S5 1 niranjan women and water in vulnerable rural households-revised

208 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
208
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

S5 1 niranjan women and water in vulnerable rural households-revised

  1. 1. Women and Water in Vulnerable Rural Households:Assessing the Vulnerability of Rural Households to Problems of Lac k of Water for Domestic and Productive Needs Yusuf Kabir, Niranjan Vedantam and M. Dinesh Kumar Email: niranjan@irapindia.org
  2. 2. Background Traditionally water supply surveillance generates data on safety and adequacy of drinking water supply for protection of the human health Most current models of water supply surveillance come from developed countries and have significant shortcoming if directly applied in a developing country context Natural, physical, social, human, economic, financial, institutional factors are influencing the vulnerability of the rural population to problems associated with inadequate supply of water for domestic and productive needs A Well designed and implemented water supply surveillance in relation to domestic and productive needs is required
  3. 3. Rationale An assessment of water supply at the household level, based on the old norms worked out on the notion of water supplies that serve human health and hygiene needs would be grossly in appropriate The monitoring of rural water supply is based on simplistic considerations, involving data on No. of HHs covered by different types of water supply systems The data gathered through such surveys are silent on the amount of water actually consumed by the population
  4. 4. Rationale (Contd..) Extensive review of international literature shows the following could be the factors that influence the vulnerability of household to problems associated with lack of water for domestic and productive needs 1. Degree of access to water supplies for human consumption, personal hygiene and productive uses 2. Social Profile and family Occupation 3. Social Institutions and Ingenuity 4. Condition of Water Resources 5. Climate Factors 6. Financial condition (based on Lloyd and Bartram, 1991; Cairncross and Kinnear, 1992; Hunter, 2003; Nicole, 2000; DFID, 2001; Sullivan, 2002; WHO, 2002). There is a need to develop a composite index which takes into account the above complex factors in assessing the vulnerability of rural households and make the surveillance more targeted
  5. 5. MethodsAll these parameters are factored in six broad sub-indices1. Water supply and use2. Family occupation and social profile3. Presence of social institutions and ingenuity4. Climate and drought-proneness5. Water resources endowment6. Financial stabilityThe composite index of “MUWS vulnerability” will have a maximumvalue of 10.0, meaning zero vulnerability; lower values of the indexmeaning higher vulnerability.
  6. 6. Selected field locationsVillage Varoshi, • Located at foothill of Western GhatsDistrict Satara • Characterized by high rainfall • Plenty of local streams flowing down from high altitudes fed by base flows from hilly aquifersVillage Kerkatta, • Located in hard rock plateau areasDistrict Latur • Low to medium rainfall • Rural water supplies heavily dependent on the limited groundwater resources in the Deccan trap formationsVillage Chikhali, • Located in plainsDistrict Chandrapur • Moderate to high rainfall • Endowed with tanks/ponds, but replenished by canal water releases
  7. 7. Water sources for multiple needs Number of Families (only majority) Depending on Various Sources Varoshi Kerkatta Chikhali VariousWater Needs Monsoon Winter Summer Monsoon Winter Summer Monsoon Winter SummerDrinking & 64-Public 63- 85-Farm 58- 58- 55-Farm 63- 63- 63-Cooking Bore-well Public well Individual Individu well Individual Individu Individual Bore- tap al tap tap al tap tap well connection connection connectionOther 65-Public 30- 85-Farm 60- 59- 51-Farm 68- 68- 68-Domestic Bore well Common well Individual Individu well Individual Individu IndividualUses Stand- tap al tap tap al tap tapincluding post connection connection connectionWashing,Bathing &SanitationHomestead 10-Other 10-Other 10-Other 11- 12- 9-Farm well 7-Other 12-Other 11-OtherGardens sources sources sources Individual Individu sources sources sources tap al tapLivestock 27-Public 28- 39-Farm 20- 21- 23-Farm 34-Other 33-Other 44- Bore-well Public well Individual Individu well sources sources Individual Bore- tap al tap tap well connectionSmall Scale 1- Common 1- 1- 1-Individual 1- 1-Open Well - - -Enterprise Stand- post Common Common tap Individu Stand- Stand- al tap post post
  8. 8. Findings In case of Varoshi , the value of the Index was found to be varying from 3.31 – 6.58. The computed values of multiple use vulnerability index for the sample households in Kerkatta village of Latur varies from 2.21 to 6.32. The computed values of multiple use vulnerability index for the sample households in Chikhali village of Chandrapur district 3.15 to 6.37.
  9. 9. Findings (Contd..) In all the villages, water use for domestic and productive needs was found to be influenced by the overall economy of the households. From water scarcity point of view, Kerkatta had the maximum percentage of household vulnerable to problems associated with inadequate water supply for multiple uses.
  10. 10. Conclusions A demand responsive approach to water supply requires that the livelihood needs of the communities are taken care of. rather than mere human consumption and sanitation requirements. This also means that the considerations for assessing the vulnerability of rural communities to problems associated with lack of adequate water supplies (in terms of quality, quantity and reliability) at the household level would change significantly from those used in the past.
  11. 11. Conclusions (Contd..) The development of an index that helps assess vulnerable rural population and pockets within is useful to target data collection in water supply surveillance. Computing the household level vulnerability index can assist a utility in targeting MUWS interventions into communities and strategies where public health gains are likely to be greatest.
  12. 12. THANK YOU
  13. 13. Sr. No Parameters Quantitative criterion for measurement Method of data collectionA Water Supply and Use 1 Access to water supply source Vulnerability decreases with improved access. Access is Interviews of (primary) an inverse function of the distance. The index is a sample function of the distance to the source from ‘0” within households the dwelling to a maximum of 1km and above in gradations of 0.20 2 Frequency of water supplies Vulnerability increases with decrease in frequency of Do water delivery. 3 Ownership of alternative water Ownership of an alternative water source would Do sources increase the overall access and reduce the vulnerability. 4 Distance to the alternative source Distance to the alternative source, would increase the Do “owned” vulnerability. Often, the alternative sources are farm wells, which are located outside the village. 5 Access to other alternative sources Vulnerability decreases with no. of alternative sources. Do 6 Capacity of domestic storage Vulnerability to lack of regular water supplies decreases Do systems with increase in volume of storage systems in place 7 Quantity of water used The vulnerability increases with decrease in quantum of Do water used against the requirement. The vulnerability can be treated as zero when all the requirements in the household are fully met 8 Quality (chemical, physical and Poor quality of drinking water increases vulnerability; Lab test results/ bacteriological) of domestic water Bacteriologically, physically & chemically pure is the perceptions supplies best water 9 Total monthly water bill as a Vulnerability increases with increasing % of total family Interviews of percentage of monthly income income spent on water. An expenditure level of 10% of sample monthly income is treated as highest and most households vulnerable9
  14. 14. Sr. No Parameters Quantitative criterion for measurement Method of data collectionB Family Occupation and Social Profile1 Family Occupation Vulnerability will be low for families having regular source of Interviews of sample livelihood that are not dependent on water. Those who are dependent households on irrigated crop production are considered to be not vulnerable. But, those who are dependent on dairying will be vulnerable. The vulnerability will reduce if they depend on wage labour and other sources of livelihood that do not require water.2 Social Profile Vulnerability is also a function of the social profile. The families Interviews of sample having school going children are more vulnerable to inadequate households quantity, quality and reliability of water supplies. So, is the case with families having office-going adult. But, The vulnerability would reduce with the presence of surplus labour availability.C Social Institutions and Ingenuity Community’s vulnerability to the problems associated with lack of Primary survey (but water increases in the absence of social/community institutions; qualitative to be social ingenuity. The value can range from “0” for the absence of obtained from social institutions or ingenuity to 0.50 for presence of either of these discussions) to 1.0 for the presence of both. Social institutions would include: WATSAN committees (Y=0.50; No=0). Social ingenuity would include: existence of water sharing traditions between households during crisis (Y=0.25; No =0.0) and practice of re- using water in households--using bathing/washing water for toilet flushing, use of sand & ash for cleaning utensils etc. (Y=0.25; No-0.0).D Climate and Drought Proneness1 Climate (whether semi arid/arid/hyper-arid The vulnerability to lack of water for environmental sanitation is a Secondary data on or sub-humid/humid function of climate. It increases from hot & arid to hot & semi-arid to climate hot & sub-humid to hot & humid to cold & humid. The value ranges from “0.0” for cold & humid to “1.0” for hot & arid with increments of “0.20”.2 Aridity and drought proneness The vulnerability due to lack of water for domestic uses, livestock Secondary data on increases with increase in aridity as it would increase the demand for climate water for washing, bathing, livestock drinking and irrigation of vegetables and fruit trees. Aridity areas are also drought prone. The value ranges from “1.0” for cold & humid to “0.0” for hot & arid with reduction of “0.20”
  15. 15. Sr. No Parameters Quantitative criterion for measurement Method of data collectionE Condition of Water Resources1 Surface and groundwater availability in the A renewable water availability of 1700 m3 per capita per annum is Secondary Data area considered adequate for a region or town, estimated at the level of river basin in which it is falling. The value of the index is computed by taking the amount of renewable water as a fraction of the desirable level of 1,700m3.2 Variability in resource condition Higher the variability, greater will be vulnerability. Secondary Data The index is computed an inverse function of the coefficient of variation in the rainfall variability in that basin/sub-basin (1-x/100); where x is the coefficient of variation in rainfall.3 Seasonal variation Regions which experience high seasonal variation in water availability Secondary Data are highly vulnerable. For alluvial areas, the value of this index is considered as 1. For hard rocks, the value is considered as 0.3. For sedimentary and alluvial deposits, the value is considered as 0.65.4 Vulnerability of the resource to pollution or Surface water is more vulnerable to pollution than groundwater. Secondary Data contamination Shallow aquifer is more vulnerable than deep confined aquifer.F Financial Stability Overall financial stability of the family would influence the From Primary Survey vulnerability. This is different from the earnings from current occupations. The savings in banks/post office; ownership of productive land, which is not mortgaged. The family having 1.0 ha of productive land member in a semi arid, water-scarce region, or 0.5 ha of productive land per member in a water-rich area are considered to be financial stable, with zero vulnerability, and the vulnerability is assumed to increase gradually with reducing size of land owned, with highest vulnerability for landless. Again, the lack of ownership of land can be compensated by income savings, with a total saving of Rs. 20,000 equivalent to 0.5 ha in water-rich area and 1.0 ha in a water-scarce area.
  16. 16. WSVI for Varoshi Village Figure 1: Multiple Use Vulnerability Index for Sample 7.000 Households, Varoshi, SataraVulnerability index of HHs 6.000 5.000 4.000 3.000 2.000 1.000 0.000 1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73 77 81 85 89 93 97 WSVI Range: 3.31 – 6.58 and Highly Vulnerable HHs: 67
  17. 17. WSVI for Kerkatta Village Figure 2: Multiple Use Vulnerability Index for Sample7.000 Households,6.000 Kerkatta, Latur5.0004.0003.0002.0001.0000.000 1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73 77 81 85 89 93 97 WSVI Range: 2.21 – 6.32 and Highly Vulnerable HHs: 81
  18. 18. WSVI for Chikkali Village Figure 3: Multiple Use Vulnerability Index for Sample Households, Chikkali, Chandrapur76543210 1 5 9 17 21 25 49 53 77 81 85 13 29 33 37 41 45 57 61 65 69 73 89 93 97WSVI Range3.15– 6.37 and Highly Vulnerable HHs: 30

×