6.7TankWater + 1646UseIRWH + 0.76Income***+ 31.4MonthlyWaterUse*** + 1588WaterQual* – 20.39WaterQual^3 ++ 3838TimeSpent* + OtherEffects + 4187ProblemSolved+ + εDependent VariableWillingness to Pay = How much respondents are willing to pay for the yearlymaintenance of a public tank, in Uganda Shillings (2200 SHs = 1USD).Household Characteristic Explanatory VariablesTankWater = How much respondents are willing to pay for 20 liters of clean water fromthe tankUseIRWH = Dummy variable (1 for Yes, 0 for No) indicating whether respondentcurrently uses an institutional public tank e.g. at a school or church.Income = The family‟s breadwinner daily income, assuming a day has 8 working hours.MonthlyWaterUse = How much water the respondent‟s household consumes, per monthin 20-litre jerry cans.Tank Impact Explanatory VariablesWaterQual = Increase in self-ranked water quality when using tank water, compared totheir original water source WaterQual^3= WaterQual raised to the power of 3.TimeSpent = Decrease in time spent when using tank instead of old water sourceOtherEffects = Positive effects respondents experienced from using tank water, otherthan distance travelled and increase in water quality. The detailed figures are included inAppendix CCommunity Institution Explanatory VariableProblemSolved = Dummy variable for whether problems with the respondent‟s mainwater source were solved by relevant community institutions.ε = The error term that is unaccounted for by the regression 1. Note: only respondents who have previously used a tank before are included in this regression. 2. Note: one outlier with anomalously large values for distance travelled and time spent was dropped, because the respondent indicated that she regularly went to great lengths to travel 10km away to Ibanda to collect water, and spends roughly 12 hours doing so. This greatly distorts the regression, and thus was not included. 42
  43. 43. The dummy variable for whether a respondent relies on water from an institution isstatistically insignificant. Thus, although the coefficient is positive at 1646 shillings, it islikely that this can be ignored, which in turn means that whether respondents previouslyused a private tank or institutional tank has no effect on their willingness to pay. Thesame goes for the variable for willingness to pay for tank water. Although it seems thatthe latter variable might be significant intuitively since a higher value on tank waterwould mean a higher willingness to pay for its maintenance, some respondents indicatedthat because they were already willing to pay for tank maintenance, they were not willingto pay for tank water. Thus, the correlation here is unclear, and the value of tank waterwill be captured in other variables.Income here is statistically very significant, and very strongly correlated with willingnessto pay for tank maintenance. The coefficient of 0.76 indicates that for every increase inthe respondent‟s income by 1 shilling, the respondent is willing to pay an extra 0.76shillings for tank maintenance.We see that with every unit of increase in self-ranked water quality when using the tank,the respondents are, on average, willing to pay an extra 1589 shillings for themaintenance of the tank. There is a slight decrease in the willingness to pay when theincrease is already high (i.e. when improvement in water quality increases from 8 to 9,there is a lower effect on willingness to pay as a unit increase from 3 to 4) as can be seenby the slightly negative coefficient on Increase in Self-ranked Water Quality3; this isexpected, since there is diminishing returns, and other factors come into play. Thesefindings mean that respondents whose prior experience with tanks gave them an increasein water quality are much more willing to support it than respondents who have not. Thisin turn means that as the community starts to experience real benefits from an increase inwater quality due to the tank, they will grow to become more supportive even if they areunwilling to contribute at first. Thus, we should expect any initial resistance to paying fortank maintenance to lessen as time passes.In the last regression, we added the variable Was the Problem Solved, referring towhether problems the respondents raised to the water-user committees were solved. Thisvariable is an indicator for the effectiveness, or perceived effectiveness of the water-usercommittee. We see that a positive response has a very strong effect on willingness to pay;for respondents that indicated that the problems were solved, they were willing to paymore than 4000 shillings extra, almost double the median willingness to pay amount.Although this variable has a p-value that is slightly above our benchmark for statisticalsignificance, it should not be discounted. This likely indicates that how effective currentwater-user committees are have an effect on how much respondents are willing to supportthe new tanks. From this, we can also infer that the perceived effectiveness of future tankcommittees will have an effect on how willing community members are to support thetanks; if they feel that committees are incompetent or corrupt, they will not put in moneyto ensure that the tanks keep going. 43
  44. 44. 2. Potential Institution Cooperativeness AnalysisProbability of Sharing Tank= -0.0605DaysDry***+1.73NumberTanks** + 2.67NumberHouseholds** + 0.223Requests ***-0.0704Disputes* + εDependent VariableProbability of Sharing Tank = The likelihood that a school shares its tank with thecommunity.Institution-Specific Explanatory VariablesDays Dry = The number of days in a year that the tank goes dry.NumberTanks = The number of tanks a school has.Institution-External Explanatory VariablesNumberHouseholds = The number of households that live within 500 meters of theschool.Requests = The number of requests for tank water the school gets from the communityper month.Disputes = The frequency of disputes the school has with the community over waterfrom the tank.ε = The error term that is unaccounted for by the regression Note: The observations including other types of tanks are removed from this regression. Private tanks are either commercial tanks which are definitely shared, or tanks in Byembogo, where group tanks are built and there is huge community pressure from local leadership to share tanks. Thus, including these observations would bias the findings. Analyzing only schools is also advantageous, because the majority of PHP tanks will be located in schools.We see that the number of days the tank is dry has a strong, statistically significantcorrelation with the probability of the school sharing its water with the community. Wecan easily surmise why this happens; the school, seeing that its water supply runs outquickly, would tend to refuse any sort of assistance to the community. This provides avery strong argument for strict water demand management, since we can foresee asituation whereby schools, after obtaining the tanks that run dry quickly when thecommunity shares them, renege on their end of the bargain. Or at least, becomesuncooperative with sharing the tanks.The number of tanks the school has is also controlled for. This not only accounts for howmuch water the school has, but also how much water the school appears to have. It is 44
  45. 45. likely that for schools with more than one tank, they would find it less easy to get offsharing tanks with the community by pleading a lack of water.The logged variable account for the number of households close by has the strongestcorrelation value. This would give us the insight that schools are strongly affected bycommunity pressure to share tanks; this is corroborated with the variable for how oftenthe community asks for water. A second explanation is that schools with manyhouseholds nearby are likely to draw a large proportion of their students from thesehouseholds. Since many parents are members of the Parent Teacher Association (PTA),the school would face additional pressure to be seen as being considerate of the students‟and their families‟ welfare.The variable for how often households ask for water is also an indicator of the level ofneed experienced by the community. We can infer that communities that are desperate forwater would ask more frequently, and the school, knowing the need of the families,would find some way to share the tank water efficiently.Although it is not statistically significant at a 15% level, we also see a negativecorrelation of how often the community has disputes with the school over water, with thelikelihood of the school shares its tank. Rather than disputes causing the likelihood oftank sharing to drop, the relationship is probably turned around; schools that don‟t sharetheir tanks with the community experience a much higher chance of having disputes withthe community. This is expected information, but it is one that bolsters our intuition. Thissupports findings from interviews with the school staff that the community becomesextremely hostile towards schools that do not share their tank; for example, a schoolreported that farmers in the vicinity of the school refused students to collect water fromponds on their land, even confiscating their jerry cans. In other reports, schools tell ofinstances where community members would maliciously sabotage the school tank whenrefused permission to draw tank water.This gives us extra incentive to ensure that schools are willing to, and more importantly,able to share their tanks with the community to prevent a deterioration of communityrelationships. 45
  46. 46. 3. Factors Influencing the Effectiveness of Water-user CommitteesProbability of Water Source Problem Solved = 3.02Contacted*** +1.14DiscussWater*** -1.59CommMeet*** - 0.0459MeetParticipation +1.81Cooperative*** + 0.112HealthFund – 0.078RankWater + εDependent VariableProbability of Water Source Problem Solved = Dummy variable for whether theproblem with the respondent‟s water source had been solved by the relevant communityinstitution.Respondent Characteristic Explanatory VariablesContacted = Dummy variable for whether the respondent had contacted the person orgroup that was in charge of the water sourceDiscussWater = Dummy variable for whether the respondent discusses water andsanitation issues with his/her neighborMeetParticipation = Whether the respondent or his/her household members hadparticipated in the meetingCommunity Institution Explanatory VariablesCommMeet = Dummy variable for whether there was a community meeting in therespondent‟s village in the past 12 monthsCooperative = Dummy variable for whether a cooperative was organized in therespondent‟s village in the past 12 monthsHealthFund = Dummy variable for whether a health fund was organized in therespondent‟s village in the past 12 months.Water Quality Explanatory VariableRankWater = Respondent‟s ranking of his main water source, on a scale from 1 to 10,with 10 being the lowest quality.ε = The error term that is unaccounted for by the regressionWe see that whether the respondent has previously contacted the community institution incharge of the water source is controlled for in this regression, and has a strongly positiveand statistically significant effect, as expected.Indicators of the relationship between the strength of various community institutions andthe probability of the water source problem being solved seem to give mixed results.DiscussWater and Cooperative are both positively correlated, which seems to indicatethat the presence of strong community relationships does result in an increase in theeffectiveness of the water-user committees. However, CommMeet has a strong negativecorrelation, which seems to contradict this inference. The reason behind this is uncertain, 46

×