ASSESSMENT OF FACTORS INFLUENCING COMMUNITY

PARTICIPATION IN WATER SUPPLY SCHEMES: THE CASE OF DROUGHT

AFFECTED COMMUNITIES AT DOLLO-BAY, SOMALI REGION

BY
TIGIST FISSEHA

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE SCHOOL OF COMMERCE, ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY IN

PARTIAL FULFILLMENT FOR THE REQUIREMENTS MASTERS OF SCIENCE DEGREE IN
PROJECT MANAGEMENT

ADVISOR
FISSEHA AFEWORK [Assistant Professor]

ADDIS ABABA, ETHIOPIA

JUNE, 2019

1
 DECLARATIONS

Submitted by:
I, Tigist Fisseha, declare that this thesis is my own original work and that it has not been presented and
will not be presented to other university for a similar or any other degree award.

Full Name _________________________________ Signature ___________Date___________

Approved by:
This thesis has been submitted for examination with my approval as University College Supervisor

Name of Advisor ___________________________ Signature ____________Date___________

2
 APPROVAL

The undersigned certify that they have read and hereby recommend to Addis Ababa University, School
of Commerce to accept the Thesis submitted by Tigist Fisseha, entitled “An Assessment of Factors
Influencing Community Participation in Water Supply Schemes: The Case of Drought Affected
Communities at Dollo-bay, Somali Region”, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award
of Masters of Science Degree in Project Management.

Submitted by:
Full Name Sig. Date ______

Approved by:

Name of Advisor Sig. ________ Date

Name of Internal Examiner Sig. ___ Date

Name of External Examiner Sig. ___ Date

Name of Head of Department Sig. Date __

ii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My parents Fisseha Gebremedhin and my mom Workabeba Habte; Thanks for believing in me and I
was always sure of your prayers for me. I always remember your prayer for me – God heard you!

He guided me with such diligence and encouragement His smiles and constructive comments,
continued guidance and great support for the successful accomplishment of this research, likewise,
always gave me hope My Advisor Fisseha Afwork (PhD).

All around me, I was surrounded by very good friends Space would not allow me to name them all but
I mention a few Wondwossen, Daniel M, and Biniam Endale.

Last but not least, I would like to thank all who have given assistance in obtaining the information and
data related to this work, especially, those, who took time from their busy schedule to fill my
questionnaire.

Tigist Fisseha

i
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i
TABLE OF CONTENTS ii
LIST OF TABLES v
LIST OF FIGURES vi
ACRONYMS vii
ABSTRACT viii
CHAPTER ONE 1
INTRODUCTION 1
1.1. Background of the Study 1
1.2. Background of the Organization 2
1.3. Statement of the Problem 3
1.4. Basic Research Questions 4
1.5. Objectives of the Study 5
1.5.1. General Objective 5
1.5.2. Specific Objectives 5
1.6. Definitions of Terms 5
1.7. Significance of the Study 7
1.8. Scope of the Study 7
1.9. Limitations of the Study 8
1.10. Organization of the Paper 8
CHAPTER TWO 9
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 9
2.1. Theoretical Literature Review 9
2.1.1. Community Participation 11
2.1.2. Community Participation as a Social Capital 12
2.1.3. Conceptualizing Community Participation in Health Program Sustainability 13
2.1.4. Collective Action versus Participation 14
2.1.5. Measuring Performance of Water Supply Schemes 15
2.2. Empirical Literature Review 16
2.2.1. The One Water, Sanitation and Hygiene [WaSH] Program in Ethiopia 16
2.2.2. Challenges of the WASH Sector 19
2.3. Conceptual Framework 20
ii
CHAPTER THREE 22
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 22
3.1. Research Design 22
3.2. Sampling Design 22
3.3. Sampling Procedure 23
3.4. Source of Data 25
3.5. Data Collection Tools 26
3.6. Procedure of Data Collection 26
3.6.1. Development of the Instrument 26
3.6.2. Pilot Survey 27
3.6.3. Field Work 27
3.6.4. Data Quality 27
3.7. Data Processing and Analysis 30
3.7.1. Data Entry and Cleaning 30
3.7.2. Data Analysis 30
3.7.3. Variables and Their Specification 32
3.8. Ethical Issue 32
CHAPTER FOUR 34
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 34
4.1. Introduction 34
4.2. Background Characteristics of the Households 35
4.3. Participation in Water Supply Schemes in Doll-bay Woreda 37
4.3.1. Attendance at BG Meetings 37
4.3.2. Making Suggestions and Influencing the Decision 37
4.3.3. Influencing the Location of the water supply and the tariff 38
4.4. Participation Index 38
4.4.1. Index for Attendance at Meetings 39
4.4.2. Index for Decision Making 40
4.5. Factors Affecting Collective Action 42
4.5.1. Group Characteristics 42
4.5.2. Household Characteristics 43
4.5.3. Water Supply Scheme Satisfaction 44

iii
CHAPTER FIVE 51
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 51
6.1. Summary of Findings 51
6.2. Conclusions 51
6.3. Recommendations 52
REFERENCES 54
APPENDICES 61

iv
 LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1: The size of Respondents in the selected study Sites ......................................................................... 24
Table 3.2: Sample size distribution per selected Site ........................................................................................ 24
Table 3.3: Calculated preference indexes for terminal digits by Myers' Blended Method................................. 29
Table 3.4: Description of Independent Variables ............................................................................................. 32
Table 4.1: Number of respondents used in the analysis .................................................................................... 34
Table 4.2: Households according to selected background characteristics .......................................................... 36
Table 4.3: Distribution of households [%] by attendance at BG meetings......................................................... 37
Table 4.4: Distribution of households [%] by extent of participation ................................................................ 38
Table 4.5: Distribution of households [%] influencing decision ....................................................................... 38
Table 4.6: Distribution of households [%] by index for attendance at the meeting [CWS, DWA, DRC] ........... 40
Table 4.7: Distribution of households [%] by index for decision making [CWS, DWA, DRC] ......................... 41
Table 4.8: Group and household characteristics as factors affecting collective action inWSS ........................... 45
Table 4.9: Factors affecting participation in attendance in the group meetings ................................................. 46
Table 4.10: Factors affecting participation in decision making ......................................................................... 47
Table 4.11: Elasticity of participation in attendance in the meeting and decision making ................................. 49

v
 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: Percentage of population obtaining drinking water (data for 2008). (GLAAS, 2010) ........ 19
Figure 1.2: Conceptual framework adopted from K. R. Nisha (2013) ................................................. 21
Figure 3.2: Graphical presentation of single year age distribution of respondents aged 20 – 50+. ....... 28

vi
 ACRONYMS
ASL Above Sea Level
CSOs Civil Society Organizations
CSW Community-Managed Water Supply Schemes
DRC Danish Refugee Council
DWA Dollo-bay Water Authority
EWTI Ethiopian Water Technology Institute
GoE Government of Ethiopia
GTP Growth and Transformation Plan
IDPs Internally Displaced People
MoH Ministry of Health
NGOs Non-Governmental Organizations
OOWNP WaSH National Program
WASH Water, Sanitation and Hygiene
O&M Operation and Maintenance
MBCA Mutually Beneficial Collective Action (MBCA)
WSS Water Supply Schemes

vii
 ABSTRACT
People living in IDPs sites and drought affected areas have substantially greater need for water,
sanitation, and hygiene. Their participation in community-based water supply schemes is
recommended. Studies on community participated water supply projects have found that demand
responsiveness and participation by beneficiaries improve project performance (Isham et al., 1994;
Narayan, 1995; Isham & Kahkonen, 1999, 2002; Prokopy, 2005). The main objective of this study was
to identify the factors which influence community participation in conflict-affected populations based
water supply schemes in IDPs and drought affected communities in Dollo Bay Woreda of Afder Zone.
This study has identified the factors which influence user participation in community-based water
supply schemes in IDPs and drought affected communities at Dollo Bay Woreda of Afder Zone, Somali
Regional State, using primary data. 250 respondents of total households was designated using
systematic random sampling technique in an attempt to investigate respondents’ attitude towards the
impact community participation on the satisfaction of water supply schemes. A two stage random
sampling that is selection of the Kebeles and selection of households is made. To capture the rate of
participation, two forms of indices were constructed: one to measure attendance in group meetings,
and the other to measure their influence on decisions. The relative importance of factors such as group
and household characteristics that affect participation were analyzed using linear regression models.
Of the two sets of factors, it was found that household characteristics were the most influential. The
analysis shows that males actively participated in group meetings. Level of education and involvement
of households in other local organizations were the other major factors affecting participation. over all
in the water supply context, once the system was installed and functioning without any interruption, it
was observed that households were less interested in participating in the meetings. It is households’
increased water demand that mainly drives them to participate in the community-managed schemes.

Keywords: Collective action; Participation index; Populations based water supply

viii
 CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background of the Study
Development experience over the last few decades and the increased concern of international funding
agencies and Non-Governmental Organizations in the social sector have made community involvement
an inevitable part of the development process. Community-based development projects assume
participation of beneficiaries in the implementation and management of the schemes under
consideration. Participation of beneficiaries in project implementation is supposed to make
development demand-driven and effective.

Community-based development schemes have emerged as a solution to the problems faced with state
management of resources. Hence, in the wake of decentralized planning processes, state governments
have devolved the responsibility of providing basic necessities to local organizations. Under the new
initiative of community water supply schemes, beneficiary groups (BGs) are responsible for planning,
technology selection and installation of rural water supply facilities. Operation and maintenance
(O&M) of the structures created in the projects is also the responsibility of the beneficiaries. The
United Nations Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) for 2015 also aim to ‘reduce by half the
proportion of people without sustainable access to safe water’ (UN, 2010). Community management is
identified as the predominant model for achieving this objective by bringing sustainable water supplies
to millions of rural people. Development experience over the past three decades has proved that
demand-driven community-led approaches deliver better results than supply-driven government-led
models.

Since water is a basic need, it was assumed for a long time that the responsibility of the provision of
water supply should be entrusted to government. But governments’ fiscal crises, combined with
structural adjustment programs, have compelled most developing countries to look for alternatives for
water supply management.

Ethiopia’s Water Policy (2008) also emphasized the need for an integrated approach towards water
management in the state. The state policy entrust the responsibility for regulated water use with the
community. The Draft National Water Policy (2012) also advocated the efficient use of water
and maximizing its value through economic instruments. Both state and national policies emphasize the
1
efficient use of water as a resource. However, state policy emphasizes community managed schemes
for rural water supply. It is in this context that an attempt has been made to answer the question: ‘what
factors affect beneficiary participation in community-managed rural water supply schemes?

1.2. Background of the Organization

Danish Refugee Council / Danish Demining Group is a humanitarian non-governmental organization
working in more than 30 countries in the world. It has been operational in Ethiopia since 2009
supporting refugees and host communities in emergency relief and rehabilitation projects in the fields
of WASH, shelter construction, livelihoods, protection and mixed migration issues.

DRC fulfills its mandate by providing direct assistance to conflict-affected populations – refugees,
internally displaced people (IDPs) and host communities in the conflict areas of the world; and by
advocating on behalf of conflict-affected populations internationally, and in Denmark, on the basis of
humanitarian principles and the Human Rights Declaration. DRC’s Horn of Africa and Yemen
Division works in Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, Uganda and Yemen.

Danish Refugee Council has designed a project titled Emergency WASH and AWD response to
vulnerable IDPs and drought affected communities in Babile and Gursum Woredas of Fafan Zone, and
Dollo Bay Woreda of Afder Zone, Somali Regional State to contribute to the reduction of vulnerability
of 47, 174 IDPs and affected host communities through extension of a permanent water supply system,
installation of river intake structures, construction of elevated tanks, provisions of water treatment
chemicals, construction of water distribution points, NFIs and hygiene promotion, the provision of
immediate lifesaving WASH services to sanitation related diseases through improving access to
sanitation facilities and organizing hygiene promotion activities and awareness sessions on safe
hygiene practices. The activities were in line with the WASH Cluster’s strategy for provision of WASH
services to affected populations in the Somali region.

Delivery of safe drinking water has been identified as a priority need among the target beneficiaries.
With the aim of improving access to safe water supply, DRC engaged in the construction of 10 water
points which were connected to the distribution pipe network in Qoloji 1 IDP site, Babilie Woreda,
Fafan Zone. DRC also upgraded an existing water supply system in Dollo Bay Town and developed a
river intake structure supported by a solar pump to supply water to IDP and host communities in
Koraley Kebele, Dollo Bay Woreda, Afder Zone. This work significantly increased access to reliable
2
water in targeted areas and substantially reduced the distance required to fetch and carry drinking
water. In addition to safe water delivery, points of use water treatment chemicals (AquaTabs) were
distributed in Dollo Bay Woreda to increase access to safe drinking water at the household level (DRC,
2018).

The DRC project is expected to directly reach 30,593 people in Fafan Zone and 16,738 People in Dollo
Bay Woreda. The action will benefit 47,174 person in the targeted Woredas of Fafan and Afder Zones,
of which 51% are IDPs.

1.3. Statement of the Problem

Stakeholder engagement and participation is a popular concept in many disciplines, from
environmental planning and management to international development work. In the field of safe water
supply, participation is promoted as a tool for overcoming some of the major challenges to improved
access to water supply, such as low demand for water supply infrastructure, poor hygiene habits, weak
institutional structures and low capacity for operation and maintenance of built systems (Wright, 1997;
Wood et al. 1998). Stakeholder participation in water supply planning and implementation is
encouraged because it is believed that it will create demand (Wright, 1997); it will lead to a better
decision-making process where the selected technologies are better adapted to the local context
(WSSCC/ Eawag, 2005); and it will increase stakeholders’ capacities to manage the system afterwards
(Roma & Jeffrey, 2010).

For reaching the un-served in the water supply sector, the participation paradigm is now widely
accepted and there is increasing promotion of collaborative design and policymaking among academics
and politicians as a way to increase sustainability (Murcott, 2007).

Delivery of safe drinking water has been identified as a priority need among the target beneficiaries.
With the aim of improving access to safe water supply, DRC engaged in the construction of 10 water
points which were connected to the distribution pipe network in Qoloji 1 IDP site, Babilie Woreda,
Fafan Zone. DRC also upgraded an existing water supply system in Dollo Bay Town and developed a
river intake structure supported by a solar pump to supply water to IDP and host communities in
Koraley Kebele, Dollo Bay Woreda, Afder Zone. This work significantly increased access to reliable
water in targeted areas and substantially reduced the distance required to fetch and carry drinking
water. In addition to safe water delivery, points of use water treatment chemicals (AquaTabs) were
3
distributed in Dollo Bay Woreda to increase access to safe drinking water at the household level (DRC,
2018).

Although there is an abundance of empirical evidence from rural water supply and water projects
showing the benefits of participatory processes (Narayan, 1995; WSP, 2007; Wicken et al., 2008), there
has been little research on identifying the major factors that would hinder community participation in
populations based water supply schemes, especially in vulnerable IDPs and drought affected
communities. A preliminary exploration in such a context found that not all forms of participation are
equally influential in delivering successful urban water supply services (Nance & Ortolano 2007). The
study highlights the need to differentiate the major factors that would influence community
participation and perhaps question the assumption that group leader participation is always better.

Hence, researches that assess the factors that influence community participation in water supply
schemes in the drought affected areas are expected to play an important role in filling the existing
knowledge gap, in terms of understanding the factors that would hinder vulnerable IDPs and drought
affected communities’ participation in water supply schemes. Therefore, this research contributes to fill
the gap in the literature.

Moreover, further studies are needed to understand more precisely how the form of participation
influences project outcomes, for example, what style of participation will increase demand and does
this differ from what is needed to improve design and appropriate use of facilities?

1.4. Basic Research Questions

To achieve the above goals of this research, the following questions has been investigated:
1. What is the rate of community participation in the IDP based water supply schemes
2. What are the socio-economic factors affecting community participation in IDP based water
supply schemes?
3. What demographic factors are affecting mainly community participation in IDP based water
supply schemes?
4. What are the major factors influencing collective action in IDP based water supply schemes?

4
1.5. Objectives of the Study
1.5.1. General Objective
This study has been designed to identify the factors which influence community participation in
conflict-affected populations based water supply schemes in vulnerable IDPs and drought affected
communities in Dollo Bay Woreda of Afder Zone.

1.5.2. Specific Objectives

More specifically this research was intended:
 to check if there is a community participation in IDP based water supply schemes through
quantifying attendance in group meetings and community members’ influence on decisions;
 to identify the socio-economic factors that would affect community participation in IDP based
water supply schemes; and
 to identify group and household characteristics that would affect community participation in
IDP based water supply schemes; and
 to identify the major factors affecting collective actions in IDP based water supply schemes.

1.6. Definitions of Terms

WaSH is an abbreviation that stands for water, sanitation and hygiene. The acronym has become
popular during the last couple of decades as the focus on providing safe water supply, sanitation and
hygiene to the global population has been growing. (Note that sometimes WASH is written with a
small ‘a’, WaSH, from water, but the meaning is the same.) (OpenWASH, 2016).
The combination of water, sanitation and hygiene into one term recognizes that the three are closely
linked and should be considered together.
Water Supply:
It is the provision of water by public utilities, commercial organizations, communities or individuals.
Public supply is usually via a system of pipes and pumps. In order to sustain human life satisfactorily, a
water supply should be safe, adequate and accessible to all. (OpenWASH, 2016).

Safe water supply means the supply of water is free from any form of disease-causing agents. The main
criteria are:
 biological aspects: the water supply should be free from disease-causing microbes and parasites.

5
  chemical aspects: the water supply should be free from dissolved chemicals at the level that
would damage health.
 radiological aspects: the water supply should be free from any naturally occurring radioactive
substances.
In addition to being safe, the water must also be acceptable to consumers by being odorless, colorless
and without objectionable taste. (OpenWASH, 2016)

An adequate water supply fulfills the minimum amount of supply per person per day. The World
Health Organization defines this amount as 20 liters of water per person per day. (Note that ‘per
person’ is sometimes written as ‘per head’ or ‘per capita’ – they all mean the same.)

Accessible water supply is within safe physical reach from the home or institution, usually within 1 km
or a 30-minute round trip.

Sanitation generally refers to the prevention of human contact with wastes, but is also used to mean the
provision of facilities and services for the safe disposal of human urine and feces. Sanitation can be
further classified as basic or improved sanitation.

Hygiene: the word hygiene originates from the name of the Greek goddess of health, Hygeia. It is
commonly defined as a set of practices performed for the preservation of health and healthy living.
Hand washing with soap or ash is the most important element, but it also includes personal cleanliness
of the face, hair, body, feet, clothing, and for women and girls, menstrual hygiene.

Community:
It is defined as a group of individuals who share a common space and social, cultural, and economic
milieu (Leonard & Airhihenbuwa, 1993)

Collective Action:
It has been defined as a function of individuals’ incentives to contribute to the maintenance and abide
by the rules and regulations, the capacity of the community as a whole to cooperate and to manage the
incentives, and the overall policy environment in which the institutions must operate (McCarthy et al.,
2002: 5).

6
Participation:
It ranged from mere membership and attendance at BG meetings to active involvement in terms of
influence in decision making and interactive participation, which has the potential to empower the
beneficiaries (Agarwal, 2001)..

1.7. Significance of the Study

For the most part, the study was emphasized on assessing the factors which influence community
participation in conflict-affected populations based water supply schemes in vulnerable IDPs and
drought affected communities in Dollo Bay Woreda of Afder Zone. Hence, the findings of the study
was anticipated to give inputs to the debate on the factors that hinder community participation in
population based water supply schemes in vulnerable IDPs and draught affected areas in general and
Afder Zone. In particular, to the policy makers and planners as they design development projects
related to WASH and to improve the livelihood of the people at macro or micro levels. Besides, the
study has produced empirical outputs for further researchers.
1.8. Scope of the Study
The scope of this study is restricted in conflict-affected populations based water supply schemes in
vulnerable IDPs and drought affected communities in Dollo Bay Woreda of Afder Zone in order to
assess the factors that influences community participation in community based water supply scheme. It
will be designed to focus more on their demographic features, livelihood, locality, group and
household characteristics and the determinant factors on their decision making.

Because of this, the study was confined to limit its scope in Dollo Bay town and Koraley Keble, both
are confined in the Afder Zone of Somali Regional State.

Dollo Bay town is one of the emergency WASH project target area. The town is located on the bank of
Genale River at geographical coordinates of North 0430166 and East 04206330 and an average
elevation of 177 meter Above Sea Level [ASL]. The town has two main Kebeles and new IDP
settlements which is under construction. The total population of the town is about 11,058 people.

The Koraley Kebele is one of the emergency WASH project target area and it is located in Dollo Bay
Woreda of Afder Zone of Ethiopian Somali Regional State. The Kebele is located south east of Dollo
Bay town at about 10 km and situated along the bank of Genale River at geographical coordinates of

7
North 0176465 and East 0463964 and average elevation of 173 meter ASL. The Kebele has IDP
settlement and the total population of the Kebele including IDP’s is 5581 (3360 host and 2221 IDPs)
people.

1.9. Limitations of the Study

The survey in this study was conducted for less than a month. With limited time, this study focused
only on the factors of that affect community participation in water supply schemes.

Secondly, this study is more quantitative and needs to be triangulation, especially from the perspective
of service deliverer. Moreover, some respondents were found very doubtful, sensitive, and not willing
to give information particularly regarding certain issues like those related to occupation, income, land
size, and family size etc.

1.10. Organization of the Paper

This thesis has been intended to incorporate Six chapters. The first chapter of the thesis will introduce
the general overview including the background of the study, which incorporates statement of the
problem, objectives, basic research questions, significance of the study, scope of the study, and
limitations of the study. The second chapter will deal with literature review that presents the in-depth
review of the theoretical perspective of community participation in conflict-affected populations based
water supply schemes in relation to socio economic impact on households and livelihood strategies of
government. Chapter three will focus on the research methodology where variables to be analyzed,
sampling methods, data source of the study, and sample size determination method of data analysis will
be explained. Chapter 4 will discuss description of the study area and the sample households. Chapter
five will explain the presentation, interpretation, and discussion of findings of the study. Finally,
chapter six recapitulates the study in terms of summary, conclusion and recommendations of the study.

8
 CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1. Theoretical Literature Review

Worldwide, 80 percent of the people who have limited access to drinking water supplies live in rural
areas (United Nations, 2010). But the sustainability of rural water infrastructure has been a critical
challenge mostly due to the remoteness of rural locations and the lack of financial and technical
capabilities to operate and maintain schemes in these areas. One of the United Nation’s 2000
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) was to increase the proportion of the world’s population that
has access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation (United Nations, 2010). While the international
community has made advancements toward these goals over the past two decades, progress in rural
areas is lagging when compared to urban areas (United Nations, 2011). The recent Sustainable
Development Goals built on the MDGs and proposed a higher measured of access to safely managed
water.

Many countries focused on construction of facilities to expand access quickly. However, inadequate
attention to post construction O&M led to subsequent collapse of many of these schemes and need for
further reinvestment. For instance, a 2009 Water Aid study from Tanzania found that nearly half of
improved public water points in rural areas are not functioning, and 25 percent of systems are
inoperable after only two years following installation (Taylor, 2009). Similar findings were found in
Nigeria (Andres et al., 2016). These systems fail at such high rates in large part because sustainability
of rural water systems in low- income countries depend on “the relationship of the user with the life
cycle of the water systems” (Jones, 2012).

So to achieve long-term sustainability, governments and development partners started to focus on

institutional arrangements that would ensure involvement of users in planning, implementation and
O&M of schemes and financial contribution by users to at least cover the O&M costs. It was important
to have infrastructure sustainability, as there was enough evidence that by 2025, nearly 1.4 billion
people, amounting to a quarter of the world’s population or a third of the population in developing
countries are destined to face absolute water scarcity (Cosgrove, 2003).

9
Community driven projects with active beneficiary participation in planning and implementation are
likely to be more responsive to the needs of the beneficiaries in creating infrastructure, giving
communities control over decisions, improving service delivery, creating ownership and strengthening
the capacity of the communities to undertake other development activities (Chambers, 1983; Sen, 1999;
Dongier et al., 2003).

Academic literature on performance assessment of various communities driven, participatory water

supply schemes shows that such projects can create effective infrastructure and improve performance
of water supply schemes. Participatory-demand-driven models for provision of rural water supply has
been found to be successful in delivering well-designed and functioning systems in Ghana and Peru
(Brikke, F. and Bredero, M., 2003).

A study conducted in rural Kenya (Brikke, F. and Bredero, M. 2003) reveals that demand based
community participation in building drinking water systems increase the community sense of
ownership for the water system, and improve functioning of rural water projects. Isham and Kahkonen
(1999) in their study of community driven projects in India and Sri Lanka found that greater
community participation is associated with improved service delivery.

An assessment of ten community driven projects in Benin, Bolivia, Honduras, Indonesia, Pakistan, and
Uganda shows that community driven projects with active beneficiary participation are likely to be
more sustainable (Sara and Katz, 1997). Similarly, a more recent study in rural areas of Pakistan found
that community participation is crucial for developing ownership and for ensuring long term
sustainability of rural water supply projects (Haq, Hassan and Ahmad, 2014).

Several studies have also highlighted the importance of capacity development an institutional support
to ensure long run sustainability of these projects. An impact evaluation of small community water
systems in Bolivia funded by the Bolivian Social Investment Fund found that training and capacity
development of communities are crucial for improved performance of these schemes in terms of access
and availability of water (Newman et al., 2002). In Malawi, newer community driven rural water
supply schemes were found to be performing better than the older ones indicating poor sustainability of
the schemes due to lack of institutional support (Kleemeier, 2000). In Suriname, socially appropriate
technological choice along with involvement and support of community in general and women in

10
particular were found to be the factors crucial for success of community driven water supply projects
(Rout, Satyapriya, 2014).

While assessment of various participatory community driven water supply projects found evidence
supporting their success in improving service delivery, there is very little evidence on the relative
effectiveness of community driven projects compared to traditional supply driven projects. A study of
rural water supply schemes from ten states (including Kerala) in India found that community managed
schemes performed ‘somewhat better’ than traditional supply driven schemes (Misra, 2008).

2.1.1. Community Participation

The community, defined as a group of individuals who share a common space and social, cultural, and
economic milieu (Leonard & Airhihenbuwa, 1993), plays a critical role in health related efforts.
Majority of the social scientists have consistently noted that community participation generates
systematic changes in the population through citizen involvement and active participation in identifying
the needs of the community and in implementing initiatives for the improvement of the wellbeing of
the community and its members (Eisen, 1994).

According to Merzel and D’Afflitti (2003), the rationale for the community-based approach to health
promotion stems from the notion that individuals cannot be considered separate from their social
milieu, and that context is interdependent with the health and lives of individuals living in the
community.

Campbell and Jovchelovitch (2000) state that participation allows community members to formulate
strategies that are based on the barriers they face and their perceived needs. As a result, development
program messages and program implementation procedures are created from within the community,
enhancing their chances of eliciting desired results. Related to this articulation is the notion of
empowering the community. Communities with actively participating members are likely to perceive
that they are more in charge of their lives. Hence they are also more likely to take control of their
health, engage in health enhancing behaviors, and actively seek out health resources (Campbell &
Jovchelovitch, 2000).

Situating a health communication model within a participatory community-based framework empowers

members of the community to articulate their needs, map resources available, mobilize them in the
11
production of positive health outcomes, and engage in health sustenance behaviors (Dutta-Bergman,
2003).

Inherent in these conceptualizations of community participation is an underlying sense of social

commitment (Dutta-Bergman, 200Scheufele & Shah, 2000: Tocqueville, 1948). This sense of
commitment leads members of the community, and hence the community, to partake in health
promoting behaviors. In a way then, a community that is characterized by a high sense of social
commitment among its members (reflected in high participation) is likely to be better off in terms of
practicing behaviors.

2.1.2. Community Participation as a Social Capital

Participation is depicted as central to situated learning since it is through participation that identity and
practices develop. As Wenger has suggested, participation refers ‘not just to local events of
engagement in certain activities with certain people, but to a more encompassing process of being
active participants in the practices of social communities and constructing identities in relation to these
communities’ (Wenger, 1998, p. 4; emphasis in original).

Thus, participation is not just a physical action or event (see also Clancey, 1995); it involves both
action (‘taking part’) as well as connection (Wenger, 1998, p. 55). Participation brings the ‘possibility
of mutual recognition’ and the ability to negotiate meaning, but does not necessarily entail equality or
respect (ibid, p. 56) or even collaboration.

Social capital refers to the ability of a community to mobilize its collective resources and secure
maximum gains through its network of relationships and social structures (Putnam, 1995). It is often
equated with community participation and all social, collective, economic, and cultural resources to
which a community has access. Dutta-Bergman (2004b) examined the role of health consciousness,
measured at the individual level, in generating social capital. Dutta-Bergman’s (2004b) study
demonstrated that greater health consciousness among individuals led to increased community
participation, which when summed up across the community, led to positive development outcomes in
communities.

Whereas Bourdieu (1993) described social capital as investment in social connections through valuable
social relationships, the concept was highlighted in the scholarship of political scientist Robert Putnam
12
(1995). Putnam defines social capital as “features of social organization such as networks, norms, and
trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit” (p. 66). According to Pilkington
(2002), Putnam’s analysis of social capital had four characteristics: the existence of community
networks, civic engagement, local identity and a sense of solidarity and equity with other community
members, and trust and reciprocal help and support.

Coleman (1990) states that “social capital inheres in the structure of relations between persons and
among persons” (p. 302). McMichael and Manderson (2004) refer to social capital as those factors that
contribute to well-being and those that capture “how people use and gain from voluntary associations,
interactions with others in their neighborhoods, and the contacts that friends and relatives provide” (p.
89). Operationalizing social capital in an effort to measure it has been varied. Whereas Weitzman and
Kawachi (2000) operationalized social capital in terms of an individual’s average time committed to
volunteering over a time period.

2.1.3. Conceptualizing Community Participation in Health Program Sustainability

The issue of health program sustainability has received attention over the past few decades as an
important topic in both academic and policy literature. The concept is broadly accepted as referring to
the continued use of program components and activities for the achievement of desirable or intended
health outcomes beyond the initial funding period (Shediac-Rizkallah and Bone, 1998; Scheirer and
Dearing, 2011). Within this discourse, the issue of what exactly is to be sustained has been a recurrent
theme. From a medical or health systems perspective, of importance has been to track the long-term
health effects of the program and for its institutionalization within the pre-existing structures and
processes of the health system (Pluye et al., 2004; Shigayeva and Coker, 2015).

Since Alma Ata, a growing strand of literature sees community participation as an essential driving
force for health program sustainability based on the assumption that working with communities can
help make interventions more relevant to local priorities (Rifkin, 1986, 2014; WHO, 2002; Draper et
al., 2010). However, there remains lack of conceptual clarity about how exactly community
participation leads to sustainable health outcomes (Hossain et al., 2004).

An important debate in the literature has revolved around whether the aim of community participation
should be to improve the efficiency of service delivery by increasing the uptake of interventions, or
whether it should be linked to addressing broader structural issues of equity in healthcare (Rifkin, 2003;
13
George et al., 2015a). Much effort has been dedicated towards understanding community participation
as a process from low levels of participation to higher levels influenced by the socio-economic and
political context within which it is embedded, as illustrated, for example, by Frumence et al. (2014) in
their study of participation in health facility governing committees in Tanzania. The spider-gram model
developed by Rifkin et al. (1988) has been widely used to conceptualize community participation as a
process influenced by different factors such as needs, leadership, program organization, management
and resource mobilization, which taken together measure the uptake and sustainability of the health
intervention. The model visualizes each indicator separately as a continuum from narrow to wide
participation, which is then linked to the rest of the indicators to arrive at an overall assessment of how
community participation influences program sustainability.

2.1.4. Collective Action versus Participation

Collective action has been defined as a ‘function of individuals’ incentives to contribute to the
maintenance and abide by the rules and regulations, the capacity of the community as a whole to
cooperate and to manage the incentives, and the overall policy environment in which the institutions
must operate’(McCarthy et al., 2002: 5). It is argued that collective action is the activity which happens
through an organization (Meinzen-dick et al., 2002) and people’s/user’s participation is a necessary
condition for the success of collective action (Singh, 1992). It is observed in empirical studies that
beneficiaries participating in collective action groups exerted greater control over their household
decisions and displayed greater civic engagement than others (Joshi, 2012).

Studies on community participated water supply projects have found that demand responsiveness and
participation by beneficiaries improve project performance (Isham et al., 1994; Narayan, 1995; Isham
& Kahkonen, 1999, 2002; Prokopy, 2005). A study on financially aided rural water supply projects has
found that projects with a high degree of beneficiary participation had a success rate of 68%, while
projects with low participation from beneficiaries achieved a success rate of only 12% (cited in
Skidmore, 2000). Crow et al. (2012) observed that participation in CWSs provides time benefits, by
reducing time spent on fetching water, and helps to increase the household income of the beneficiaries.
But critics argue that participation can have adverse effects in terms of overburdening local people, and
also that participation can turn out to be a mere presence if local people do not have the ability to
influence the outcome of a project (Oakley, 1991; Cooke & Kothari, 2001, cited in Prokopy, 2005).

14
However, participation has been measured differently in the context of community water supply. Isham
et al. (1994) and Narayan (1995) analyzed participation in a hierarchical order, with information
sharing representing the lower end and decision making and control representing the higher end of the
scale. Agarwal (2001) provided a detailed classification of participation in community-based
management of natural resources. According to her, participation ranged from mere membership and
attendance at BG meetings to active involvement in terms of influence in decision making and
interactive participation, which has the potential to empower the beneficiaries. Özerol (2008) analyzed
institutions of participation with different levels, i.e. zero order, first order and second order: the zero
order engaged users in collective action for resource use and infrastructure maintenance; first order
emphasized the participation of users in the processes for defining and enforcing zero-order
institutions, i.e. to regulate and monitor; the highest level of participation (i.e. second order) involved
users in organizing and hence engages them in the processes for revising first-order institutions.

Prokopy (2005) has argued that, in community-driven water supply projects, the contribution of money,
labor, materials, etc., could be considered as a low form of participation. For him, households’
attendance at meetings, speaking out at meetings, etc., contributed to the middle of the hierarchy, whilst
participants’ own initiatives and leadership roles contributed as the higher form of participation.
Prokopy showed that decision making at the lowest possible level within a village is important for
project success. In the same way, Marks & Davis (2012) argued that household members’ participation
in decision making with regard to the level of service provided is associated with a high level of sense
of ownership and with the success of a project.

Sara & Katz (1998) took demand responsiveness to be the factor affecting project outcome instead of
participation. They argued that, in demand responsive projects, communities were allowed to make
informed choices about whether to participate in a project or not. Informed choice measured the degree
to which individuals felt involved in decision-making processes and were informed about the
consequences of the decisions. Rajasekhar & Veerashekharappa (2003) also considered beneficiaries’
involvement in group meetings, decision making and implementation (in terms of payment of
contributions and user fees) as indicators of participation in water supply projects.

2.1.5. Measuring Performance of Water Supply Schemes

Measuring performance of various water supply schemes requires a multidimensional approach that
would not only capture quality of service delivery but also the factors that are critical for long term
15
sustainability of the schemes. Accordingly six indexes have been identified – three indexes to measure
quality of service delivery and one index each to capture operational, financial, and institutional
sustainability of water supply schemes. The service delivery indexes include Availability and
Reliability index to capture quantity, quality, reliability, and adequacy of water supply; Household
Satisfaction index capturing performance rating of water schemes by the household; and Cost of
Service Index measuring affordability of service. The sustainability indexes include O&M index
measuring the quality of O&M in terms of frequency and length of service disruptions; O&M Cost
Recovery index capturing financial sustainability; and Institutional Sustainability index measuring the
quality of the institutions (BGs) created for the day to day management of the community based
schemes. In addition, an Overall Performance index has been calculated by aggregating the above six
indices.

The selection of various indexes and their constituent indicators have been informed by the existing
literature (Sara and Katz, 1997; Abrams et al., 1998; Carter et al., 1999; Sugden, 2001; Harvey and
Reed, 2004; Mishra, 2008; Montgomery et al., 2009; Mazango and Munjeri, 2009, among others) as
well as consultations with water practitioners. A description of the constituent indicators of the six
indexes is presented below:
 Availability and Reliability Index:
 Household Satisfaction Index:
 Household Cost of Service Index:
 Operation and Maintenance Index:
 O&M Cost Recovery Index:
 Institutional Sustainability Index:

2.2. Empirical Literature Review

2.2.1. The One Water, Sanitation and Hygiene [WaSH] Program in Ethiopia
The One WaSH National Program (OWNP) is the Government of Ethiopia‘s (GoE) main instrument
for achieving the goals set out for WaSH in the Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP 2). The
program was designed to be implemented in two Phases. Phase I is covering the period from July
2013 to June 2015 and Phase II from July 2015 to June 2020. (OWNP, 2014)

16
Phase I of one WaSH, as is specified in the One WaSH national program, is designed to increase
harmonization and alignment among and between development partners and the GoE. During this
phase WaSH organizations and procedures are supposedly to be fully established and become
operational at all levels. Plus during this Phase I, partners, including Civil Society Organizations
(CSOs) are expected to increasingly align their targets, plans and activities with the program and
strengthen coordination in planning, implementation, monitoring and reporting of all WaSH activities
amongst stakeholders at different levels . Any new WaSH programs or new phases of existing WaSH
programs are also expected to align with the Program‘s principles, approaches and plans. (OWNP,
2014)

OWNP Phase II will be either continuity or redesign. Continuity will consist completing the work
that began in Phase I; that is a continuation of the institutional arrangements and implementation
modalities of Phase I with some adjustments agreed during the comprehensive Midterm Review
planned to take place at the end of 2015. (OWNP, 2014)

If redesign, Phase II would have different policy priorities, targets, institutional roles and
responsibilities and/or implementation modalities. Consideration can also be given to broadening
the Program‘s scope to include such related activities as watershed and water resources
management, productive uses of water, environmental protection, climate resilience, etc. Any such
redesigns would also have to be identified and agreed during the Midterm Review at the end of
2015. (OWNP, 2014)

The OWNP has mainly 4 components: (OWNP, 2014)

Rural WaSH: Agrarian and Pastoralist (USD 1.03 Billion):
This component finances rehabilitation of existing and construction of new conventional community
water points and water supply schemes, technical support of self-supply, supporting sanitation
activities including improvement of household and institutional hygiene and sanitation. While
implementing Pastoral WaSH requires alignment with other sectors and close coordination and
collaboration with Ministry of Federal Affairs and NGOs and emergency WaSH activities that have
special experience with development in Pastoralist areas.

Urban WaSH (USD 786 million for water supply and USD 95.7 million for sanitation
improvements):
17
This component finances study and design; capacity building and management support;
environmental and resettlement safeguards; immediate service improvements and expansion of water
supplies. Sanitation and urban environmental improvements include procurement of desludging
equipment; construction of facilities: latrine sludge/septage treatment plant and public toilets; and
development of wastewater management systems in selected locations.

Institutional WaSH (USD 545.7 million):

Activities include support to improving water supply and sanitation facilities and hygiene
practices at school and health institutions. Planning and Implementing WaSH activities at health
institutions will be the responsibility of the Ministry of Health (MoH), Regional Health Bureaus,
City/Town Administrations and Woreda health offices. While the Ministry of Education (MoE),
regional education bureaus, city and Woreda education offices will be responsible for planning and
implementing WaSH activities in schools, Water sector offices at regional, city or Woreda level
may provide technical assistance in the design, construction and supervision of water supplies in
institutions. Of the indicated amount, about 11, 415,542.00 USD is to be used for water quality
monitoring. Doing so is expected to increase economy of scale and ease out administration
arrangements.

Program Management and Capacity Building (90,028,152.00 USD for rural and 78,618,150.00
for urban USD and 10,158,848.00 USD for technical assistance in self- supply, supply chain,
pastoral WaSH, M&E):
This component includes support to improve skills and capacity of the program‘s organizations and
implementing parties at all levels to plan, manage and monitor program activities through training,
post-construction management support, equipment and tools provision, and monitoring and reporting
support. The Program will support minimum staffing and resource requirements necessary to
effectively implement the Program at all levels. This is to be determined by a capacity assessment
at federal, regional/city and town/Woreda level. Capacities of TVETCs and HSCs will be enhanced
at an estimated cost of 11,977,590.00USD through support to training of trainers, curriculum
development and training equipment for workshops and laboratories. Similarly, services from the
Ethiopian Water Technology Institute (EWTI) will be used to train WaSH professionals at an
estimated cost of 3,655,308.00 USD.

18
2.2.2. Challenges of the WASH Sector
As the previous sections have shown, providing WASH services brings many benefits.
Unfortunately, however, the reality on the ground is that globally we are a long way from achieving
these benefits for all people. Studies have shown that in many parts of the world, access to WASH
services is still very low (Figures 1.1).

Figure 1.1: Percentage of population obtaining drinking water (data for 2008). (GLAAS, 2010)

Based on the 2008 data in Figures 1.1, what percentage got their drinking water from an improved
source? Less than 50% of Ethiopians used an improved source for water. Note that the data in Figures
1.1 is from 2008 and this number is improving, but there is still a great challenge ahead.

The first challenge facing the WaSH sector in Ethiopia therefore is the scale of the problem. There
needs to be a huge investment of time and money to design and build new infrastructure. The water
supply system needs to be extended and be more reliable, with fewer breaks in service and less loss
from leakage. Support services for the sector need to be improved to make it work effectively and
sustainably. Monitoring needs to be increased so that breakdowns can be repaired in a timely manner.
Regulations and enforcement should be stronger to protect the environment and human health. In
addition there needs to be changes to the way projects are planned and implemented to overcome past
difficulties. (OpenWASH, 2016)

There have been a number of other problems with past projects that have reduced their effectiveness.
These problems include: (OpenWASH, 2016)

19
  Some projects have disregarded community participation. People were given a free service
without community contributions in any form, e.g. labor, money. This meant the communities
did not feel any sense of ownership of the service and failed to look after it. The experience of
receiving free services has also created longer-term problems because communities can
develop resistance to participatory approaches in future.
 Financial procedures were separate and different for each donor or aid organization, which
was inefficient and time-consuming. Each donor had different processes, needs and
expectations.
 WaSH is a cross-boundary sector that involves several different areas of responsibility
within government at different levels but the need for collaboration between ministries,
bureaus and offices has not been recognized in the past.
 In many cases, projects were implemented only in selected locations which did not bring
benefits to everyone. In the past the focus was mainly in rural areas rather than towns, and
serving agrarian rather than pastoralist populations.

2.3. Conceptual Framework

This study is planning to take the participation of beneficiary households as the proxy for collective
action in the community management of water supply. Bearing in mind existing studies on
participation, this paper is going to consider the following variables to measure participation:

Note that, the conceptual framework for this study has been developed on the basis of these variables.
Attendance at BG meetings:
Attendance at BG meetings will count the number of members appearing at the group meetings
irrespective of the extent of participation. In the case of community-based schemes, the attendance at
group meetings of at least one person from a household benefiting from a project will be made
mandatory.

Making suggestions and influencing the decision:

If a member makes any suggestions or influences decisions relating to development interventions in a
group meeting, it will be considered as a higher degree of participation.

Influencing the location of the water supply and the tariff:

20
It is possible that the beneficiaries (households) influence decisions regarding specific issues rather than
the decisions in general. In the case of decisions relating to water supply, the location of the water
supply and the monthly tariff will be given due attentions and will be considered important ones.

Figure 1.2: Conceptual framework adopted from K. R. Nisha (2013)

21
 CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1. Research Design
The central concern of this study was to assess the factors that influence community participation in
water supply schemes: the case of drought affected communities in Dollo Bay Woredas of Afder
Zone, Somali Regional State. Hence, explanatory research design was implemented. In the analysis of
the assessment of the impact of community participation in conflict-affected populations based water
supply schemes through quantifying attendance in group meetings and community members’ influence
on decisions; and to identification of locality, group and household characteristics on the satisfaction of
water supply schemes. Based on this, listing of households was used to prepare the sampling frame
from which eligible respondents were determined.

In order to draw sound generalizations and enhance representativeness, 261 respondents of total
households, were selected using systematic random sampling technique in an attempt to investigate
respondents’ attitude towards the impact community participation on the outcome of water supply
schemes. The number of households selected from each of the sampled Sites was dependent on
probability proportional to size. Once the sample size and sampling technique is determined, the next
step that was carried out is arranging appropriate procedure for selecting the respondents.

3.2. Sampling Design

The Dollo Bay town has two main Kebeles [Kebele 1 and Kebele 2] and new IDP settlements which is
under construction. The total population of the town is about 11,058 [3,000 Households] people. The
Koraley Kebele has IDP settlement and the total population of the Kebele including IDP’s is 5,581
[1515 Households] (3360 host and 2221 IDPs) people. As a result the survey has considered a total
population that comprises 4515 households.

Note that, the sample size has been determined based on the sampling technique provided by Solvin’s
(2006) that is designed to determine the required sample size at 90% - 95% confidence level and with
5% - 10% level of margin of error. Hence, assuming the level of precision for the study to have a figure
6% and the sample size was obtained:


The immediate upper bodies of administrative structure next to the Kebele.
22
 N 4515
n   261
1  N e
2
1  4515 0.06 2

Where n = 216 is sample size,

N = 4515 is the population size (Total HH) and
e = 6% is the level of precision (margin of error).

Probability sampling method was preferably applied here so that it can provide each member of the
community under study with equal non-zero probability for being to be selected in the sample (Lapin,
1982).

The sampling frame for this study was constructed on the basis of the mapping and frame work of
Water Supply Need Assessment Survey, which was carried out by, Danish Refuge Council (DRC,
2018). The number of housing units, which belongs to the selected sample Sites, was taken and used as
a sampling frame for selection of households.

Sites at Dollo Bay town and Koraley Kebele (Primary Sampling Units (PSU)) were chosen at the first
stage of sample selection and the respondent (Elementary Sampling Units (ESU)) within a given
household was selected at the second stage.

To use the Probability Proportional to Size (PPS) selection procedures, the number of individual
associated with each Site must be known. The statistical report of DRC Water Supply Need
Assessment on the entire sites in the periphery does provide the population distribution for each Site.

3.3. Sampling Procedure

The sampling Procedure, which was carried out during the data collection, is a two stage random
sampling. That is, at the first-stage selection of the Sites was made and at the second-stage the selection
of households was done.

Stage One:
Since the statistical report on the entire relocation Sites in the periphery does provide the population
distribution for each Site, the size displacees in the sampled Site of the City Administration [Srj] was
obtained to be:

23
Table 3.1: The size of Respondents in the selected study Sites
Site, j RS-1 RS-2

Srj 3000 1515

Source: Field survey, Dollo-bay, 2019.

Selection of the sample Sites was carried out using purposive [non random] sampling technique.
Taking into consideration the issue of Cost (in terms of money, time and effort) only 2 Sites, Dollo-bay
town [RS-1], and Koraley Kebele [RS-2] were chosen.

Stage two:
The number of respondent, aged 20–50+ years, was assigned to each selected Sites proportionally
following the next procedure.
Prj = Percentage proportion of respondents aged 20 – 50+ years in Site j

= Srj
* 100
Total size of households in the sampled Sites

Then, the sample size of respondents aged 20 – 50+ years (n = 261) was distributed proportionally to
each selected Site.
i. e., Prj * 261 was the proportional sample size of Site j.

Table 3.2: Sample size distribution per selected Site

Sites, j RS-1 RS-2
Sample Size Distribution 173 88

Source: Field survey, Addis Ababa, 2019.

The steps considered in the selection of respondents from each Site was carried out through a
systematic random sampling with PPS.
Step 1: The sampling frame was contracted. It contains the total number of sampled
population (n = 261), Number of targeted population per each sample Site and
number of housing units and with the corresponding housing number in each sample.
Step 2: The sampling interval (SI) was determined by dividing the total sample size (n = 261)
by the Sample Size Distribution of each Site.

24
Step 3: Selection of starting point between 1 and SI using simple random sampling method was
made.
Step 4: The selected starting point has been taken as the first housing number/ unit and
approached.
Step 5: Every SIth house was chosen after the randomly selected house.

3.4. Source of Data

The main data source of the study was the community based primary survey on the factors that
influence community participation in water supply schemes under wash project: the case of drought
affected communities in Dollo Bay Woredas of Afder Zone, Somali Regional State. For the purpose of
this study, a retrospective survey was conducted on every community members of the age group 20 to
50+.

The DRC project is expected to directly reach 30,593 people in Fafan Zone and 16,738 People in Dollo
Bay Woreda. The action has benefited 47,174 populations in the targeted Woredas of Fafan and Afder
Zones, of which 51% are IDPs.

Dollo Bay town is one of the emergency WASH project target area. The town is located on the bank of
Genale River at geographical coordinates of North 0430166 and East 04206330 and an average
elevation of 177 meter Above Sea Level [ASL]. The town has two main Kebeles and new IDP
settlements which is under construction. The total population of the town is about 11,058 [3,000
Households] people.

The Koraley Kebele is one of the emergency WASH project target area and it is located in Dollo Bay
Woreda of Afder Zone of Ethiopian Somali Regional State. The Kebele is located south east of Dollo
Bay town at about 10 km and situated along the bank of Genale River at geographical coordinates of
North 0176465 and East 0463964 and average elevation of 173 meter ASL. The Kebele has IDP
settlement and the total population of the Kebele including IDP’s is 5,581 [1515 Households] (3360
host and 2221 IDPs) people.


The immediate upper bodies of administrative structure next to the Kebele.

The smallest administrative units in Urban Ethiopia.
25
Dollo Bay Woreda is considered as a study area due to the greater chance of obtaining a target
population with diversified social and economic characteristics and the researcher’s well familiarity
with the area. Its validity has been proved in this research.

3.5. Data Collection Tools

The major instrument that was used for the collection of the required data within the study is a
questionnaire. So as to minimize potential complexities and data defects, many of the items was pre
coded with a great deal of caution. The questionnaire was initially prepared in English and given to at
least three professionals and principal advisor for comments. Necessary corrections were made and the
final English version is prepared which was annexed to the final report. Since major circulating
language is Somali, the questionnaire was translated into Somali so as to avoid certain inconsistencies
and communication barriers.

3.6. Procedure of Data Collection

3.6.1. Development of the Instrument
A questionnaire was administered in the survey. The questionnaire, which was designed for generating
the required information, has incorporated more than 60 items and categorised in the following manner:
 Socio-demographic information
 Economic information
 Opinion on water supply scheme

Moreover, there was two qualitative methodologies for identification and analysis in this study, they
are field research and structured in-depth interview. Field research is a prototype of qualitative research
and can be used to gather qualitative data because it takes holistic perspective and analysis of real-life
processes (Nachmias and Nachmias 1992). In the field research, contexts were mapped for the
understanding of subject interpretations and finally produce an explanation that reflects the social
realm. Field research is mainly used to uncover the process of social life (Gaber 1993), while structured
in-depth interviews can provide more detailed information involving systematic and intensive
observation of sightings or social processes based on a list of questions that have been compiled in this
study (Boyce and Neale 2006).

26
3.6.2. Pilot Survey
The Somali version of the questionnaire was pre-tested on 10 households in Koraley Kebele. The
selection of the sample, which was carried out for the pre-test, is purposive. After the pre-test:

“the student researcher has gone through on each and every field experience and decided to make some
rephrasing on some of the questions. Based on the time that takes to fill the whole questionnaire during
the pilot survey, the data collection schedule was set.”

3.6.3. Field Work

The fieldwork was began on the 18th of May and carried out for 7 consecutive days. In interviewing the
respondents, the researcher was moved to the selected house (ESU) according the sampling frame and
observed eligible respondents before selecting any for an interview. During the interview the data
collectors familiarize themselves with the respondents so as to minimize hesitancy and discomfort. By
and large, collecting information from 250 households was successfully completed in the fieldwork.
Unfortunately, 11 respondents were refused to seat for an interview and they were not replaced.

3.6.4. Data Quality

To assess the extent of miss-reported age an attempt was made using the method of assessing quality of
data by graphic analysis. Following this method, the single age distribution of the respondents was
graphically shown in Figure 3.2.

The mean age of the sample observation is 38.97 years with standard error 0.577. The most frequent
ages considered in the sample are 44 years and the median age is 39 years. The measure of dispersions
variance and standard deviation are also obtained as 9.005 and 81.087 respectively. These measures are
the most useful measures of dispersion, which take into consideration each value of the data and also as
to how all the observations are distributed.

Since errors in the reporting of age needs to refine it has been given detailed examination. Errors in the
tabulated data may arise either from failure to record age or miss reporting of age (Shryock and Siegel,
1971).

27
Figure 3.2: Graphical presentation of single year age distribution of respondents aged 20 – 50+.

Source: Field survey, Dollo-bay, 2019.

Even though a number of general indices of digit preference have been proposed, in evaluating quality
of data regarding age digit preferences Myers' blended index is applied. This index, similar to the
others, will identify if there is age heaping within the collected data. The method yields an index of
preference for each terminal digit, representing the deviation, from 10.0 percent of the proportion of the
total population reporting on the given digit. A summary index, which is an estimate of the minimum
proportion of persons in the population for whom an age with an incorrect final digit is reported, is
derived as one half the sum of the deviation from 10.0 percent each taken without regard to sign. If age
heaping is non-existent, the index would approximate zero (Shryock and Siegel, 1971). In general very
small deviation from 10.0 percent will imply that the heaping of age is not existent and should be
disregarded.

According to Shryock and Siegel, 1971, the abbreviated procedure to calculation calls for next steps:
Step one: Sum of the populations ending in each digit over the whole range, starting with
28
 lower limit of the range (Example, 10, 20, 30, - - -, 80; 11, 21, 31, - - -, 81).
Step two: Ascertain the sum excluding the first population combined in step one
(Example, 20, 30, 40, - - -,80; 21, 31, 41, - - -,81).
Step three: Weight the sum in step one and two and add results to be obtained a blended
population (Example, weights 1 and 9 for the ten digit; weights 2 and 8 for the
one digit).
Step four: Convert the distribution in step three in to percent.
Step five: Take the deviation of each percent in step four from 10.0, the expected value
for each percent.
The results in step five indicate the extent of concentration or avoidance of a particular digit. The
weights in step three represent the number of times the combination of ages in step one or two is
included when the starting age is varied from 10 to 19.

Table 3.3: Calculated preference indexes for terminal digits by Myers' Blended Method
Population with
Weights for Blended Population
Terminal Digit ‘a’ Deviations
of
Terminal
Starting at Starting at Number Percent % from 10.0
Digit Column 1 Column 2
age age (1)*(3)+(2)*(4) distribution (6)-10.0
(3) (4)
20 + a 30 + a (5) (6) (7)
(1) (2)

0 26 24 1 9 242 9.80 0.20

1 23 22 2 8 222 8.99 1.01
2 28 27 3 7 273 11.05 1.05
3 29 22 4 6 248 10.04 0.04
4 37 31 5 5 340 13.77 3.77
5 25 21 6 4 234 9.47 0.53
6 23 20 7 3 221 8.95 1.05
7 25 21 8 2 242 9.80 0.20
8 17 15 9 1 168 6.80 3.20
9 28 22 10 0 280 11.34 1.34
Total 2470 100.00 12.39
Summary Index - - 6.19

Source: Field survey, Doll-bay, 2019.

29
In this particular study, the summary index is obtained to be 6.19. By this index, age with incorrect
final digit was reported by one tenth of the study population. However, since age is used in-groups the
observed digit preference would not constitute a serious limitation in the analysis.

3.7. Data Processing and Analysis

3.7.1. Data Entry and Cleaning
The questionnaires were made ready for data entry after data collection and data was entered into the
computer using the SPSS software. The data entry was completed in a total of two consecutive days.
Data cleaning and editing was done case by case and variable wise.

3.7.2. Data Analysis

For the purpose of this study, where the objective is to explore the relationship of a binary discrete
variable to one or more independent variable, the application of appropriate statistical technique will be
needed. To test the relative importance of the factors affected community participation in water supply
schemes, the following model was used.
P = f (G, H, S)
where:
P is the participation index;
G represents the group characteristics;
H represents the socio-economic characteristic of the household; and
S represents Satisfaction on the water supply schemes.

To assess the effect of each set of factors on participation, linear regression models were estimated
using an ordinary least square method, with a participation index for attendance and decision making as
a dependent variable.

To analyze the data bi-variate and multi-variate analytical methods will be used. The data will be
analyzed using SPSS statistical package (Norusis, 1990).

A bi-variate test (Chi-square) was used to examine the association of each independent variable with
the dependent variables. Only those having significant association (Pearson Chi-square P Value of <=

30
0.05) with the dependent variable were selected for multivariate analysis. Multivariate analysis (logistic
regression) will be used to examine the relative effect of each independent variable (predictor) on the
dependent variables.

The logistic regression model will be selected to analyze the data only for it requires far fewer
assumptions than alternative methods of analysis of cross - tabulated data; and even when the
assumptions required for such analyses are satisfied, logistic regression still perform well (Norusis,
1990).

Thus, the logistic regression model has been applied to predict the binary dependent variable (Hosmer
and Lemshow, 1989: 1). Therefore, one logistic model was fitted for respondents’ approval.

The logistic regression model predicts the natural logarithm of the odds of the dependent variable by a
linear function of the independent variable. The logistic regression model is given by:

Mode 1:
pindex 1   0   1 xi1   2 xi 2       k xik  U k
pindex 1   0   1leadership   2 famsize   3 sex_head   4 sex_participant 
 5Education   6lo_participation   7use_drinki ng   8 water   9 income 
 2 satisfaction  U k
Mode 2:
pindex 2   0   1 xi1   2 xi 2       k xik  U k
pindex 2   0   1 famsize   2 sex_participant   3 education 
 3lo_partici pation   4 use_drinki ng   5 water   6 income  U k

p
The odds Ratio is given by .
1 p
Where, 1 – p is the conditional probability that water supply scheme output is influenced by community
participation.

31
3.7.3. Variables and Their Specification
The unit of analysis was a household head in the age 20 years and above. Table 3.4 provides the
description of independent variables. The independent variables [often called covariates] incorporated
in the study were classified as socio-demographic and economic factors.

Table 3.4: Description of Independent Variables

Variable Variable
Description
Label Name
Groupsize Group size
Leadership Active leadership in the group 1 = Active leadership
Famsize Size of the family
Sex_head Sex of the household head 1 = Male
Sex_participant Sex of the participant in group meeting 1 = Male
Education % of family members with education greater than 10th standard
Lo_Prticipation % of family members participating in local organizations
1 = Use water for drinking to a large
Use_drinking Water used for drinking purpose
extent
Water Scarcity of water 1 = Perennial scarcity of water
Occupation Occupation of head of the household 1 = Casual labor
Income Monthly household income
Satisfaction Overall satisfaction with the water supply schemes 1 = Satisfied

*In the case of qualitative variables, the frequencies of the variable with value 1 have been given in
percentages. For example, sex of the household head is 1 for male and 0 otherwise. The table explains
that 86.5% of the sample households are headed by male.

3.8. Ethical Issue

This study has preserved the ethical integrity for ethics is one of the critical issues in research.
Similarly, giving emphasis to the importance of ethics in conducting research, Mack et al. (2005)
argued that data collection activities require more than casual interaction with a person and require his/
her individual informed consent). Hence, prior consent was obtained from affected villagers before

32
collecting information from them. The prior consent has been acquired after presenting the utility of the
present study. Anonymity of participant’s identity was maintained in the study.

33
 CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1. Introduction
The questionnaire was administered at the household level. The head/spouse of the head of the
household or a “knowledgeable” member of the family was asked to be the respondent for each
administered questionnaire. All the sampled households were considered in the analysis.

Any information obtained from the survey results has been explored more deeply by interviewing
methods with community representatives. The survey in this study was conducted on 250 households
considering the characteristics of the head of the family (the main breadwinner in the family, both male
and female). Respondents were selected randomly. The survey was conducted from 18 May 2019 to 25
May 2019 on drought affected communities in Dollo Bay town and Koraley Kebele, which is one of
the emergency WASH project target area located in Dollo Bay Woreda of Afder Zone

The spread of the number of respondents each of the selected study areas presented in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1: Number of respondents used in the analysis

S. No. Selected Relocation Sites Number of Respondents
1 Dollo Bay Town 170
2 Koraley Kebele 80
Total 250

Source: Field survey, Doll-bay, 2019.

As it is revealed in Table 4.1, the data comprises of a total of 250 households. This includes 170
households from Dollo-bay town, and 80 households from Koraley Kebele. The questionnaire entails
questions on 3 broad categories:
1. Socio-demographic Information of Respondents,
2. Economic Information of Respondents, and
3. Opinion on Community Participation in Water Supply Schemes.

34
4.2. Background Characteristics of the Households
Table 4.1 presents the draught affected and IDP community members among 250 sampled household
heads [respondents] by selected background characteristics. Table 4.1 reveals that attendance in the
beneficiary meeting is regular by almost all of the respondents in all the selected Kebeles; out of ten
respondents 8 of them or 75.2 percent of all contacted respondents residing in the selected Kebeles
have been confirmed that they attend regularly or occasionally.

Comparing the attendance in beneficiary group meeting among the younger and older respondents who
belong to the age group 20 to 24 years and 34+ years respectively is observed to be lesser than the
percentage attendance in beneficiary group meeting in the age group 25 - 34 years (Table 4.1).

Table 4.1, revealed that the percentage of attendance in beneficiary group meeting among women
respondents is vividly lesser than the percentage of attendance in beneficiary group meeting among
male respondents.

Educated respondents [households] are slightly less likely than uneducated households to have attended
in beneficiary group meeting The pattern of variation with Education is evident in the observed
outcomes; the percentage of attendance in beneficiary group meeting among respondents in primary
and junior category show more percentage than respondents in secondary and above category.

Overall, the displacement-induced impoverishment is lower among women who belong to not married
than who belong to ever married. As it is discovered in Table 4.1, the percentage of not married
households is lower by approximately 65 percent than ever married respondents.

With regard to family size of the household, the study revealed that a house hold with medium fimly
size is more likely to attendance in beneficiary group meeting than a households with a lesser and more
family size. It was observed that majority of the respondents 57.9% claimed that they attend in
beneficiary group meeting either regularly or occasionally. [Table 4.1].

Answering to the question raised on the source of the respondent’s livelihood the study revealed that
majority 49.7% made known that the source of their income goes to pastoralist [Table 4.1].

35
Table 4.2: Households according to selected background characteristics

Attendance at the beneficiary group meetings

Characteristics of the respondents
Regularly Occasionally Never attend Total

No. % No. % No. % No. %

Kebele 1 36 14.4 30 12.0 17 6.8 83 33.2
Kebele Kebele 2 32 12.8 30 12.0 25 10.0 87 34.8
Koraley 38 15.2 22 8.8 20 8.0 80 32.0
Total 106 42.4 82 32.8 62 24.8 250 100.0
Sex of the household Male 91 36.4 70 28.0 55 22.0 216 86.4
head Female 15 6.0 12 4.8 7 2.8 34 13.6
Total 106 42.4 82 32.8 62 24.8 250 100.0
20 - 24 years 17 6.8 0 0.0 3 1.2 20 8.0
Age of the 25 - 29 years 58 23.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 58 23.2
respondents 25 - 29 years 28 11.2 34 13.6 1 .4 63 25.2
34+ years 3 1.2 48 19.2 58 23.2 109 43.6
Total 106 42.4 82 32.8 62 24.8 250 100.0
1 - 5 grade 62 24.8 27 10.8 24 9.6 113 45.2
6 - 9 grade 12 4.8 53 21.2 38 15.2 103 41.2
Educational level of Technical/ 19 7.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 19 7.6
the vocational cert
respondents University/ 12 4.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 12 4.8
college diploma
University/ 1 .4 2 .8 0 0.0 3 1.2
college degree
Total 106 42.4 82 32.8 62 24.8 250 100.0
Married 63 25.2 72 28.8 50 20.0 185 74.0
Marital status Single 43 17.2 0 0.0 3 1.2 46 18.4
Widowed 0 0.0 10 4.0 9 3.6 19 7.6
Total 106 42.4 82 32.8 62 24.8 250 100.0
1-4 10 4.9 9 4.4 33 16.2 52 25.5
Number of children in 53 26.0 65 31.9 26 12.7 144 70.6
5-9
a household
10+ 0 0.0 8 3.9 0 0.0 8 3.9
Total 63 30.9 82 40.2 59 28.9 204 100.0
Professional- 31 12.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 31 12.4
technician
Administrator, 1 .4 2 .8 0 0.0 3 1.2
Source of manager
livelihood/income
Sales worker 29 11.6 6 2.4 14 5.6 49 19.6
Casual laborer 24 9.6 15 6.0 5 2.0 44 17.6
Pastoralist 21 8.4 59 23.6 43 17.2 123 49.2
Total 106 42.4 82 32.8 62 24.8 250 100.0

Source: Field survey, Doll-bay, 2019.

36
4.3. Participation in Water Supply Schemes in Doll-bay Woreda
This study has taken the participation of beneficiary households as the proxy for collective action in
the community management of water supply. Bearing in mind existing studies on participation, this
paper has considered the following variables to measure participation:

4.3.1. Attendance at BG Meetings

Attendance at BG meetings counts the number of members appearing at the group meetings
irrespective of the extent of participation. In the case of community-based schemes, the attendance at
group meetings of at least one person from a household benefiting from a project has been made
mandatory. The data reveal that meetings are attended mostly by women, whilst the men were away
pursuing livelihood activities. The survey results (presented in Table 4.3) reveal that a majority of
households (42.6%) attended the meetings regularly; however, nearly 25% of beneficiary households
never attended the meetings.

Table 4.3: Distribution of households [%] by attendance at BG meetings

Attendance Percentage of households
Regularly 42.6
Occasionally 32.6
Never attend 24.8
Total 100.0 [250]
Note: [Actual number in brackets]
Source: Field survey, Doll-bay, 2019.

4.3.2. Making Suggestions and Influencing the Decision

If a member makes any suggestions or influences decisions relating to development interventions in a
group meeting, it can be considered as a higher degree of participation. Sample respondents were asked
‘whether they made any suggestion, in general, relating to the scheme or relating to the drinking water’
and ‘what was the extent to which they influenced the decision’. Table 4.4 reveals that a majority of
those attending the meetings did not offer any suggestions in the group meetings. Only 11.3% of the
sample respondents reported that they always made suggestions in the group meetings; the percentage
of households influencing decisions was even less.

37
Table 4.4: Distribution of households [%] by extent of participation
Attendance Making Suggestion Influencing Decision
Always 11.3 10.3
Occasionally 26.5 25.2
Never 62.3 64.5
Total 100.0 [250] 100.0 [250]
Note: [Actual number in brackets]
Source: Field survey, Doll-bay, 2019.

4.3.3. Influencing the Location of the water supply and the tariff
It is possible that the beneficiaries (households) influence decisions regarding specific issues rather
than the decisions in general. In the case of decisions relating to water supply, the location of the water
supply and the monthly tariff are important ones. Respondents were, therefore, specifically asked, first,
whether their household influenced decisions relating to location of the water supply (WS) and, second,
whether they influenced the fixing of water tariff rates charged to users. It was found that the
percentage of respondents influencing decisions relating to the fixing of the water tariff was higher than
that relating to the decision regarding the location of water supply (Table 4.5). However, the actual
number of households influencing the decisions was not significant.

Table 4.5: Distribution of households [%] influencing decision

Influence in Decision Making Suggestion Influencing Decision
Large influence 5.2 4.2
Medium 8.4 14.2
Little bit 7.7 11.9
Not at all 78.7 69.7
Total 100.0 [250] 100.0 [250]
Note: [Actual number in brackets]
Source: Field survey, Doll-bay, 2019.

4.4. Participation Index

Two separate participation indices were prepared for the purpose of analyzing the variations in
participation across the institutional options and the factors contributing to these variations. The indices
combined two or more qualitative variables, to give a better picture of the involvement of beneficiaries

38
in the community-based water supply schemes. To construct the indices, weights were assigned to
different levels of participation. The weighted sum of different participation levels was taken as the
participation index. The resultant participation index ranged from 0 to 100, with 100 representing the
higher level of participation and 0 representing no participation.

Participation is measured using three variables: (i) attendance at the group meeting; (ii) making
suggestions and influencing decisions in general; and (iii) influencing specific decisions on tariff and
location. The first index is prepared based on the first variable and first part (making suggestions) of
the second variable. The second index is prepared based on the third variable alone.

4.4.1. Index for Attendance at Meetings

The first index on participation considered mere attendance at the group meetings as well as the extent
of making general suggestions. This index was prepared by giving a 25% weight to attendance at
meetings and a 75% weight to making suggestions. This participation index thus represented the
passive form of participation as the variables related to influencing decisions were not included in this
index. The distribution of households by index attendance at the meetings shows that a majority of the
households covered by the community scheme were participating in the BG meetings (Table 4.6).
Participation for the majority of households varied between low and moderate, implying that a smaller
number of households were involved in making suggestions regularly. Distribution of households by
attendance index shows that only 36.5% of households participated well in community managed water
supply schemes.

Weights were calculated using the ‘DEFINITE’ package, by giving first preference ranking to making
suggestion in the meeting and second to mere attendance, following the typology of Agarwal (2001).
Agarwal argues that the consultative form of participation (being asked an opinion on specific matters
without guarantee of influencing the decision) is a higher level of participation compared to passive
participation (attending the meeting and listening to decisions taken without speaking up).

39
Table 4.6: Distribution of households [%] by index for attendance at the meeting [CWS, DWA, DRC]
Index
No Low Moderate High Active
Institutions
participation participation participation participation participation Total
[0] [0 - 25] [25 - 50] [50 - 75] [>75]
CWS 6.5 45.5 11.5 20.5 16.0 100[161]
DWA 86.5 6.7 3.3 1.7 1.7 100[49]
DRC 24.0 42.0 6.0 24.0 4.0 100[40]
Total 24.8[62] 37.4[94] 9.0[23] 17.4[43] 11.3[28] 100.0 [250]
Note: [Actual number in brackets]
Source: Field survey, Doll-bay, 2019.

In the case of DWA schemes, there were no formal water user associations. But, DWA in the locality
provided an opportunity for users to present their interests and demands to the authorities concerned.
However, only 13% of the households benefiting from DWA schemes either attended or made any
suggestion regarding water supply in the DWA meetings. A detailed analysis of these households
shows that they were all using public stand posts provided by DWA. None of the households having
private household connection attended any of the DWA meetings. In the case of DRC provided water
supply schemes, water user associations existed in an informal manner: 76% of the beneficiary
households marginally or actively participated in these informal meetings. Among the households
participating in group meetings, 42% had low participation indicating that they were merely attending
the meetings without making any suggestions.

4.4.2. Index for Decision Making

The second index for participation considered only households’ participation in terms of their influence
on decision making in the location of water supply and monthly tariff. The index was constructed by
giving a 25% weight to influence on the location and a 75% to influence on the fixing of the monthly
tariff for the water supply. The decision-making index represents households’ participation in decision
making and could be considered as an active form of participation. The results show that more than
50% of households were not involved in the decision-making process (Table 4.7). Only 6.5% of the
households participated actively in decision making with an index value greater than 75.

40
Low household participation in decision making in community schemes was mainly the result of the
extended support of NGOs in the implementation process. Information from the field shows that, in a
majority of cases, NGOs played a major role in the selection of technology for water supply and
location of source. In some cases, initially, the monthly tariff was also suggested by NGOs. But, later,
the BGs and committees revised the tariff according to cost of O&M.

In the case of DWA, the beneficiaries did not have any influence on the location decision for the water
supply and monthly tariff. DWA decisions were mainly taken by the government at the regional level.
In the DRC schemes too, the participation of households in taking decisions regarding location of water
supply and tariff was very scanty. This was mainly because the implementation of Dollo-bay water
supply schemes was usually made either through user committees or through the mayor’s respective
line department.

Decisions on the location of the water supply were mainly of a technical nature, whereas decisions on
the monthly tariff reflected the households’ willingness and capacity to pay for water. In the case of
community managed schemes, engineers of supporting organizations mainly helped the beneficiaries
with regard to the location of the water supply, and the decision on water supply location was taken
once in the entire lifespan of the group. However, the decision on monthly tariff needed frequent
revision with the changes in the cost of operation and maintenance [O&M], even though the NGOs
influenced the decision in the initial stages. For this reason, the variable influence on location of water
supply was assigned less weight.

Table 4.7: Distribution of households [%] by index for decision making [CWS, DWA, DRC]
Index
No Low Moderate High Active
Institutions
participation participation participation participation participation Total
[0] [0 - 25] [25 - 50] [50 - 75] [>75]
CWS 52.5 13.5 13.0 14.5 6.5 100[161]
DWA 100.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100[49]
DRC 86.0 8.0 2.0 4.0 0.0 100[40]
Total 67.1[168] 10.0[25] 8.7[22] 10.0[25] 4.2 [10] 100.0 [250]
Note: [Actual number in brackets]
Source: Field survey, Doll-bay, 2019.

41
The study has further analyzed the relative importance of other factors which affect collective action
in water supply schemes. A detailed explanation of the factors has been given in the following sections.

4.5. Factors Affecting Collective Action

Factors affecting collective action vary with the nature of the resources and the conditions under which
collective action were carried out (Ostrom, 1990; Oarkerson, 1992; Baland & Platteau, 1996). Wade
(1988) mentioned that organizational success depends on factors such as: (i) boundaries of common
pool resources; (ii) technology; (iii) the relationship between resources and user groups; (iv)
characteristics of user groups; (v) noticeability, i.e. ease with which rule breaking free riders are
detected; and (vi) relationship between users and the state.

According to Uphoff (1999), four basic ubiquitous activities of organizations (decision making,
resource mobilization and management, communication, and conflict resolution) are essential for
mutually beneficial collective action (MBCA). MBCA reduces transaction costs and increases the
probability that individual efforts become effective. Without the above four activities, collective action
becomes more difficult and less likely. Oarkerson (1992) identifies four sets of factors influencing
collective action: (i) physical attributes; (ii) institutional arrangement; (iii) mutual choice strategies and
consequent pattern of interaction; and (iv) outcome and consequences.

Consistent with Oarkerson’s (1992) framework, the present study has identified a number of
characteristics of the group and the socio-economic background of the beneficiary households as
factors affecting collective action in water supply schemes. The characteristics are listed below.

4.5.1. Group Characteristics

Group size
It considers the number of members in the community group. Theoretically it is argued that
a larger size of group adversely affects the collective action in it (Olson, 1965; Ostrom, 1990). Hence,
the relationship between group size and participation is expected to be negative.

Leadership
It is argued that the problems which arise in a group due to large size and heterogeneity can be solved
with the help of effective leadership (Vedeld, 2000). The present study has classified a group as having

42
active leadership if one or two people in the BG took the sole initiative to solve conflicts and problems
arising in the group. It is assumed that active leadership in a group advances the participation of other
beneficiaries in the group.

4.5.2. Household Characteristics

Family size
As the size of a family increases, the quantity of water needed also increases. Such a need influences
households to participate in the group meetings and decision making. A large family size increases the
possibility that at least one member of the household could attend group meetings regularly. Hence, the
relation between household size and participation is assumed to be positive.

Sex of the head of the household and participant

Female members of a household usually bear more hardship in fetching water and it is therefore
assumed that female participants will take greater participation in the meetings, either in terms of
making suggestions or influencing decisions of water supply, compared to men. However, a female-
headed household has an added burden of earning income in addition to the responsibility of managing
the house. Thus, a female head of a household participates less in community group meetings compared
to male heads.

Education and participation in other local organizations

It is assumed that better education improves awareness of public activities and hence tends to enhance
participation. The education variable was measured as the percentage of household members with an
education higher than 10th Grade. Similarly, the characteristic of participation in local organizations
measures people’s involvement in other organizations such as women’s self-help groups, Dollo-bay
cultural and political organizations, and represents the strength of social capital in the locality. The
study has measured the percentage of household members involved in at least one local organization
and assumed it to be positively related to participation in CWS schemes.

Water availability for the household

Beneficiaries’ participation in group meetings may be influenced by the difficulties that they face in
fetching water. A household which does not own a well and faces problems collecting water throughout
the year is assumed to participate actively in group meetings.

43
Use of water
The purposes for which a particular household use the water supplied through the different schemes
influences participation. If a household uses the water to a large extent for drinking purposes, there is a
possibility of higher participation.

Occupation of the household head and income

The occupation of the head of the household indicates household security in earning income. For casual
workers such as agricultural laborers, employment was not assured throughout the year. As casual
workers and daily wage earners, their participation in meetings was more costly compared to those
having regular employment. The present study has considered a dummy variable to capture the effects
of occupation on participation. Higher household income raises the standard of living of a household.
Also, with higher income, it is assumed that the opportunity cost of participating in the group meeting
reduces. Hence, household income is expected to have a positive influence on participation.

4.5.3. Water Supply Scheme Satisfaction

Overall satisfaction in water supply system
Overall satisfaction has been accounted for in households’ perceptions of the water supply scheme,
whilst frequency of breakdown captured the effectiveness of the water supply systems. These variables
could be taken as a proxy for the outcome of collective action. It has been argued that, over time, poor
outcomes influence collective action adversely (Oarkerson, 1992; Narayan, 1995). Hence, it is assumed
that frequent problems with the water supply reduce people’s incentive to be involved in community
schemes. Studies on community-driven water supply projects have mainly analyzed the relationship
between participation and project outcomes in terms of effectiveness and sustainability. Most of these
studies concluded that participation improves project outcome (Narayan, 1995; Sara & Katz, 1998;
Isham & Kahkonen, 1999, 2002; Prokopy, 2005).

All the group and household characteristics were taken as independent variables. A description of
independent variables used in the model can also be seen in Table 4.8.

44
Table 4.8: Group and household characteristics as factors affecting collective action inWSS
Variable Frequency Expected
Variable Name Description
Label [or Mean]* Sign
Groupsize Group size 48 -
Leadership Active leadership in the group 1 = Active leadership 38.1 +
Famsize Size of the family 7 +
Sex_head Sex of the household head 1 = Male 86.5 +
Sex of the participant in group
Sex_participant 1 = Male 34.5 -
meeting
Education % of family members with education greater than 10th Grade 13.71 +
Lo_Prticipation % of family members participating in local organizations 12.86 +
1 = Use water for drinking
Use_drinking Water used for drinking purpose 42.3 +
to a large extent
1 = Perennial scarcity of
Water Scarcity of water 41.9 +
water
Occupation of head of the
Occupation 1 = Casual labor 17.6 +
household
Income Monthly household income Birr 2,760.20 +
Overall satisfaction with the
Satisfaction 1 = Satisfied 73.2 +
water supply schemes

In the first model, the participation index for attendance was taken as the dependent variable. The index
shows the extent to which households participated in the group meetings and made suggestions relating
to the management of water supply system. The value of the index varies from 0 to 100, with 100
representing 100% participation, or active participation in the BG meeting. To analyze the factors
affecting the participation index relating to attendance, only respondents participating in the
Community-managed Water Supply Schemes and DRC schemes were taken into consideration because
participation of the households covered by Dollo-bay schemes in group meetings was negligible – only
13.4% of the families participated in the group meetings and half of the participants had a very low
participation rate.

In the second model, the index of participation in decision making was taken as the dependent variable
and it varies from 0 to 100. The higher the value of the index indicated more active participation in
decision making. This model was applied to respondents only from CWS schemes, as the participation
45
index in decision making was low or nil in the case of households which benefited from DRC and
DWA schemes.

Initially, both the models were estimated with all the independent variables mentioned above. In the
later stage, insignificant variables were omitted from the model by undertaking a stepwise regression
analysis. Variables were omitted by considering the following criteria: (1) multicollinearity among the
variables; (2) significance of chi-square statistics in cross tabulation of particular variable with
dependent variable; (3) contribution of particular variable to the explanatory power of the model
(variable is omitted if adjusted R-square increased after omission of that variable from the model).
Estimates of the models have been shown in Tables 4.9 and 4.10.

Table 4.9: Factors affecting participation in attendance in the group meetings

[Dependent variable: Participation index of attendance]
Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-statistics
C 0.70 9.79 0.07
Leadership 5.17 3.89 1.33
Famsize 3.00* 0.64 4.69
Sex_head 8.08*** 4.84 1.67
Sex_participant 11.18** 4.42 2.53
Education 0.30* 0.09 3.33
Lo_participation 0.51* 0.12 4.41
Use_drinking 10.40* 3.66 2.84
Water 19.25* 6.52 2.95
Income 0.00042** 8.00 2.03
Satisfaction 4.87 3.88 1.26
R-squared 0.29 F-statistic 8.67**
Adjusted R-squared 0.25 Log likelihood 1,175.39
No. observations 202 Durbin–Watson stat 1.91
Note:
#White heteroskedasticity-consistent standard errors and covariance.
*, **, *** Significant at 1%, 5%, 10% level respectively.

46
Table 4.10: Factors affecting participation in decision making [Dependent variable: Participation index
of decision making]
Variable Coefficient Std error t-statistic
C –15.27 13.95 1.09
Famsize 2.31* 0.76 3.05
Sex_head 7.82 5.91 1.32
Sex_participant 10.73** 4.51 2.38
Education 0.34* 0.12 2.99
Lo_participation 0.51* 0.15 3.29
Use_drinking 13.76* 4.98 2.76
Water 17.83** 7.73 2.31
Income 0.00049*** 0.00 1.89
R-squared 0.26 F-statistic 6.11*
Adjusted R-squared 0.22 Log likelihood 941.548
Durbin–Watson stat 1.80
White Heteroskedasticity Test
F-statistic 1.227524 0.158249
Observed R-squared 78.90032 0.194433
Number of observations 161

Note: *, **, *** Significant at 1%, 5%, 10% level respectively.

Results
Mode 1:
pindex 1   0   1leadership   2 famsize   3 sex_head   4 sex_participant 
 5Education   6lo_participation   7use_drinki ng   8 water   9 income 
 2 satisfaction  U k
Mode 2:
pindex 2   0   1 famsize   2 sex_participant   3 education 
 3lo_partici pation   4 use_drinki ng   5 water   6 income  U k

Influence of group characteristics on participation

None of the group characteristics significantly influenced participation of beneficiaries in the BG
meeting and decision making, except in the case of imposition of punishment. An insignificant
relationship of heterogeneity of group implied that the existence of different group in a particular group
could not influence beneficiary participation adversely. In other words, there was no group based
discrimination among the beneficiaries in the group.

47
The size of the group did not significantly influence the rate of participation of beneficiaries. This result
differed from that of earlier studies which established that collective action in larger groups became
less effective. Active leadership in the group also did not influence participation. Among the
operational rules, the imposition of punishment and distribution of receipts did not significantly
influence the rate of participation. However, imposition of punishment of discontinuation of water
supply or the imposition of a fine for non-payment of a tariff showed a significant and negative
relationship to the rate of participation in decision making. This implies that defaulters either did not
attend meetings or did not participate in the group discussions.

The possible reason for the insignificance of group characteristics may be the peculiar characteristics of
the resource under consideration. In the case of drinking water supply, once the beneficiaries were
satisfied with the existing arrangement, their interest in participating in the group meeting reduced,
provided that there was no departure from the existing arrangement at any given time.

Influence of household characteristics

Household characteristics were relatively more influential in the participation indices relating to both
attendance and decision making. Family size was strongly associated with the participation of
beneficiaries in group meetings, as well as in decision making. The estimated elasticity of participation
(Table 4.11) with respect to family size shows that, as the size of a family increased by 1%,
participation in attendance increased by 0.62% and participation in decision making by 0.96%. The sex
of the household head was another influencing factor affecting participation, results showing that male
headed households participated more in group meetings compared to female headed households. The
rate of participation in attending the meetings by male headed households was higher by nearly 8%
when compared to female headed households. But the gender of household head did not influence the
rate of participation in decision making. The sex of the participant was also an influential factor in
deciding the rate of participation in attendance and decision making. The results show that male
participants’ participated more in group meetings and decision making when compared to female
participants. This was contrary to the common notion that, in water related issues, women has more
influence since they face more hardship in fetching water. Regression results indicate that, although
men constituted only 34.5% of the participants, they have more influence in decision making as
compared to women.

48
Table 4.11: Elasticity of participation in attendance in the meeting and decision making
Elasticity of participation in Elasticity of participation in
Variable
attendance in the BG meeting decision making
Family size 0.621 0.961
Percentage of family members with 0.123 0.281
education
Percentage of family members 0.20 0.396
participating in local organization
Per capita income 0.167 0.398
i Very poor 0.025 0.077
ii Poor 0.089 0.191
iii Middle income 0.156 0.259
iv High income 0.263 0.444

The percentage of family members with an education higher than 10th standard and the percentage of
members involved in local organizations were the other two important variables influencing
participation.

Both these variables represent the social capital of a household. Social capital is considered to be an
important social condition that can facilitate coordinated action between individuals (Blomkvist &
Swain, 2001). Elasticity of participation with respect to educational level of households showed that, as
the level of education increased by 1%, the rate of participation in attendance increased by 0.12% and
that of influence in decision making by 0.28%. Similarly, increase in the number of family members
involved in other local organizations enhances participation in BG meetings, with the elasticity of
participation in water user groups with respect to participation in other local organizations showing that
a 1% increase in the participation in other local organizations influenced the attendance in group
meetings by 0.20% and decision making by 0.40%.

The purpose for which water was used had a higher influence on participation rate compared to all
other variables. As per the results, if a household was using water for drinking purposes to a large
extent, their participation rate in the group meeting increased by 10%. But, perennial water scarcity in a
household decreased the participation rate by 19%. One of the reasons for this may be that a majority of
the households facing perennial water scarcity belong to the low income category, with a household
monthly income less than Birr 1,353 (Table 4.12). Hence, participation of these households in the BG
meetings might be costly and involve high opportunity costs for the beneficiaries.

49
Table 4.12: Distribution (%) of household by water scarcity and household income
Monthly household income
Very Poor Poor Middle High Income
Water Scarcity < 1,350 1350 – 5,546 5,546 – 9,420 > 9420 Total
Perennial scarcity 1.5 68.5 27.7 2.3 100.0 [105]
Seasonal scarcity 0.0 45.3 43.2 11.6 100.0 [77]
Bad quality 4.0 68.0 20.0 8.0 100.0 [40]
No Problem 0.0 34.3 34.3 31.4 100.0 [28]
Total 1.3 57.4 31.9 9.4 100.0 [250]

Note: [Actual number in brackets]

The above argument can be reinforced by the relationship between per capita income and participation
rate. As per capita income increases, the participation rate also increases but by a very small percentage
(See Tables 4.9 and 4.10). Elasticity of participation with respect to per capita income shows that, as
income increases by 1%, the rate of participation in attendance increase by 0.17% and influence in
decision making by 0.40%. Computation of elasticity for low, middle and high income categories
shows that the influence of higher income groups in decision making was very high when compared to
low income categories (Table 4.11). It shows that those who influenced the decisions of location of
water supply and tariff, to a large extent, belonged to the high income category.

Stepwise regression analysis of both the models shows that within the different sets of variables,
household characteristics were the important factors influencing the participation. Amongst household
characteristics, sex of the participant in the group meetings and the educational level of the households
were the most important variables influencing the rate of participation and decision making. None of
the outcome variables significantly influenced the rate of participation in group meeting as well as
decision making.

50
 CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1. Summary of Findings
This study has tried to find the factors affecting community participation in water supply schemes using
primary data collected from 250 households in the Dollo-bay Woreda, Somali Regional state. Indices
of participation were prepared to capture the rate of participation in the BG meetings of community
based water supply schemes. Two forms of indices were constructed, to capture participation in general
and also the extent of involvement in decision making. In both cases, the distribution of households by
participation index shows that the percentage of households actively participating in group meetings
and in decision making was low.

Separate regression models were estimated in order to identify the factors affecting participation. In the
first model, the participation index for attendance was taken as a dependent variable and variables
representing group and household characteristics were taken as explanatory variables; in the second
model, however, the participation index for decision making was considered to be a dependent variable.

The results of the study show some deviation from the existing literature on collective action. Previous
studies on collective action and resource management have emphasized the importance of group
characteristics, such as size of the group, presence of active leadership and organizational rules for the
success of collective action (Olson, 1965; Baland & Platteau, 1996; Vedeld, 2000). But none of these
group characteristics significantly influenced the participation of beneficiaries in the water supply
schemes.

Narayan (1995) argued that the main reason for the lack of large scale participation was an
unwillingness to frame the issue in institutional terms. She has argued that boiling down the issue of
water supply to merely a technical problem reduces participation. In such circumstances, participation
became an add-on task which could be taken up whenever it was convenient and required for the
participants.

6.2. Conclusions
Among the three sets of factors, analysis shows that household characteristics were the most influential
in affecting collective action. Within the household characteristics, the sex of the participants as well as
51
their educational level had the most important bearing on participation. The analysis shows that male
participants had a more active participation in group meetings than their female counterparts.

Similarly, participation increased with a household’s level of education and involvement in other local
organizations. Household income of a household had negligible impact on participation but households
from the higher income category had a larger influence on decision making. Contrary to expectations,
the water scarcity suffered by a household negatively influenced participation in group meetings.
However, other household characteristics influence participation in a beneficial way.

The insignificance of group characteristics in this study may be mainly due to the resource specific
features of the product under consideration. In this study, water supply, as a resource, provided less of
an incentive for participation than other resources. In the water supply context, once the system was
installed and functioning without any interruption, it was observed that households were less interested
in participating in the meetings. It is households’ increased water demand that mainly drives them to
participate in the community-managed schemes.

As previously mentioned, the majority of households in the region depend on their own wells for
domestic water needs; piped water supply is in most cases only supplementary to water from private
wells, especially in the summer season. This implies that user demand is an important factor
determining participation in water supply schemes in Dollo-by Woreda and explains why there was an
insignificant relationship between participation and group characteristics. It is considered that if an
initiative for collective action in resource management comes from the people themselves, there will be
better participation.

In the context of community-based water supply schemes in Dollo-bay Woreda, the guidelines for
implementation were provided by a funding agency and implementation was in the hands of supporting
organizations. However, the active participation of beneficiaries in the community managed water
supply programs in Dollo-bay Woreda was less evident. Under the CWS schemes, local people were
given more responsibility in the O&M without substantial support from the government.

6.3. Recommendations
Based on the findings of the study the following points are recommended:

52
The government or NGOs should consider the provision of incentives to encourage community
members to participate in water supply schemes actively.

Even if local people were given more responsibility in the Operations and Maintenance without
substantial support from the government, both Government and NGOs need to give due attention in
providing sustainable support on skill based training and supply of materials for O&M.

Community-based water supply institutions can empower the people by developing their capacity in
various social interfaces during their participation in these institutions. Poor sections of society in
particular can significantly benefit from the socializing and empowering capacities of these
community-based institutions. Hence, regarding community-based water supply institutions as options
for social development can lead to better outcomes.

53
 REFERENCES
Abrams, L., Palmer, I., and Hart, T. (1998), Sustainability Management Guidelines. Pretoria:
department of Water Affairs and Forestry, South Africa
Agarwal, B. (2001). Participatory exclusions, community forestry and gender: an analysis for South
Asia and a conceptual framework. World Development 29(10), 1623–1648.
Andres, L. and B. Dasgupta (2016), “Functionality of water schemes in Nigeria” World Bank.
(Forthcoming).
Bourdieu, P. (1993). Sociology in question. Sage: London.
Boyce C, Neale P. 2006. Conducting in-depth interviews: a guide for designing and conducting in-
depth interviews for evaluation input. Pathfinder International. Washington DC.
Brikke, F. and Bredero, M. (2003). Linking Technology Choice with Operation and Maintenance in the
Context of Community Water Supply and Sanitation. Geneva: World Health Organization and
IRC Water and Sanitation Centre
Campbell, C., & Jovchelovitch, S. (2000). Health, community, and devel- opment: Towards a social
psychology of participation. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 10, 255–
270.
Carter, R. C., Tyrrel, S. F., and Howsam, P. (1999), Impact and sustainability of Community water
Supply and sanitation Programmes in Developing Countries, Chartered Institution of Water and
Environmental Management, 13, 292-296
Chambers, Robert. 1983. Rural Development: Putting the First Last. London: Longman.
Clancey, W. (1995). ‘A tutorial on situated learning’. In Proceedings of the International Conference
on Computers and Education (Taiwan). Charlottesville, VA: AACE, 49–70 (available from
http://cogprints.soton.ac.uk/documents/disk0/00/00/03/23/cog00000323-00/139.htm; last
accessed 2 February 2004).
Coleman, J. S. (1990). The foundations of social theory. (pp. 300–321). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Cooke, B. & Kothari, U. (eds) (2001). Participation: The New Tyranny. Zed Books, New York.
Cosgrove, W. J. (2003): ‘Water Resource Sector in the Coming Decades: Global Perspective’ in K.
Prasad (ed.) Water Resource and Sustainable Development: Challenges of 21st Century. New
Delhi: Sipra Publications

54
Dongier, P., J. V. Domelen, E. Ostrom, A. Ryan, W. Wakeman, A. Bebbington, S. Alkire, T. Esmail,
and M. Polsky. 2003. “Community Driven Development.” In World Bank, PRSP Sourcebook.
Vol. 1. Chapter 9, Washington, D.C.
Draper, A.K., Hewitt, G., Rifkin, S., 2010. Chasing the Dragon: developing indicators for the
assessment of community participation in health programs. Soc. Sci. Med. 71, 1102–1109.
DRC. 2018. Water Supply Need Assessment Report. Dollo Ado, Somali Region, 1–6.
Dutta-Bergman, M. J. (2003). Demographic and psychographic antecedents of community
participation: Applying a social marketing model. Social Marketing Quarterly, 9(2), 17–31.
Dutta-Bergman, M. J. (2004b). An alternative approach to social capital: Exploring the linkage
between health consciousness and community participation. Health Communication, 16, 393–
409.
Eisen, A. (1994). Survey of neighborhood-based, comprehensive commu- nity empowerment
initiatives. Health Education Quarterly, 21, 235–252.
Frumence, G., Nyamhanga, T., Mwangu, M., Hurtig, A., 2014. Participation in health planning in a
decentralised health system: experiences from facility governing committees in the Kongwa
district of Tanzania. Global Publ. Health 9 (10), 1125–1138.
Gaber J. 1993. Reasserting the importance of qualitative methods in planning. Landscape and Urban
Planning. Vol. 26. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.; p. 137–148.
George, A., Mehra, V., Scott, K., Sriram, V., 2015a. Community Participation in Health Systems
Research: a systematic review assessing the state of research, the nature of interventions
involved and the features of engagement with communities. PLoS One 10, 10.
GLAAS (2010) UN Water Global Annual Assessment of Sanitation and Drinking Water, HO/UN Water
[Online] Available at http://www.unwater.org/downloads/UN-Water_GLAAS_2010_Report.pdf
(Accessed 3 October 2015).
Haq, M.A, S.M. Hassan, and K. Ahmad (2014), Community Participation and Sustainability of Water
Supply Program in District Faisalabad, Pakistan, Journal of Quality and Technology
Management, Volume X, Issue II, Page 125 – 137
Harvey, P. A., and Reed, R. A. (2004). Rural water supply in Africa: Building blocks for hand pump
sustainability. WEDC, Loughborough University. United Kingdom
Hossain, S.M., Bhuiya, A., Khan, A.R., Uhaa, I., 2004. Community development and its impact on
health: South asian experience. Br. Med. J. 328, 830–833.

55
Isham, J. & Kahkonen, S. (1999). What determines the community-based water projects: Evidence
from Central Java, Indone- sia, on demand responsiveness, service rules and social capital.
Social Capital Initiative Working Paper No. 4. The World Bank, Washington, DC.
Isham, J. & Kahkonen, S. (2002). Institutional determinants of the impacts of community-based water
services: evidence from Sri Lanka and India. Economic Development and Cultural Change
50(3), 667–691.
Isham, J. and Kähkönen, S. (1999) “Institutional Determinants of the Impact of Community-Based
Water Services: Evidence from Sri Lanka and India.” Working Paper 236. University of
Maryland, Center for Institutional Reform and the Informal Sector.
Isham, J., Narayan, D. & Pritchett, L. (1994). Does participation improve performance? Empirical
evidence from project data. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 1357. The World
Bank, Washington, DC.
Jones, S.; Abseen, A.; Stacey, N.; Weir, L. A life-cycle approach to improve the sustainability of rural
water systems in resource-limited countries. Challenges 2012, 3, 233–260
Joshi, S. (2012). Collective action and community development: Evidence from women’s self-help
groups in rural India. Sem- inar paper presented at the Indian Statistical Institute, Delhi, 31 July
2012.
K. R. Nisha. (2013). Household participation in community-based rural water supply systems:
experience from Kerala, India. School of Communication and Management Studies, Prathap
Nagar, Cochin 683106, Kerala, India
Kleemeier, Elizabeth. 2000. “The Impact of Participation on Sustainability: An Analysis of the Malawi
Rural Piped Scheme Program.” World Development 28(5): 929–44.
Lapin, L. L. 1982. Statistics for Modern Business Decision. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich,
Inc.
Leonard, J., Jr., & Airhihenbuwa, C. O. (1993). Cancer among low- income African-Americans:
Implications for culture and community- based health promotion. Wellness Perspectives, 9(4),
57–68.
Marks, J. S. & Davis, J. (2012). Does user participation lead to sense of ownership for rural water
systems? Evidence from Kenya. World Development 40(8), 1569–1576.
Mazango, N., and Munjeri, C. (2009), Water management in a hyperinflationary environment: Case
study of Nkayi district in Zimbabwe, Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, 34(1-2),
28-35

56
McCarthy, N., Dutilly-Diané, C. & Drabo, B. (2002). Cooperation, collective action in natural
resources management in Burkina Faso: A methodological note. CAPRi Working Paper No. 27.
International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC.
McMichael, C., & Manderson, L. (2004). Somali women and well-being: Social networks and social
capital among immigrant women in Australia. Human Organization, 63(1), 88–99.
Meinzen-Dick, R., Raju, K. V. & Gulati, A. (2002). What affects organization and collective action for
managing resources? Evidence from canal irrigation systems in India. World Development
30(4), 649–666.
Merzel, C., & D’ Afflitti, J. (2003). Reconsidering community-based health promotion: Promise,
performance and potential. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 557–574.
Misra, S. (2008) Inefficiency of Rural Water Supply Schemes in India. Policy Paper number 44791
extracted from the World Bank Study on Review of Effectiveness of Rural Water Supply
Schemes in India, June 2008
Montgomery, M. A., Bartram, J., and Elimelech, M. (2009), Increasing functional sustainability of
water and sanitation supplies in rural sub-saharan Africa, Environmental Engineering Science,
26(5), 1017-1023.
Murcott, S. 2007. Co-evolutionary design for development: influences shaping engineering design and
implementation in Nepal and the global village. Journal of International Development 19, 123–
144.
Nachmias D, Nachmias CF. 1992. Research methods in the social sciences. Guildford and King’s
Lynn: Biddles LTD.
Nance, E. & Ortolano, L. 2007. Community participation in urban sanitation: experiences in
northeastern Brazil. Journal of Planning Education and Research 26, 284–300.
Narayan, D. (1995). The contribution of people’s participation: Evidences from 121 rural water supply
projects. Environmen- tally Sustainable Development Occasional Paper Series No.1. The World
Bank, Washington, DC.
Newman, J. et al (2002) “An Impact Evaluation of Education, Health and Water Supply Investments by
the Bolivian Social Investment Fund.” World Bank Economic Review, 16(2), 241-74.
Norusis, Marija J. SPSS Inc. (1990). SPSS/PC+ Advanced Statistics 4.0 for the IBM PC/XT/AT and
PS/2. SPSS Inc: Chicago.
Oakley, P. (1991). Projects with People: The Practice of Participation in Rural Development.
International Labour Office, Geneva.

57
OpenWASH. (2016). Ethiopia’s One WASH National Programme. The Open University
UK/World Vision Ethiopia/UNICEF.
OWNP. (2014) Program Operational Manual(POM) for the Consolidated WaSH Account’s. The Federal
Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. Addis Ababa.
Özerol, G. (2008). Evaluation of public participation towards sustainable water management: an
institutional perspective. In: Governance by Evaluation: Institutional Capacities and Learning
for Sustainable Development. Galla, J., Martinuzzi, A. & Steurer, R. (eds). Conference
Proceedings of EASY-ECO Vienna; 11–14 March 2008, Vienna, Austria.
Pilkington, P. (2002). Social capital and health: Measuring and under- standing social capital at a
local level could help to tackle health inequal- ities more effectively. Journal of Public Health
Medicine, 24, 156–159.
Pluye, P., Potvin, L., Denis, J.L., 2004. Making public health programs last: conceptualizing
sustainability. Eval. Progr. Plann. 27, 121–133.
Prokopy, L. S. (2005). The relationship between participation and project outcomes: evidence from
rural water supply project in India. World Development 33(11), 1801–1819.
Putnam, R. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6,
65–78.
Rajasekhar, D. & Veerashekharappa, (2003). Role of Local Organization in Water Supply and
Sanitation Sector: A Study in Karnataka and Uttaranchal States, India.
Rifkin, S.B., 2003. A framework linking community empowerment and health equity: it is a matter of
CHOICE. J. Health Popul. Nutr. 21, 168–180.
Rifkin, S.B., Muller, F., Bichmann, W., 1988. Primary health care: on measuring participation Soc. Sci.
Med. 26, 931–940.
Roma, E. & Jeffrey, P. 2010. Evaluation of community participation in the implementation of
community-based sanitation systems: a case study from Indonesia. Water Science and
Technology 62 (5), 1028–1036.
Rout, Satyapriya, University of Hyderabad, Institutional variations in practice of demand responsive
approach: evidence from rural water supply in India, Water Policy, July 2014
Sara, J. & Katz, T. (1998). Making rural water supply sustainable: Report on the impact of project rule.
United Nations Development Programme, World Bank Water and Sanitation Programme,
Washington, DC.
Sara, J. and Katz, T. (1997) Making Rural Water Supply Sustainable: Report on the Impact of Project
Rules. Washington D.C.: UNDP-World Bank Water and Sanitation Program.
58
Scheirer, M., Dearing, J., 2011. An agenda for research on the sustainability of public health programs.
Am. J. Publ. Health 101 (11), 2059–2067.
Scheufele, D. A., & Shah, D. V. (2000). Personality strength and social capital: The role of
dispositional and informational variables in the production of civic participation.
Communication Research, 27, 107–131.
Sen, Amartya K. 1999. Development as Freedom. New York: Knopf Press.
Shediac-Rizkallah, M., Bone, L., 1998. Planning for the Sustainability of Community Based Health
Programs: conceptual frameworks and future directions for research, practice and policy. Health
Educ. Res. 13 (1), 87–108.
Shigayeva, A., Coker, R., 2015. Communicable disease control program and health systems: an
analytical approach to sustainability. Health Pol. Plann. 30 368–385.o.
Singh, K. (1992). Workshop report: People’s participation in natural resources management. Working
Paper No. 8. Institute of Rural Management, Anand.
Skidmore, D. (2000). Civil society, social capital and economic development. A Paper Presented at
the 41st Annual Conven- tion. International Studies Association, Los Angeles, CA. March 14–
18.
Sugden, S. (2001). Assessing sustainability-the sustainability snap shot. Paper presented at the 27th
WEDC conference, Lusaka, Zambia.
Taylor, B. (2009) Addressing the Sustainability Crisis: Lessons from research on managing rural water
projects. Available online at: http://www.wateraid.org/~/media/Publications/sustainability-
crisis-rural-water-managementtanzania.pdf
Tocqueville, A. D. (1948). Democracy in America. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
United Nations. (2010). the Millennium Development Goals Report 2010. Retrieved from
http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/
United Nations. (2011). The Millennium Development Goals Report 2011 Retrieved from
http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals
Water and Sanitation Program (WSP). 2007. From Burden to Communal Responsibility: A Sanitation
Success Story from Southern Region in Ethiopia. Water and Sanitation Field Note, Sanitation
and Hygiene Series, WSP Africa Region, Nairobi, Kenya.
Weitzman, E. R., & Kawachi, I. (2000). Giving means receiving: The protective effect of social capital
on binge drinking on college campuses. Journal of Public Health. 90, 1936–1939.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
59
Wicken, J., Verhagen, J., Sijbesma, C., Da Carmen, S. & Ryan, P. 2008. Beyond Construction: Use By
All. IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre and WaterAid, Delft, The Netherlands.
Wood, S, Sawyer, R. & Simpson-Herbert, M. 1998. PHAST Step-by-Step Guide: a Participatory
Approach for the Control of Diarrhoeal Disease. World Health Organization, unpublished
documents WHO/EOS/98.3, Geneva.
World Health Organization, 2002. Community Participation in Local Health and Sustainable
Development: Approaches and Techniques.
Wright, A. 1997. Toward a Strategic Sanitation Approach: Improving the Sustainability of Urban
Sanitation in Developing Countries. UNDP-World Bank Water and Sanitation Program,
Washington, DC.
WSSCC/Eawag. 2005. Household-Centred Environmental Sanitation: Implementing the Bellagio
Principles in Urban Environmental Sanitation. Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and
Technology (Eawag), Dübendorf, Switzerland.

60
 APPENDICES
ADDIS ABABAB UNIVERSITY
SHOOL OF COMMERCE

SURVEY ON FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN WATER SUPPLY

SCHEMES: THE CASE OF DROUGHT AFFECTED COMMUNITIES AT DOLLO BAY, SOMALI REGIONAL
STATE

FOR USE WITH HOUSEHOLD HEADS

Dollo Bay, 2019

INFORMED CONFIDENTIALITY AND CONSENT

I am working with _______________________________

We are interviewing people here in order to find out about people’s experience towards the community participation in
water supply schemes under wash project. The purpose of the study is to generate information necessary for the planning of
appropriate interventions and to track the trend on the practice of community participation and check on the decision
making capability on community based water supply schemes. Therefore your honest and genuine participation by
responding to the questions is highly appreciated.

Your answers are completely confidential. Your name will not be written on this form, and will never be used in connection
with any of the information you tell me. This survey will take 20 minutes to ask the questions.

Would you be willing to participate?

_______________________________

[Signature of interviewer certifying that informed consent has been given verbally by respondent]

61
PART ONE: RESPONDENTS IDENTIFICATION & INTERVIEWER VISITS
IDENTIFICATION
WEREDA
KEBELE
HOUSEHOLD NUMBER

INTERVIEWER’S VISITS
VISIT 1 VISIT 2 VISIT 3
TIME
DATE
INTERVIEWER’S NAME
RESULT*

* RESULT CODES:
1. COMPLETED
2. RESPONDENT NOT AVAILABLE
3. PARTIALLY COMPLETED
4. REFUSED
5. OTHER ___________________
[SPECIFY]

C. QUESTIONNAIRE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER |__|__|__|

D. HEAD OF THE HOUSEHOLD MALE |__|

FEMALE |__|

CHECKED BY SUPERVISOR: SIGNATURE ______________ DATE _______________________

62
PART TWO: SOCIO DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

No. QUESTIONS AND FILTERS CODING CATEGORY SKIP

HEAD 1
WIFE , HUSBAND OR PARTNER 2
SON OR DAUGHTER 3
SON IN LAW OR DAUGHTER IN LAW 4
GRAND CHILD 5
RELATIONSHIP TO THE HEAD OF THE PARENT 6
A01
HOUSEHOLD: PARENT IN LAW 7
BROTHER OR SISTER 8
ADOPTEDOR FOSTER OR STEPCHILD 9
OTHER RELATIVE 10
NOT RELATED 11
DOES NOT KNOW 88
AGE IN COMPLETED YEAR |__|__|
HOW OLD WERE YOU AT YOUR LAST
A02 DOES NOT KNOW 88
BIRTHDAY?
NO RESPONSE 99
CITY 1
A03 WHERE WERE YOU BORN? TOWN 2
COUNTRYSIDE 3
HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN LIVING YEARS |__|__|
A04 CONTINUOUSLY IN DOLLO BAY TOWN/ ALWAYS 5 ---A06
KORALEY KEBELE? NO RESPONSE 99
JUST BEFORE YOU MOVED HERE, DID CITY 1
A05 YOU LIVE IN A CITY, IN A TOWN, OR IN TOWN 2
THE COUNTRYSIDE? COUNTRYSIDE 3
HAVE YOU EVER ATTENDED FORMAL YES 1
A06
SCHOOL? NO 2 ---A08
GRADE |__|__|
WHAT IS THE HIGHEST GRADE YOU TECHNICAL/ VOCATIONAL CERT. 3
A07
HAD COMPLETED? UNIVERSITY/ COLLEGE DIPLOMA 4
UNIVERSITY/ COLLEGE DEGREE 5
MARRIED 1
SINGLE 2 ---B01
A08 WHAT IS YOUR MARITAL STATUS? DIVORCED 3
WIDOWED 4
SEPARATED 5

63
No. QUESTIONS AND FILTERS CODING CATEGORY SKIP

YES 1
A09 HAVE YOU EVER GIVEN BIRTH?
NO 2 ---B01
HOW MANY CHILDREN DO YOU HAVE? NUMBER OF CHILDREN |__|__|
A10
[If none, record ‘|0|0|’.] NO RESPONSE 99

PART THREE: ECONOMIC INFORMATION

No. QUESTIONS AND FILTERS CODING CATEGORY SKIP

DO YOU HAVE ANY INCOME FOR YOUR YES 1

B01
HOUSEHOLD? NO 2 ---B04
PROFESSIONAL-TECHNICIAN 1
ADMINISTRATOR, MANAGER 2
SALES WORKER 3
FARMER 4
WHAT IS YOUR SOURCE OF
B02 CASUAL LABOURER 5
LIVELIHOOD/INCOME?
MILITARY 6
PASTORALIST 7
OTHER ____________________ 8
[SPECIFY]
AMOUNT IN BIRR |__|__|__|__|
HOW MUCH WAS YOUR TOTAL
B03 DOES NOT KNOW 8
HOUSEHOLD MONTHLY INCOME?
NO RESPONSE 9
PIPED (TAPE)
PIPED INTO DWELLING 1
PIPED INTO COMPOUD 2
PIPED OUTSIDE THE COMPOUND 3
OPEN WELL/SPRING
OPEN WELL 4
WHAT IS THE MAIN SOURCE OF OPEN SPRING 5
B04 DRINKING WATER FOR MEMBERS OF COVERED WELL/SPRING
COVERED WELL 6
YOUR HOUSEHOLD? COVERED SPRING 7
SURFACE WATER
RIVER 8
POND/LAKE/DAM 9
RAINWATER 10
OTHER ____________________ 11
[SPECIFY]

64
No. QUESTIONS AND FILTERS CODING CATEGORY SKIP

FLUSH TOILET 1
PIT TOILET/LATERINE
WHAT KIND OF TOILET FACILITY DO
TRADITIONAL PIT TOILET 2
B05 MOST OF MEMBERS YOUR HOUSEHOLD VENTILATED IMPROVED PIT LATERINE 3
USE? NOT FACILITY/BUSH/FIELD 4
OTHER ____________________ 6
[SPECIFY]
DOES YOUR HOUSEHOLD HAVE: YES NO
ELECTRICITY? ELECTRICITY 1 2
A RADIO? A RADIO 1 2
A TELEVISION? A TELEVISION 1 2
B06
A TELEPHONE? A TELEPHONE 1 2
AN ELECTRIC MITAD? AN ELECTRIC MITAD 1 2
A KEROSENE LAMP/PRESSURE LAMP? A KEROSENE LAMP 1 2
A BED/TABLE? A BED/TABLE 1 2
DOES YOUR HOUSEHOLD HAVE: YES NO
OWN THE HOUSE IT IS LIVING IN? OWN HOUSE 1 2
HAVE CROPLAND? CROP LAND 1 2
B07
HAVE CATTLE/CAMELS? CATTLE/CAMELS 1 2
HAVE HORSE/MULE/DONKEY? HAVE HORSE/MULE/DONKEY 1 2
HAVE SHEEP/GOATS? SHEEP/GOATS 1 2
ELECTRCITY 1
LPG/NATURAL GAS 2
BIOGAS 3
WHAT TYPE OF FULE DOSE YOUR KEROSEN 4
B08 HOUSEHOLD MAINLY USE FOR CHARCOAL 5
COOKING? FIREWOOD, STRAW 6
DUNG 7
OTHER ____________________ 6
[SPECIFY]
EARTH/SAND 1
DUNG 2
WOOD PLANKS 3
REED/BAMBOO 4
MAIN MATERIAL OF THE FLOOR. PARQUET OR POLISHED WOOD 5
B09 VINYL SHEETS/TILES 6
[Record observation]
CEMENT 7
CEMENT TILES/BRICK 8
CARPET 9
OTHER ____________________ 6
[SPECIFY]
65
 No. QUESTIONS AND FILTERS CODING CATEGORY SKIP

COROGATED IRON 1
CEMENT/CONCRETE 2
WOOD AND MUD 3
THACH 4
MAIN MATERIAL OF THE ROOF.
B10 REED BAMBOO 5
[Record observation]
PLASTIC SHEET 6
MOBILE ROOFS OF NOMADS 7
OTHER ____________________ 6
[[SPECIFY]
DOES ANY MEMBER OF YOUR
HOUSEHOLD OWN: YES NO
A BICYCLE? BICYCLE 1 2
B11 A MOTERCYCLE OR MOTER SCOOTER? MOTERCYCLE/SCOOTER 1 2
A CAR OR TRUCK? CAR/TRUCK 1 2
A HORSE OR MULE FOR HUMAN HORSE/MULE 1 2
TRANSPORT ONLY?

PART FOUR: OPINION ON COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN WATER SUPPLY SCHEMES

No. QUESTIONS AND FILTERS CODING CATEGORY SKIP

HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF WATER YES 1

SUPPLY SCHEMES UNDER WASH NO 2 ---
C01
PROJECT AT DANISH REFUGEE
COUNCIL “DRC”?
HAVE YOU YOURSELF BEEN AIDED BY YES 1
C02
THE PROJECT? NO 2 ---C04
YEAR |__|__|__|__|
SINCE WHEN HAVE YOU BEEN AIDED
C03 DURING INFANCY 5
BY THIS PROJECT?
DOES NOT KNOW 8
HAS ANY OF YOUR FAMILY MEMBERS YES 1
C04
BEEN BENEFITED FROM THE PROJECT? NO 2
CONTINUED 1
DO YOU THINK THE PROJECT SHOULD
C05 DISCONTINUED 2 ---C08
BE CONTINUED, OR DISCONTINUED?
DOES NOT KNOW 88


Complete the questionnaire
66
No. QUESTIONS AND FILTERS CODING CATEGORY SKIP

SATISFIES COMMUNITY DEMAND 1

ALLOWS COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 2
ENCOURAGE PEOPLE MAKE DECISIONS 3
ORGANIZED ‘BG’ MEETING 4
[Filter: if continued – C05] WORKING ON ‘WASH’ 5
WHY DO YOU THINK THE PROJECT TO PLEASE DRC 6
C06
SHOULD BE CONTINUED? IT BELONGS TO THE COMMUNITY 7
[Record all reasons mentioned] TO ENHANCE WATER SUPPLY SCHEMES 8
TO INCREASE WATER AVAILABILITY 9
IT IS AN ‘NGO’ 10
OTHER __________________ 11
[SPECIFY]
BAD PROJECT 1
AGAINST COMMUNITY’S WILL 2
[Filter: if discontinued – C05] CREATES COMPLICATION 3
WHY DO YOU THINK THE PROJECT I HAVE PAINFUL EXPERIENCE 4
C07
SHOULD BE DISCONTINUED? STOPS DECISION MAKING CAPABILITY 5
[Record all reasons mentioned] AVERTS COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 6
OTHER __________________ 8
[SPECIFY]
SUPPORTS TO BE CONTINUED 1
WHAT DOES YOUR FAMILY MEMBERS
C08 DOES NOT SUPPORT 2
THINK ABOUT THIS PROJECT?
DO NOT KNOW 88
ADULT MEN 1
ADULT WOMEN 2
WHO USUALLY FETCHES WATER FOR BOYS 3
C09
THE FAMILY? GIRLS 4
OTHER __________________ 8
[SPECIFY]
WITHIN 200 METERS 1
WITHIN 500 METERS 2
HOW FAR IS THE WATER SOURCE FROM WITHIN 1 KILO METERS 3
C10
YOUR DWELLING? MORE THAN 1 KILO METERS 4
DOES NOT KNOW 88
NO RESPONSE 99

67
No. QUESTIONS AND FILTERS CODING CATEGORY SKIP

FREQUENCY PER WEEK |__|__|

HOW OFTEN DO YOU NORMALLY
C11 DOES NOT KNOW 88
COLLECT WATER IN A WEEK?
NO RESPONSE 99
LESS THAN 30 MINUTES 1
HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU SPEND
BETWEEN 30 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 2
C12 [ROUND TRIP] TO COLLECT DRINKING MORE THAN 1 HOUR 3
WATER? DOES NOT KNOW 88
NO RESPONSE 99
LESS THAN 10 LITERS 1
11 – 20 LITERS 2
HOW MANY LITERS OF WATER DO YOU 21 – 30 LITERS 3
C13 COLLECT EACH DAY DURING DRY 31 – 40 LITERS 4
SEASON? MORE THAN 40 LITERS 5
DOES NOT KNOW 88
NO RESPONSE 99
LESS THAN 10 LITERS 1
11 – 20 LITERS 2
HOW MANY LITERS OF WATER DO YOU 21 – 30 LITERS 3
C14 COLLECT EACH DAY DURING 31 – 40 LITERS 4
WET/RAINY SEASON? MORE THAN 40 LITERS 5
DOES NOT KNOW 88
NO RESPONSE 99
CLEAN AND CLEAR 1
CLOUDY 2
WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE QUALITY
SLIGHTLY CLOUDY BAD TASTE 3
C15 OF WATER YOU USED FOR DRINKING?
BAD SMELL/ODOR 4
[TICK ALL THAT APPLY]
DOES NOT KNOW 88
NO RESPONSE 99
YES 1
C16 DO YOU TREAT WATER? NO 2 ---C18
NO RESPONSE 99
CHEMICAL WATER PURIFIERS 1
FILTERING 2
[Filter: if Yes – C16]
ALLOWING PARTIES TO SETTLE DOWN
IF YES, WHAT TYPE OF WATER (BASIC SEDIMENTATION) 3
C17
TREATMENT METHOD IS USED? TICK BOILING 4
ALL THAT APPLY) NOTHING 5
OTHER __________________ 8
[SPECIFY]

68
No. QUESTIONS AND FILTERS CODING CATEGORY SKIP

WATER IS SAFE 1
IT IS EXPENSIVE 2
[Filter: if No – C16]
C18 DONOT KNOW HOW TO TRAET 3
WHY?
OTHER __________________ 8
[SPECIFY]
OPEN BUCKET 1
BUCKET WITH LID 2
WHAT DO YOU USE TO COLLECT JERRY CAN 3
C19
DRINKING WATER? BOTTLE 4
OTHER __________________ 8
[SPECIFY]
NUMBER OF CONTAINERS |__|__|
LESS THAN 5 LITERS 1
5 LITERS 2
WHAT IS THE CAPACITY OF THE WATER
10 LITERS 3
C20 CONTAINER YOU USE TO COLLECT
15 LITERS 4
DRINKING WATER AND HOW MANY?
20 LITERS 5
OTHER __________________ 8
[SPECIFY]
NUMBER OF CONTAINERS |__|__|
LESS THAN 5 LITERS 1
5 LITERS 2
HOW MANY WATER CONTAINERS DO
10 LITERS 3
C21 YOU HAVE FOR WATER STORAGE AND
15 LITERS 4
SIZE?
20 LITERS 5
OTHER __________________ 8
[SPECIFY]
DO YOU PERCEIVE THE SURROUNDING YES 1
TO THE NEAREST WATER POINT IS SAFE NO 2
C22
AND SECURE ESPECIALLY FOR WOMEN OTHER __________________ 8
AND GIRLS? [SPECIFY]
PERENNIAL SCARCITY 1
SEASONAL SCARCITY 2
HOW DO YOU RATE THE EXTENT OF BAD QUALITY 3
C23
WATER SCARCITY ? NO PROBLEM 4
OTHER __________________ 8
[SPECIFY]

69
No. QUESTIONS AND FILTERS CODING CATEGORY SKIP

IMPROVED PRIMARY WATER SOURCE 1

IMPROVED SECOND’Y WATER SOURCE 2
WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE
NOT IMP. PRIMARY WATER SOURCE 3
C24 WATER STATUS SERVED TO THE
NOT IMP. SECONDARY WATER SOURCE 4
USERS?
DOES NOT KNOW 88
NO RESPONSE 99
YES 1
DOU YOU HAVE A BENEFICIARY GROUP
NO 2 --C30
C25 THAT WORKS ON WATER SUPPLY
DOES NOT KNOW 88
SCHEMES?
NO RESPONSE 99
SIZE OF THE BG |__|__|
HOW MANY MEMBERS DOES YOUR
C26 DOES NOT KNOW 88
BENEFICIARY GROUP HAVE?
NO RESPONSE 99
ONE PERSON 1
TWO PERSONS 2
HOW MANY MEMBERS OF A
ALL THE MEMBERS 3
HOUSEHOLD WILL BE ALLOWED TO
C27 OTHER __________________ 8
ATTEND AT GROUP MEETINGS IN THE
[SPECIFY]
COMMUNITY-BASED WATER SCHEMES?
DOES NOT KNOW 88
NO RESPONSE 99
ALWAYS 1
REGULARLY 2
HOW DO YOU RATE YOUR
OCCASIONALLY 3
C28 ATTENDANCE AT THE BENEFICIARY
NEVER ATTEND 4 --C30
GROUP MEETINGS?
DOES NOT KNOW 88
NO RESPONSE 99
ONCE A DAY 1
TWICE A WEEK 2
ONCE A WEEK 3
HOW OFTEN DO THE BG MEETINGS
ONCE A MONTH 4
C29 HOLD ON COMMUNITY-BASED WATER
OTHER __________________ 8
SCHEMES?
[SPECIFY]
DOES NOT KNOW 88
NO RESPONSE 99

70
No. QUESTIONS AND FILTERS CODING CATEGORY SKIP

NO PARTICIPATION 1
LOW PARTICIPATION 2
HOW DO YOU RANK YOUR LEVEL
MODERATE PARTICIPATION 3
PARTICIPATION [ATTENDANCE] IN
C30 HIGH PARTICIPATION 4
MEETINGS AT COMMUNITY-MANAGED
ACTIVE PARTICIPATION 5
WATER SUPPLY SCHEMES [CSW]
DOES NOT KNOW 88
NO RESPONSE 99
NO PARTICIPATION 1
HOW DO YOU RANK YOUR LEVEL LOW PARTICIPATION 2
PARTICIPATION [ATTENDANCE] IN MODERATE PARTICIPATION 3
C31
MEETINGS AT DOLLO BAY WATER HIGH PARTICIPATION 4
AUTHORITY[DWA]? ACTIVE PARTICIPATION 5
NO RESPONSE 99
NO PARTICIPATION 1
LOW PARTICIPATION 2
HOW DO YOU RANK YOUR LEVEL
MODERATE PARTICIPATION 3
C32 PARTICIPATION [ATTENDANCE] AT
HIGH PARTICIPATION 4
DANISH REFUGEE COUNCIL [DRC]
ACTIVE PARTICIPATION 5
NO RESPONSE 99
ALWAYS 1
DO YOU MAKE ANY SUGGESTIONS REGULARLY 2
C33 RELATING TO DEVELOPMENT OCCASIONALLY 3
INTERVENTIONS IN A GROUP MEETING? NEVER 4
NO RESPONSE 99
ALWAYS 1
DO YOU MAKE ANY INFLUENCES
REGULARLY 2
DECISIONS RELATING TO
C34 OCCASIONALLY 3
DEVELOPMENT INTERVENTIONS IN A
NEVER 4 – C38
GROUP MEETING?
NO RESPONSE 99
VERY LARGE INFLUENCE 1
LARGE INFLUENCE 2
HOW DO YOU RATE YOUR INFLUENCE MEDIUM INFLUENCE 3
C35 IN DECIDING RELATING TO WATER LITTLE BIT INFLUENCE 4
SUPPLY? NOT AT ALL 5
DOES NOT KNOW 88
NO RESPONSE 99

71
No. QUESTIONS AND FILTERS CODING CATEGORY SKIP

VERY LARGE INFLUENCE 1

LARGE INFLUENCE 2
HOW DO YOU RATE INFLUENCE IN MEDIUM INFLUENCE 3
C36 DECIDING RELATING TO THE LITTLE BIT INFLUENCE 4
LOCATION OF THE WATER SUPPLY? NOT AT ALL 5
DOES NOT KNOW 88
NO RESPONSE 99
VERY LARGE INFLUENCE 1
LARGE INFLUENCE 2
HOW DO YOU RATE YOUR INFLUENCE MEDIUM INFLUENCE 3
C37 IN DECIDING RELATING TO THE LITTLE BIT INFLUENCE 4
MONTHLY TARIFF? NOT AT ALL 5
DOES NOT KNOW 88
NO RESPONSE 99
VERY SATISFIED 1
SATISFIED 2
HOW DO YOU RANK YOUR OVERALL
NEVER SATISFIED 3
C38 SATISFACTION IN THE WATER SUPPLY
DOES NOT KNOW 88
SYSTEM AT DOWELING?
NO RESPONSE 99

Thank you for your time

72