Water Wellbeing Indicator for Pastoralists
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
0 likes•75 views
This document discusses the development of a Water Wellbeing Indicator to more accurately measure the impact of water programs, especially among pastoral populations with complex water use. It proposes using emotional response as the basis for the indicator. Research in Ethiopia found water collected did not differ seasonally but emotional responses did, showing conventional measures do not capture impacts. The indicator toolkit developed includes simple, intermediate, and complex tools to serve various assessment needs. The project aims to have partners adopt the survey instrument to demonstrate its value, with the long term goal of broader adoption.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Water Wellbeing Indicator for Pastoralists
Similar to Water Wellbeing Indicator for Pastoralists (20)
More from The Impact Initiative
More from The Impact Initiative (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Water Wellbeing Indicator for Pastoralists
- 1. © Cranfield University1 © Cranfield University1 WEEP: Water Security in Ethiopia and the Emotional Response of Pastoralists (Development Frontiers: 2017-2019) Dr Paul Hutchings, Cranfield University • Health as an unreliable impact indicator for water programmes • Wellbeing as a project impact: but does anyone measure this? • Water outcome measures (e.g. water point) not always aligned with impact ambitions (e.g. wellbeing), esp. in settings with complex water use patterns such as pastoralists • Can we develop a Water Wellbeing Indicator that overcomes these issues? Resources Activities Outputs Outcomes Impacts
- 2. © Cranfield University2 © Cranfield University2 Cross-cultural studies have shown that water insecurity has detrimental impact on emotional wellbeing esp. among subsistent populations (Wutich and Ragsdale, 2008; Sultana, 2011; Stevenson et al., 2012; Jepson, 2014; Sahoo et al., 2015; Bisung and Elliot, 2017, White, 2017) – so, can we use emotional response as the basis for this indicator? Figure 2 – Emotional Response Framework Figure 1 – Research Design
- 3. © Cranfield University3 Seasonality, quantity collected and emotional distress - A conventional indicator versus emotional response indicator - Water collected within the rainy season was 32 lpcd and 25 lpcd for the dry season (no statistical difference) but significant difference in seasonal emotional responses - Seasonally different water use patterns drive emotional response which are poorly captured in conventional approaches Figure 3: Quantity (water collected per capita) Figure 4: Emotional response to quantity of water
- 4. © Cranfield University4 NGOs encourage development of indicator toolkit Type of indicator Purpose Use Ease Validation Water Wellbeing Impact Baseline v endline indicator, on- going monitoring Impact/ Changes in wellbeing Simple Analysis (linear scale) Validated & ready to use Water Wellbeing Diagnostic Needs Assessment, monitoring, learning Equity, conflict Intermediate Analysis (4 variables) Partially Validated Water Wellbeing Assessment Research, needs assessment for vulnerable populations, learning Mental health Complex Analysis (12 variables) Further research needed Conceptualisation Research Design Formative Research Emotional Circumplex Design of indicator Survey Study Analysis To explore a new cultural context To replicate in the Afar language
- 5. © Cranfield University5 © Cranfield University5 Impact journey reflections Resources Activities Outputs Outcomes Impacts • Research coproduced between University and NGO partners – balancing usability/practicability against precision/accuracy • Immediate primary focus is to support project partners to adopt and use survey instrument and analysis framework in their own programmes to demonstrate its value • Broader “higher profile” stakeholders also engaged with, including MoWIE, UNICEF, USAID etc., through conventional dissemination but they are second generation target for adoption of tool – they will not adopt/promote without a level of confidence in the approach that is infeasible to achieve within our 18 month time frame • Long-term success remains uncertain but there is a feasible route towards real-world impact (which is probably appropriate for a Development Frontiers project at this stage) • More info - p.t.hutchings@cranfield.ac.uk / @pt_hutch You are here!
Editor's Notes
- Introduce myself – lecturer CU and PI Project – title and length of project 18 months – Development Frontiers – new thinking/agenda setting and radical Partners – Cranfield, IRC and IWMI – have engaged Oxfam and FSA throughout life of project Plan is to start by pitching relevance of the project in the language of policy and practitioner stakeholders – that is in the context of monitoring and evaluation gaps. BIG PICTURE: Impacts from WASH projects hard to measure – this leads to inappropriate monitoring – and a focus on more easy to measure outcome measures such as presence of infrastructure which can be especially problematic for certain populations as these do not seem to associate with positive impacts among these communities. For example, the provision of a borehole in a region can lead to over concentration of population and livestock in small areas leading to overall worst outcomes. Moreover, monitoring through conventional approaches – such as those employed by government and in SDGs – leads to a focus on household or close to household supplies, which leads to big blind spots for measuring quality of pastoralist water use as they use many water points over large rangelands. These are often seasonal and dynamic so very hard to measure through conventional approaches. Instead, WEEP started from a premise we can measure an impact-level proxy indicator which will be affected by good or bad water security.
- So we set ourselves the following challenge – propose and test an indicator that was robust but simple to use, tells us something that other indicators do not, helps improve understanding of pastoralist experience but basic structure could be applied elsewhere. We focused on the idea of an experience-based measure and began to explore the idea of using discrete emotional responses We undertook an inductive study of wellbeing and emotion in three pastoralists communities in December which included freelisting and acting out emotions (at this time the study was not focused on water), we then categorised those emotions in the matrix in Fig 2 along 2 main axis – arousal and valence – this was then taken back to the community to test and refine. We then adapted a survey tool to provide water security statements and a balance of possible emotional responses before administering that in the communities. We are now in the process of analysis and write-up.
- An example result Data from people on water quantity – are people happy with amount of water collected in each season? If you look at the volume collected by households which is a conventional approach then there is no difference. However, if you ask about emotional response – there is significant difference. Fatigue, despair and grief being associated with dry season and calm and content in rainy season. What is happening is that in dry season people are having to collect water to also provide to animals which means they are getting less water themselves, as in rainy season animals water themselves. Big difference
- Listening to NGO partners we have developed a plan to go from here development of a toolkit type approach Something quite simple and crude which is needed for basic implementation monitoring Something more complex for needs assessments Something probably just for research We have adapted our methodology to be step-wide with ability to jump in at different levels
- Genuinely coproduced – early career researcher so NGO more senior Get content to work with partners in their own programme – great potential for impact Next generation is the big profile people