CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction

This chapter provides an introduction and background information to the study. It sets out the

problem statement and the objectives. The chapter also specifies the research question, discusses

the significance, justification and limitations of the study and concludes with an outline for the

whole thesis.

1.2 Background to the study

Water is a vital resource for human survival as it is central to all types of livelihoods (Specter,

2005). Though water resources are in abundance, it is unevenly distributed on earth resulting in

water scarcity in some parts of the earth. Limited access to clean and safe water associated with

poor water supply, hygiene and sanitation at household level widens the poverty gap, gender

inequalities and the prevalence of water borne diseases (GWA, 2006). This limited access

contributes to 3.7% of the total global disease burden and 2.2 million deaths each year with

women and children in the developing countries being the most affected (WHO/UNICEF, 2008).

Although the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) 7 seeks to “halve by 2015 the proportion

of people without access to safe drinking water and sanitation” (UNDP, 2006), it is anticipated

that Sub-Saharan Africa will only reach the MDGs water target by 2040 (Sutton, 2008).

Nevertheless some 400 million of the people living in Sub Saharan Africa will be left without

access to safe water with a majority of them being women and children living in rural households

(Sutton, 2008).

In Ghana, access to safe water remains one of the critical problems confronting the country

especially rural communities. Information gathered from the Community Water and Sanitation

Authority (CWSA) of Ghana indicates that at the end of 2008, only 48 percent of Ghana’s rural

population was adequately supplied with clean water (Kokutse, 2009).

An increase in water pollution and mismanagement is also aggravating the imbalance between

supply and demand (Kaliba, 2002). The efficient management of the available water resources is

critical for sustainable development. Water is a collective asset and in most instances, it needs to

be managed at the community level. Participatory development is the most important approach

towards enabling communities to help themselves and sustain efforts in development work

especially in the case of water supply.

In this regard, communities are no longer only seen as recipients of development programmes;

rather, they have become critical stakeholders that have an important role to play in the

management of programmes and projects in their areas (Daniels, 2002).

1.3 Problem Statement

Several decades of development funding (e.g. from World Bank in Africa) has revealed the

failures of top-down approaches to development (Cernea et al, 1997 cited in Maraga, 2010). Not

only does the provision of public goods remain low in developing nations, most projects suffer

from lack of sustainability. A possible reason for these failures is attributed to the lack of local

participation. Since the 1980, the new development slogan has been "participatory or

community-led development" and there has been a rush to jump on the participatory wagon

(Khwaja, 2004).

1

Ghana has experienced many failures relating to rural water supply projects (Fielmua, 2011).

These failures are often attributed to the traditional role delegated to the communities in that they

had always been on the receiving end and had, therefore, become onlookers of their own

development. This approach, with its long history in Ghana, makes it difficult for rural

communities to accept the concept of community participation particularly with respect to

ownership and hence responsibility for the system (Laryea, 1994, as cited in Barimah, 2011).

Considering the performance of Ghana towards the realization of the Millennium Development

Goals, especially those related to water and sanitation, a strategy that seeks to infuse general

participation of communities in the management of water and sanitation services and facilities

was introduced (CWAS, 2007).

The fundamental question, therefore, arises as to whether community participation in the water

supply projects has led to sustainability of these projects. Bunch (1995) postulates that the major

question in many development programmes and projects is not whether to increase participation

but how to achieve effective participation. It is against this background that this study seeks to

research into the effectiveness of community participation in sustainable management of water

facilities.

1.4 Objectives of the Study

1.4.1 General Objective

The key objective of the study is to assess the effectiveness of community participation in the

sustainable management of water facilities within the Abensu and Pokuase Communities in Ga

West Municipality of Ghana

2

1.4.2 Specific Objectives

In order to achieve the above general objective, the study seeks to address the following specific

objectives:

1. To identify major key factors that affect community participation in the sustainable

management of water supply facilities;

2. To examine the various roles played by the community in the sustainable management

of facilities;

3. To find out the level of participation of community members in sustaining water

delivery services

1.5 Research Questions

The research questions backing these objectives are:

1. What are the key factors affecting community participation in the management of water

supply services?

2. What are the roles played by the community in the sustainable management of facilities?

3. What is the level of participation of community members in sustaining water delivery

services?

1.6 Significance of the Study

Community participation is crucial for undertaking projects that are geared towards improving

their welfare. Community participation and management approach which has been adopted by

the Ghanaian Government is geared towards achieving the millennium development goals. The

findings of the study would therefore help in identifying obstacles faced by the Municipal

3

Assemblies in bringing development to their area. The study will contribute to references and

encourage other researchers to carry out research on same or similar topics. The study might

provide the other researchers with areas of references for their works as well as new concepts

that can be used as a direction for new studies. This research will contribute to the increasing

body of knowledge about the factors leading to the success or failure of community participation

in the sustainable management of water supply facilities.

1.7 Justification of the Study

The water sector is among the social service projects which have been on top of Ghana’s

political agenda and receives huge financial support from donor countries and international

financial institutions (Kasiaka, 2004).

Many studies have been conducted on community participation approach in water projects (Tani,

2009; Williams, 2008; Mba and Keankye, 2007; Schouten, 2006; Gomez, 2002). However, few

studies have been conducted on how community management affects the sustainability of water

supply services. This study, therefore, explores the linkage between community participation and

water schemes sustainability. The involvement of key stakeholders like the community, private

sector and charity organizations are of paramount importance in developing water projects. After

several years of the adoption of community participation approach in Ghana, it is relevant to

research and find out whether community participatory management approach leads to water

project sustainability.

4

1.8 Scope of study

The study confined itself in Greater Accra, in which communities in the Ga West Municipality

were reasonably selected as a case study. This was because the Ga West Municipality has

adopted the community participation approach in the management of water projects compared

with other districts in the region, hence it was a potential area for getting adequate and relevant

information related to the study. Furthermore, the focus has been narrowed to Pokuase Zonal

council focusing on mechanised and non-mechanised borehole facilities. Water supply is a

broad concept. The study, therefore, looked at how sustainable a water supply project could be if

the community participates at the pre and the post project stages.

1.8 Organization of Thesis

The thesis is structured into five chapters. Chapter one (1) presents relevant background to the

study and includes the problem statement, justification of the study, the study objectives,

research questions, scope of study , limitation of study and organization of the study,

Chapter Two (2) presents a review of relevant literature to analyse community participation and

the possible factors that are likely to influence community participation in water facility

management, as applied to Ghana National Strategy for Community Participation in Water

Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH).

Chapter three (3) discusses the study area, site selection and offers an outline of the different

methodologies employed in this research. This includes the design of study: methods used in

collecting the data with a justification for each method used; method of analysis; and constraint

and problems associated with it.

5

Chapter Four (4) illustrates the presentation and discussion of the findings of the study.

Chapter Five (5) concludes and draws policy implications/recommendations for effective

involvement of primary stakeholders in water supply facility management.

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

This chapter discusses the relevant literature in relation to this study. The chapter starts with an

overview of the water supply sector in Ghana. The chapter further identifies and discusses

theories that inform participation and management that will be adopted for the analyses. It

further provides the concept that guided the assessment of the effectiveness of community

participation in the management of water facility.

2.2 Theoretical Framework

A review of literature on community participation reveals that there is no universally valid theory

of participation (Singh, 2005). This section draws on the work of Meizen-Dick et al. (2004).

During the last few decades an increasing amount of literature on collective action and natural

resources has emerged. Most of these researches tried to examine the role of collective action in

the management of natural resources (Olson 1965; Wade 1990; Ostrom 1990). Collective action

is defined as ‘the action taken by a group (either directly or on its behalf through an organization)

in pursuit of members’ perceived shared interests (Marshall, 1998). According to Meizen-Dick et

al (2004), collective action is about collective decision-making, setting rules of conduct for a

6

group and designing management rules, implementing decisions and monitoring adherence to

rules. Collective action involves costs, both in time and money. These definitions imply that

collective action requires the involvement of a group of people with a shared interest in some

kind of common action and work in pursuit of that shared interest.

Any group that attempts to obtain a public good must have the resources to cover these costs. It

must also have mechanisms in place to extract payment from its members. Members can

contribute in various ways to achieve the shared goal: Money, labour; or in kind contributions.

The action can take place directly by members of a group, or on their behalf by a representative

or even an employee. The coordination can take place through a formal organisation, an informal

organisation, or, in some cases, through spontaneous action. The theories of collective action

suggest that individuals under certain institutional arrangements and shared norms are capable of

organising and sustaining cooperation that advances the common interest of the group in which

they belong (Ostrom, 1990).

Community participation is influenced by theories underpinning collective action such as the

rational choice theory, which accepts that people will calculate the likely costs and benefits of

any action before deciding on what to do. The anticipated outcome will influence the decision to

participate or not. There are different outcomes that are expected from alternative courses of

action and people will evaluate and choose that which is best for them (Heikkila and Gerlak,

2005; Rowley & Moldoveanu, 2003; Scott, 2000). Community Participation can also be

informed by the theory of group action. This is said to be inspired by common interest (Olson,

1971) and social identity theory (Rowley and Moldoveanu, 2003).

Water is traditionally taken as a common good and of common interest. Since water is a

collective asset, it needs to be managed at the community level. Today, collective action is a

7

reputable model for managing rural water supply because of an acceptance from multiple

stakeholders within rural development circles. This reinforces the notion that stakeholders have

interests, and they are likely to mobilise to protect or enhance those interests if there is a sense of

urgency attached to their interests (Rowley and Moldoveanu, 2003).

2.3 Water Supply in Ghana

In Ghana, water supply is classified based on the approach of service delivery. These are Urban

Water Supply (UWS) and Community Water Supply (CWS). Ghana Water Company Limited

(GWCL) is the public agency responsible for water supply delivery in the urban areas. The rest

of the water systems, which are rural and small towns water systems fall under CWS. The

government agency responsible for facilitating community water supply in the rural and small

towns is the Community Water and Sanitation Agency (CWSA). In the urban areas, majority of

the inhabitants relying on pipe borne water from standpipes, vendors and neighbours.

Community water supply refers to water supply to rural and small towns, which are owned and

managed by the communities. Small towns’ water supply in Ghana refers to water supply

delivery using piped networks to communities with population between 2,000 and 50,000 under

Community Ownership and Management (COM) arrangement (Nyarko, 2007). Under the COM,

the communities elect their representatives to form the Water and Sanitation Development

Boards (WSDB) who are responsible for the management of the water system. Rural water

supply, on the other hand refers to the use of point sources, such as hand dug wells or boreholes

fitted with hand pumps.

The World Health Organization and UNICEF’s Joint Monitoring programme for Water Supply

and Sanitation (2001) has estimated that about 62% of Ghana’s rural population has access to

8

improved water services. Since 1995, the Ghanaian Community Water and Sanitation agency

(CWSA) has been responsible for the coordination and facilitation of activities in the sector

(Edig, et al. 2002). CWSA’s national strategy promotes a “demand-driven” planning approach

that emphasizes participatory project design and implementation. The rural water supply projects

are expected to include consultation with communities about relevant technology and

management choices and the participation of women is valued and encouraged. Once the projects

are built, district assemblies hold the water systems in trust for the communities.

However, communities are encouraged to establish water and sanitation (“WATSAN”)

committees to manage the systems. Project implementation is expected to include initial training

in these committees and special training on repair and maintenance to two village-based

“caretakers” who are generally members of the WATSAN committee. Once boreholes and hand

pumps are installed, communities are expected to be responsible for borehole maintenance and

repairs. The WATSAN committees and caretakers have access to a well-developed, multi-

faceted system of post-construction support. A central actor in the post-construction support

system is the District Water and Sanitation Team (DWST), consisting of an engineer, a hygiene

expert and a community mobilizer seconded to the district government. DWST members are not

supposed to do hand pump repairs themselves, rather to help the village WATSAN committees

obtain the support and training they need to run and repair the systems, to help resolve any

management and water use conflicts that arise, and to plan new capital projects. The DWSTs

visit WATSAN committees on request and assist communities in finding spare parts if asked to

do so. They also visit some communities on their own initiative to check on conditions and

organise training sessions on topics they consider to be relevant. However, the financial

9

resources available to the DWSTs to carry out these functions are limited and vary across

districts.

How much attention a village receives from a DWST is dependent on both how pro-active the

village is in requesting assistance and on the resources and priorities of the district-level team.

Another important resource for WATSAN committees is the “area mechanics” living in the

district. These are private individuals originally trained during the project implementation

process to do routine maintenance or repair work on boreholes at the request of communities.

Area mechanics are frequently called upon to obtain the spare parts needed by the community

and then to install these parts. Communities must pay for the services of the area mechanics from

revenues collected from village households or money obtained in some other way. The DWSTs

may help WATSAN committees’ link up with an area mechanic when major repairs are needed.

The work of the DWSTs is also largely demand-driven assistance (responses to community

requests), though some villages also receive unrequested support.

2.4. Effectiveness

The concept effectiveness, according to Elton (2009), means producing a decided or desired

effect after implementing something. Effectiveness, according to Svoboda (2003), measures

(a) the extent to which the major goals stated in the mission are achieved,

(b) the extent to which key stakeholders (donors and other groups with major stake) are satisfied

with results, and

(c) the extent to which the organisation is able to attract resources to continue its activities.

Effectiveness has often been used to assess the overall performance of service delivery by an

organisation. Effectiveness is the extent to which a system achieves its programme and policy

10

objective (Dollery et al, 2002). It encompasses a number of different desired aspects of service

linked to programme outcome objectives. These are: i) appropriateness - matching service to

clients’ needs; ii) accessibility – aspects like affordability, representation amongst priority groups

and physical accessibility; and iii) quality – the process of meeting required standards or

incidence of service failures (Dollery et al, 2002). Narayan (1993) has considered effectiveness

as the optimal, hygienic and consistent use of water supply facilities to maximise benefits and

minimize the negative consequences over a period of time.

In recent years, a number of attempts have been made to develop tools to assess the effectiveness

of community participation. Burns and Taylor (2000) provide tools and appraisal exercises for

measuring: a) the history and patterns of participation; b) the quality of participation strategies

adopted by partners and partnerships; c) the capacity within partner organisations to support

community participation; d) the capacity within communities to participate effectively; and e) the

impact of participation and its outcomes.

2.5 Community participation in water management

According to Meyer and Theron (2000) there is no universally accepted definition of community

participation. Participation is an approach through which beneficiaries and other stakeholders are

able to influence project planning, decision-making, implementation and monitoring phases. On

the other hand, participation considered as a prerequisite for project ownership, successful

implementation and sustainability of the projects in question. Participation does not mean

acceptance of all ideas from diverse groups. In participation, there is a need to combine

indigenous and intellectual knowledge. However, care must be taken so that intellectual

knowledge does not influence that of the indigenous (Kasiaka, 2004). Participation demonstrates

11

the positive recognition of a common good by the people whose achievement is found to be

impossible with individual efforts but with the collective efforts of all (Mejos, 2007).

Different definitions have been given to community participation. Wagner (1959) defines

community participation as an active process shared by beneficiaries that influence the direction

and execution of development projects rather than receive share of project benefits or

involvement of people in project to solve their own problem. Community Participation means

that community plays an active role in its own affairs by sharing and exercising political and

economic power. It might include any of the following: prioritization and vocalization of

community needs; selection of appropriate facilities, technologies and locations; financial

contribution to capital costs; provision of labor for construction of systems and facilities;

management of operation and maintenance; setting and collection of water tariffs; or Physical

maintenance and repair activities.

On the other hand Singh (2005), states that community participation means a process by which

individuals, families or communities assume responsibility for local problems and develop a

capacity to contribute to their own community development. Community participation is also

defined as an active process whereby beneficiaries influence the direction and execution of

development projects rather than merely receive a share of a project’s benefits. Community

participation is frequently identified by scholars and practitioners as central to success in

delivering physical infrastructure services (e.g., World Bank, 2004).

Participation is all about enabling communities to help themselves by utilizing their own skills

and resources. Communities will be committed to their projects and feel a sense of ownership for

them. Butterworth et al (2009) argues that community participation is vital at all phases of water

12

projects. It is essentially crucial at the beginning during the planning and decision making

process. The introduction of water supply to a community is usually through village leaders or

elders; they then call the whole community together in a large meeting. The most important

aspect of community participation at the implementation stage is to develop the sense of

ownership to the implemented activity for long-term sustainability, to reduce costs, to provide

training and empowerment. It is also a means of exploiting the free labor of beneficiaries

(Endashaw, 2011). Peter and Bob (2004) pointed out that communities select a water supply

technology, of which they become owners, are involved in its implementation and responsible

for managing the operation and maintenance of their chosen technology (they may or may not

actually conduct maintenance themselves).

The involvement of local people from the beginning ensures that projects are more responsive to

community needs, resources and abilities. Therefore, communities will be determined to

maintain it by putting time, effort and savings into schemes (Emmanuel, 1995). At the same time

participation at all stages of project and conceiving their rationale from the perspective and

culture of poor will bring them much closer to people’s reality and reduce the risk (Brett, 2005).

Collective action will be a function of individual’s 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). Agarwal (2001) has distinguished different forms of

participation in community-based management of natural resources. It could vary from mere

membership in the beneficiary group to active involvement in terms of influence in decision-

making and interactive participation which empowered the beneficiaries.

13

According to Uphoff (1999), four basic ubiquitous activities of organization (decision- making,

resource mobilisation and management, communication, and conflict resolution) were essential

for mutually beneficial collective action. Without the above four activities, community

participation becomes more difficult and less likely. According to Tegegne (2009) a motivated

community is the one that needs the service more and, therefore, considers the scheme as its own

property. As a result, water supply schemes constructed by community motivation are likely to

be sustainable. Effective Operation (O) and Maintenance (M) are essential for sustainability.

Community level O and M is one of the ways through which sustainability can be achieved. In

cases of scarce government resources, the money collected from cost recovery can be used for

capacity building such as sanitation, education and village level maintenance training which can

play great role in sustaining the services.

The objectives of community participation therefore, are empowerment, beneficiary capacity

building, increasing project effectiveness, improving project efficiency and project cost sharing.

Effective community participation is all about enabling communities to help themselves by

utilizing their own skills and resources. It is a means of improving local welfares, training people

in local administration and expanding government control through local self-help activities

(World Bank, 2004).

2.6 Level of community participation

To examine the level of community participation in the water supply, it is vital to establish the

different types of participation as defined by scholars (Gomez and Nakat, 2002).

The type of participation determines the role played by all stakeholders, especially the

community members who are the beneficiaries of the project. Furthermore, the level of

14

participation establishes the degree of involvement of each stakeholder because social, political,

economic, educational, and other conditions differ from one community to another. The form

and degree of people’s involvement in water supply projects also vary (Whyte, 1986). Even

within each of these activities the involvement and responsibilities of communities often vary.

For example, some communities contribute only labor for the running of a project, while others

contribute financially as well (Whyte, 1986). The level of involvement of community members

in development activities depends on the approach utilised by the implementing agency, its

objectives and priorities, and the traditions and expectations of the community involved in the

project. Organisations more familiar with participatory approaches will be more likely to share

with the community the control and responsibilities of the project than those agencies without

any experience on the subject (Gomez, 2002). Another important factor is the internal structure

of the implementing agency. Organisations where decisions and responsibilities are shared

between its members will be more inclined to try new ideas and approaches for the design and

implementation of their projects than those with a traditional, vertical, and hierarchical structure.

In the old schemes for the provision of water and sanitation services, as in the Supply Driven

Approach, participation was merely conceived as the contribution of the community in cash or

kind to the implementation of a previously designed solution to their problems. These

contributions did not give community members the opportunity to participate in the decision

making process, nor did they create a sense of ownership on the part of the beneficiaries of the

project (Whyte, 1986). Although the new participatory approaches utilised in the sector for the

provision of services do not give communities’ absolute control of the process, they allow

communities to play a more active and decisive role in all the phases of development projects

including planning, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation. High levels of interactive

15

participation do not necessarily translate into successful and sustainable projects. On the other

hand, low levels of extractive participation do not unavoidably render disappointment and

failures. There are always exceptions to the rules. Different types and levels of participation are

appropriate in different situations and at different stages of the project. What type of

participation and at what level of participation should be pursued becomes a judgment call by the

project manager.

Nekwaya (2007) pointed out that the route to effective community participation would depend

on selecting the right combination of approaches. However, this would determine whether the

community authorities actually allow the community to participate and make its own decisions.

It is also important to understand the modes of participation as these overlap with the levels of

community participation and are necessary for community participation.

Community participation connotes the involvement of people in the decision-making processes.

The general argument is that community participation may contribute inputs into the decision-

making or implementation process (Reed, 2010; Rowe and Frewer, 2004; Soneryd, 2004;

Arnstein, 1969) and sharing in the cost/benefit outcomes (Blackburn et al., 2002). Conventional

wisdom is that without community participation, there is little likelihood of sustainability being

realised. This is in part a pragmatic recognition of Governments’ inability to deliver services,

but in part an ideological proposition which values concepts such as ‘empowerment’, and

‘capacity building’ for their own sake.

Level of community involvement is measured of eight indicators, i.e. attendance in

meetings/conferences, not only expect incentives, active community in expressing input/advice/

suggestions, input from government, involvement in establishing the concept plan, openness of

16

development actors, public involvement in approving the draft plan and organized society in

decision-making (Goldhamer in Slamet, 1993).

The seven levels of community participation as highlighted by (Theron, 2005:115) are as

follows:

1. Passive participation. Passive strategies very often involve a one-way flow of information

from the planners to the public (Kumar, 2002:25). People “participate” by being told what is

going to happen or has already happened. Participation relates to a unilateral top-down approach

by the authorities. The information being shared belongs to outsiders or professionals.

2. Participation in information giving. This level does not constitute community participation

because they merely require the community to judge a finished or almost finished product.

People participate by answering questions posed in questionnaires or telephone interviews or

similar public participation strategies. The public do not have the opportunity to influence

proceedings as the findings of the research are neither shared nor evaluated for accuracy.

3. Participation by consultation. People participate by being consulted as

consultants/professionals/planners and external officials listen to their views. The professionals

define both problems and solutions and may modify these in the light of the people’s responses.

The process does not include any share in decision-making by the public, nor are the

professionals under any obligation to take on board people’s views.

4. Participation for material incentives. People participate by providing resources, for example

labour, in return for material rewards. This helps to reduce overall costs, and participants in

return receive a resource (Nampila, 2005:39).

5. Functional participation. People participate in a group context to meet predetermined

objectives related to the project, which may involve the development or promotion of externally

17

initiated social organisations. Such involvement does not tend to occur at the early stages of

project cycles or planning, but rather after major decisions have been made. These institutions

tend to be dependent on external initiators and facilitators, but may also become self-dependent.

6. Interaction strategies. People participate in a joint analysis, the development of action plans

and capacity building. Participation is seen as right, not just the means to achieve project goals.

7. Self-mobilisation strategies: People participate by taking initiatives independent of external

institutions to change systems. This bottom-up approach allows people to develop contacts with

external institutions for resources and the technical advice they need, but they themselves retain

control over how resources are used. Such self-initiated, bottom-up and self-reliant mobilisation

and collective actions may or may not challenge an existing inequitable distribution of wealth

and power.

2.7 Factors that affect community participation

A variety of views have emerged in assessment of the factors affecting community participation

in water facilities. Scholars such as Dorsener (2004), Pretty (1995) and Dudley (1993) agree that

a variety of social, political, cultural, behavioural, economic factors affect communities from

participating in development projects. Dorsener (2004) claims that behind the word participation

lays a wide range of processes and mechanisms, all of which are context-specific and have a

different impact on the overall performance of participation. Undoubtedly, there are so many

factors that may be seen as a hindrance to community participation.

Narayan (1995) analyzed lessons from 121 rural water-supply projects funded by different

agencies in 49 developing countries. This study identified the participation of local communities

as an important factor for project effectiveness and community empowerment. As main

18

problems, the study identified the reluctance of central governments to give up control and invest

in the capacity of local organisations. It also noted the lack of women’s involvement. In

summary, the literature suggests that the following factors affect the success of community-

based approaches to drinking water supply:

(1) Involvement of the communities in design, construction, evaluation, operation, and

maintenance of the water projects;

(2) Household contributions to water projects in the form of cash and labor;

(3) Social capital and local leadership; and

(4) Provisions to ensure women’s participation.

Analysing the performance of water systems in six countries (Benin, Bolivia, Honduras,

Indonesia, Pakistan, and Uganda), Katz and Sara (1997) found that the community-based

approach significantly increased sustainability. The authors established a strong linkage between

participation of the household members and sustainability of the projects. The most important

factors contributing to success can be summarized as information accessible to the households,

capacity building at all levels, training in operations and maintenance, control over funds and

good quality construction. The study also observed that the approach did not work consistently

well among all the communities. In some cases, the projects were supply driven (for example,

not offering communities different options). In other cases, community representatives failed to

consider the demands of disadvantaged groups. Most of the studies on community driven water

supply projects have analysed the relation between participation and project outcomes in terms

of effectiveness and sustainability. Most of these studies have concluded that participation

improves project outcome (Narayan 1995; Sara and Katz 1998; Isham and Kahkonen, 2002;

Prokopy 2005). Narayan (1995) has pointed out that the extent of beneficiary participation was

19

determined by the characteristics of both the beneficiaries and the agencies. Two beneficiary

characteristics she identified were demand and the degree to which beneficiaries were organised

to their role. But, she had not tested empirically the factors affecting participation.

2.8 Community Management of Water Supply Systems

Community Management refers to the capacity of a community to control or at least strongly

influence the basic decisions over construction and management of its water supply system (Mc

Common and Yohalem 1990). WHO (1996) defined community management as a situation

where beneficiaries of water supply services have responsibility, authority and control over the

development of their services. In other words the community is able to control, or to at least

strongly influence, the development of its water and sanitation system (McCommon et al, 1990).

McGarry (1991) noted that, since the community will also have the authority and responsibility

for operation and maintenance, this will be more effective and efficient, leading in turn to

improved sustainability. It is where people are organized together to bring about an improvement

in their lives, that could not have been attained by individuals. The community members have

responsibility, authority and control over the development of the services.

Community Management (CM) has become a major subject in the design of rural water supply

and sanitation projects throughout the developing world. For rural water supply, the prominent

model is community management service model (WEDC, 2003). Community management has

achieved widespread acceptance and majority of rural water supply and sanitation projects all

over Sub-Saharan Africa are currently applying it (IRC, 2003). Community management evolved

as an NGO- or donor-driven model for time-bound pilot projects. This model may play under the

leadership of government with community institutions to scale up the rural water supply delivery

20

with the support from local and national government structures (Schouten & Moriarty, 2004).

Community management as a demand driven community-led approach incorporates participatory

method and decentralization strategy to successfully deliver rural water supply services better

than supply driven government-led models (Lockwood, 2004). It is argued that CM can improve

efficiency, meet the target of the project within planned budget and enhance sustainability of

rural water management (Mazango & Munjeri, 2009). The basic assumptions of community

management allow beneficiary community to own, develop, operate and maintain their facilities

or systems (Harvey & Reed, 2007). Additionally, it plays important roles during the planning

and implementation phases (WEDC, 2003).

The core values of community management are to empower and equip communities to take

control of their own development (Doe & Khan, 2004). However, community management

encounters a lot of challenges. First, it cannot work successfully due to absence of right

configuration of markets, government institutions and tradition (Kleemeier, 2000; Kleemeier,

2010). Second, the problem with the volunteer based community management of water supply is

that community-level committee and care-taker lose their interests or trained individual moved

away, community never felt ownership of the new infrastructure (Carter et al., 1999). Third,

sustainable rural water supply projects in developing countries face several threats. For instance,

dependency on community spirit becomes weaker with the modernizing influences such as

increased mobility through infrastructure development, more off land employment access,

industrialization, rural urban drift, increased wealth, materialism and individualism which erode

the traditional structures and values. Moreover, bureaucracies of government structures in

developing countries are not suitable for community management approach (Carter et al., 1999).

Fourth, this management model is also fraught with types of constraints-internal and external.

21

Internal constraints include poverty, strong traditions, misplaced priorities and unfavorable

settlement patterns within the rural milieu. External constraints noted are beyond the control of

rural communities and they include time constraints and sectorial development plans by External

Support Agencies (Laryea, 1994). Fifth, community management is identified as a tool for water

and sanitation projects for short to medium term success (Carter et al., 1999). Doe and Khan

(2004) recommended community management for smaller rural communities in which

community will be involved actively. Community management model, albeit runs smoothly at

the initial stage, problems begin within 1-3 years after the commissioning of systems leading to

the breakdown of management system (Harvey & Reed, 2007). Moreover, Harvey and Reed

(2007), identified the causes for breaking of management system which are dependency on

voluntary input, lack of incentives for community members, absence of appropriate replacement

policy for committee members, lack of transparency, accountability and lack of regulations, lack

of legal status and authority of the water committee, absence of liaison with local government

institutions, and inability to replace the major capital items. Most of the community managed

water supply schemes run with acute financial shortage as this management cannot collect tariff

from the beneficiary efficiently (Whittington et al., 2009). Sixth, in addition to all of these

problems, Kleemeier and Narkevic (2010) have described elaborately the problems of

community management approach. Significant problems are given below:

1) Impossible to predict funding from one year to the next. As a result it is very difficult to make

even short term sector planning;

2) Poorer, dispersed, and less organized communities cannot address in most of the cases;

22

3) Dramatic drop of management capacity of local water committee over the time as the people

lost their interest, even though, initially committee members are trained extensively; no option to

skill upgrading, or move away;

4) Spotty cost recovery for operation and maintenance; if too much raised attract unscrupulous

for occupying surplus; otherwise too little is collected which cannot meet the expenses of repair

while needed;

5) For technologically complex system or large number of users, customer operation becomes

challenging;

6) Recuperation of investment cost identically stopped fully once an upfront payment has been

made;

7) Availability of spare parts, trained manpower and tools are scarce for major repair resulting in

the infrastructure sitting idle for a long period of time.

It is mentioned that in developed countries community management model could not manage

rural water supply successfully, so it is not justified to expect breakthrough of community

management in low income countries (Harvey & Reed, 2007). However, Opare (2011) observed

that developing countries adopt community management initiatives as it removes internal

differences, increases technical knowledge and management experiences. Opare (2011) reveals

that community management system works successfully, if local capacity is adequately

strengthened with external support prior to assumption of full community control of water supply

systems, and if assumption of responsibilities is pursued gradually. In addition, capacity

building, construction supervision and providing support to the community owned management

during the first year of implementation are recommended for maintaining long term functionality

of water points (Jiménez & Pérez-Foguet, 2011). Harvey, Uno, and Reed (2006) have

23

acknowledged low levels of service sustainability in the rural water supply sector as the effect of

community management. Community management dominated the scene of rural water supplies

in developing countries for a long time. However, it has failed to produce the desired results in

terms of sustainability and functionality, and it is time to question the very nature of the

management model instead of blaming practitioners and governments for poor implementation

(Koestler & Shaw, 2009). WELL (1998) suggests that for sustainable WSS programme design,

four success criteria need to be considered. These are effectiveness, equity, efficiency and

replicability. Therefore, to achieve sustainable scheme management structure, social, economic,

technical, institutional and environmental factors of rural water supply need to be considered in

scheme management for long term sustainability of services.

Scholars have debated the controversial issues surrounding the ways that community and

participation have been conceptualised, mobilised and deconstructed in natural resources

management and development literatures (Leach et al. 1997; Guijt and Shah 1998; Agarwal

2001; Agrawal and Gibson 2001; Cooke and Kothari 2001; Hickey and Mohan 2004; Williams

2004). Despite critiques of exclusions, captures and marginalisation, the considerable staying

power of notions of community and participation in development policies has resulted in a

proliferation of community-based and participatory projects throughout the global South. In the

water sector, creating water user committees as part of community-based water resources

management plans are common, whereby the committee is responsible for representing

communities in managing water structures and decision making at the local scale (Ahluwalia

1997; Mehta 1997; Bardhan 2001; Meinzen-Dick and Zwarteveen 2001). Committee members

often are assumed to have common interests and goals, overlooking social difference and

heterogeneity of communities as well as environments (Leach et al. 1997). While development

24

project planners may acknowledge the problems that exist, project implementations often treat

communities as territorially defined intact wholes within the remit of the projects. Ahluwalia

(1997) argues that different water users often have different interests and that inter-group

conflicts tend to be suppressed, such that ‘in name of social cohesion the interests of the less

powerful are forgone and existing inequalities are reinforced. Similarly, Mehta (1997) argues

that viewing community historically, as well as out of its social and political context, can

reinforce existing asymmetrical social relations. Thus, notions of community being inherently

egalitarian are problematic (see also Zimmerer 2000; McCay 2001; Staeheli 2003). Mosse

(2003) argues that the social and power relations that play out in water management can

challenge notions of democracy and equity that are increasingly embodied in national water

development policies uncritically espousing community and participation. Thus, while notions of

community in water management may be externally defined by implementing organisations (e.g.

local or extra-local NGOs, donors, states), they are implemented through local power relations,

where different people with various strengths and weaknesses based on their structural position

in village society will negotiate their positions within such projects vis-à-vis the costs and

benefits in the context of their overall lives and livelihoods. As a result, it is important to look at

the ways that community institutions operate in creating boundaries, exclusions, inclusions and

regulations. The second popular discourse, related to that of community, is participation.

Community members are expected to participate in projects in order to enhance equity and

efficiency, as well as to feel greater ownership towards projects, which is also expected to lead to

better water resources management and greater ecological sustainability. Multinational lenders

such as the World Bank and USAID saw community management as a general transition from

supply to demand-driven approaches, which also fits within broader trends towards

25

decentralization of government services and transfer of responsibilities to lower levels of

government and ultimately to communities themselves (Nicol, 2000).

CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

This chapter describes the research methods and materials used to collect relevant data. It covers

the location and description of the study area as well as research design, the procedure for data

collection, analysis and presentation of the data.

3.2 Study Area

The area under study is located in the Ga West Municipality. It lies within latitude 5°48’ North,

5°39 North and longitude 0°12 west and 0°22 West. It shares common boundaries with Ga East

and Accra Metropolitan Assembly to the East, Akuapem South to the North and Ga South to the

South and West. It is currently one of the sixteen (16) districts in the Greater Accra Region with

its capital being Amasaman. Ofankor, Medie, Adjen Kotoku and Pokuase are some of the major

towns found in the municipality. It occupies a land area of approximately 305.4 square

kilometres with about 193 communities zoned into six zonal councils (Pokuase, Mayera,

Ofankor, Ayikai Doblo, Kotoku and Amasaman) for effective administration. The councils serve

as rallying points for community mobilisation for participation in various strategic decisions for

spatial development management. The councils have delegated power through the Municipal

26

Assembly. The population of the municipality according to the 2010 National Population and

Housing Census is 262,742 with growth a rate of 3.4% (Ghana Statistical Service, 2012). The

municipality is rapidly urbanising as a result of its closeness to the capital city Accra where there

is a lot of inflow of migrant workers. The population is mainly concentrated along the peri-urban

areas of the municipality particularly on the border with the Accra Metropolitan Assembly and

Ga East District Assembly. The 2000 population and housing census figure also showed a

density which was much higher than the national density though lower than that of Greater Accra

Region (with 895.5 persons per sq. km). This implies great pressure on resources including

water (Ga West District Assembly, 2006).

The Pokuase Area Council which falls within this area was chosen for the study because there is

little research and information about the state and management of water facilities through local

community involvement, making the area more suitable for study.

Drainage

The major rivers that flow through the municipality are the Densu, and Nsakyi rivers. Densu,

which is the largest of them drains down from the Eastern Region through the western portions

of the district to Ga South Municipality where it enters the sea. It is also the major supply of

water to most of the people in the municipality and its neighbouring communities and serves as a

natural boundary between Ga West and Ga South Municipalities (Ga West District Assembly,

2006).

Vegetation and Climate

27

The municipality lies within the coastal savannah agro-ecological zone and has a bi-modal

rainfall pattern with an annual mean ranging from 790mm on the coast to 1270mm to the

extreme north. The annual temperature ranges from 25ºC in August to 28ºC in February and

March, a condition that allows for farming activities and some rearing of animals (Ga West

District Assembly, 2006). The bi-modal rainfall pattern enables some households in the

municipality to depend on rainwater as their main source of water for the home. This reduces

cost and time in accessing water for household use.

3.3 Research Design

Designing a study helps the researcher to plan and implement the study in a way that will help

the researcher to obtain intended results, thus increasing the chances of obtaining information

that could be associated with the real situation (Burns & Grove 2001). As this study deals with

people’s perceptions and their participation in water project cycle and management, it is mainly

qualitative in nature. Mugenda (2003) define research design as an attempt to collect information

from members of a population in order to determine the current status of the population with

respect to one or more variables.

Qualitative approaches attempt to define the phenomena from the participants’ perspectives

(Babbie, 2001). The research was conducted within the case study framework. This was used

since the study was mainly qualitative in nature. As Travers (2002) pointed out, ‘there are five

main methods employed by qualitative researchers: observation, interviewing, ethnographic

fieldworks, discourse analysis and textual analysis’, a case study can deal with most of these

methods (Yin 1984). This research, though, has adopted four qualitative methods, namely:

interviewing, discourse analysis, observation and textual analysis to explore all research

28

questions. The ‘ethnographic fieldwork’ which requires a long time to complete has been

discarded because of time constraints. Cho and Trent assert that ‘qualitative research can be

more credible as long as certain techniques, methods, and/or strategies are employed during the

conduct of the inquiry’ (2006). Case study is a systematic way of collecting information about a

particular person, social setting, a community or a group and to understand how it operates. It

involves data collection techniques like the interview, observation, and documents. Case study

can be exploratory or descriptive. Descriptive design was chosen because of its suitability and

applicability to the study area. According to Burns and Grove (2001), descriptive research is

designated to provide a picture of a situation as it naturally happens, justify current practice and

make judgment and also develop theories. In this study the researcher has given a picture of

influence of community participation on management of water supply projects in the Ga West

Municipality. Descriptive research was used to describe characteristics of a population or

phenomenon being studied. It does not answer questions about how/when/why the characteristics

occurred. Rather it addresses the "what" question (What are the characteristics of the population

or situation being studied?). The characteristics used to describe the situation or population is

usually some kind of categorical scheme also known as descriptive categories. For example, the

table categorizes the elements. Descriptive research design enabled the study to determine the

life status of respondents. Moreover, descriptive statistics was used in the study, as it both saves

time and resources. The descriptive design is employed to facilitate the systematic collection and

presentation of data that give a clear picture of the current situation and the causes of the poor

management of the maintenance of rural water supply facilities in the District. There is a

quantitative component to complement the advantages and disadvantages of the difference

between qualitative and quantitative methods. The quantitative method involves the use of

29

structured and unstructured questionnaires while the qualitative include the use of focus group

discussions with the sampled subjects selected for this research. This research method permits

innovations in research design, compensates for the weaknesses in individual instrumentation

and thus guarantees the strengths, validity and reliability of findings (Creswell, 2003). Above all,

it allows for flexibility in the study of a complex or an evolving phenomenon with human and

organisational interplay.

3.4 Population of the study

Population is a group of individuals, objects or items from which samples were taken for

measurement (Kombo, 2006; Mugo, 2000). Best et al (1998) reiterates that population is a group

who have one or more characteristics in common. The total population for Pokuase Zonal

council is 10,858 (Ghana Statistical Service, 2010). The population for the study therefor

includes all households in Pokuase and Abensu communities. The target population comprised

the of all WATSAN Committee members, Community opinion leaders, officials of the

Community Water and Sanitation Agency (CWSA) and District Water and Sanitation Team

(DWST) .

3.5 Sampling Method

The process of selecting a portion of the population to represent the entire population is known

as sampling (Webster, 1985; LoBiondo-Wood & Haber 1998; Polit 1999). Purposive sampling

approach was adopted to select the Pokuase and Abensu communities due to the high number of

water facilities available to compare to the other communities in Pokuase Zonal Council. The

target number of respondents from the communities of Pokuase and Abensu administered with

questionnaires was sixty (60) and ten (12) local leaders, while focus group discussion comprised

30

seven (7) WATSAN members in Abensu and three (3) member in Pokuase. A total number of

two (2) DWST officials were interviewed. This brings to the overall number of 84 respondents.

The sample size was arrived looking at the time frame in which to conduct a field research and

also the number was good enough to generalise the findings in that area

A random sampling technique was used to select respondents in each community. In addition,

focus group discussion (FGD) was conducted among the WATSAN committee members in order

to complement any weakness that might arise from the questionnaire survey. Terreblanche and

Durrheim (2002) note that focus group discussion is typically a group of people who share a

similar type of experience, they continue to emphasize that the group is not “naturally”

constituted as an existing social group. Morolong and Lemphane (2000) echo the contention by

saying focus group discussion is a method, which a small group of people is brought together to

discuss a topic. In this regard the participants are guided by a set of detailed questions.

Out of this, a sample size of hundred (100) household respondents was selected. The final

number of the respondents consisted of 72 people. There was a 28 percent decrease from the

initially proposed number of 100 people.

3.6 Data Collection

3.6.1 Secondary data

The secondary data collection procedure includes a review of relevant documents on the study

area and other related research. The research was carried out using secondary data from journals,

articles, documents from the municipal office and Ghana water policy documents. Again, the

District Assembly Data on water and sanitation, Water Liaison Officer and the District Water

31

Sanitation Team provided information. Furthermore, Water and Sanitation Committee

(WATSAN) and Water and Sanitation Development Boards (WSDB) supplied relevant data.

The secondary data were used to increase the reliability and validity of data collected (Baddie,

2002; Kumar, 2002 cited in Phiri, 2009). The review provided valuable insight into the study

area and issues surrounding the research core objectives, relevant literature, the methodological

approach for general survey and discussion of research findings.

3.4.2 Primary Data

The primary data sources were generated from the questionnaire and interviews with the key

stakeholders. The interviews lasted on the average 45 minutes but the in-depth discussions with

the DWST members lasted for an hour. A focus group discussion was also used to gather some

primary data from stakeholders who were purposively selected due to their role in the planning

process. An observation was also employed to further ensure reliability. A sample of the

questionnaire, semi-structured interview and the interview guide are attached as appendices.

Some pictures of the interviews and focus group discussions are also attached as appendix.

3.7 Data Analysis

Questionnaire administered were analysed using the Statistical Product and Social scientist

(SPSS 16.0 for windows). While qualitative data gathered through focus group discussion and

key informant interview were described qualitatively. Data collected were transcribed,

categorised and discussed.

32

3.8 Ethnical Consideration

The study has taken into account ethical implications that may arise from a study of this nature,

including consent, confidentiality and anonymity and burden to participants. De Vos (2005)

defines ethics as a set of moral principles which is suggested by and individual or group, is

subsequently widely accepted, and which offers rules and behavioural expectations about the

most correct towards experimental subjects and respondents, employers, assistants and students.

In Neuman (2006) prints out that ethics in research is a set of principles that reveal what is or is

not legitimate to do in research practice.

Ethical issues simply explain the codes of practice and acceptable moral behaviour one needs to

consider when undertaking research (May, 2001; Hopf, 2004). Researchers inevitably encounter

ethical problems (Hopf, 2004) because research activities usually involve different stakeholders,

with different backgrounds, aspirations and ideologies. The participants involved in the research

were made aware of the benefits of the research, especially of the individual benefits which

might be derived either directly or indirectly. Their role in the research was also explained and

they were made aware of what was expected of them if agreed to participate (Silverman, 2000;

Laws et al, 2002; Hopf, 2004).

The consent of all participants was sought and enough time was given to them to decide if were

willing to participate in the study. Additionally, enough time was given to respondents to enable

them to comprehend the objectives of the research which enabled them to make informed

decisions about whether they wanted to participate (Silverman, 2000: Laws et al, 2002: Hopf,

2004).

33

Research participants have their own priorities, which may or may not be similar to that of the

research. Efforts were made to avoid any intrusion into the participant’s private lives. This was

done for example, by avoiding questions that could intrude into the participants’ private lives,

and which might not have any bearings on the research anyway. Anything that could cause harm

to the participants, for example causing them to be stressed, depressed or anxious (Kumar, 1996:

Robson, 1999) as a result of their participation in the data collection was avoided. Anything that

it was considered could damage rapport between the researcher and the participants, either in a

form of bad language or ill treatment, and which could endanger trust also reduce participant

willingness to continue, was avoided (Hopf, 2004). Efforts were also made to avoid triggering

displeasure during the data collection that could make the participants not welcome the

researcher back, if it became necessary for further data to be gathered (Laws et al, 2002).

3.9 Limitation of study

The research is limited in scope because the collection of primary data from the local

government institution as well as the community representatives was not an easy task. This was

further constrained by the limited time for data collection. Also at the time of data collection

some district officials who had participated in the process have been transferred. The above

mentioned limitations culminated in my not being able to administer adequate survey

questionnaires, because most of the key stakeholders who have participated in the planning

process were no more in the municipality. Furthermore, the local government authority does not

involve NGOs in the community development program, so none could be interviewed. This

limitation however did not significantly affect the research because the main respondents for the

interviews were available during, that is the in-depth discussions.

34

CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Introduction

In this chapter, the major results of the study are presented and discussed. Statistical methods

such as percentages, frequencies and cross tabulations were used to analyze the socio-economic

status of the community; factors affecting community participation in water facility

management; roles played by the community in the sustainable management of facilities; the

level of participation of community members in sustaining water delivery services and the

variations that exist among the selected community water projects. Tables and graphs were used

to present results.

4.2. Socio-demographic and other characteristics of the community

The study sought to establish information on various aspects of respondents’ background such as

the length of time of being a resident, level of education, income generating activities, and age

and sex composition. This information aimed at testing the appropriateness of the respondent in

35

answering the questions regarding how community participation can influence the sustainable

management of water facilities in the Pokuase and Abensu communities.

4.2.1 Being a resident

The study sought to find out whether the household respondents were residents of the area

Table 4.1 Being a residentResident Status Frequency Percentage

Yes 72 100No 0 0

Total 72 100Source: Author’s Field Work, 2014From the Table 4.1, all of the respondents (100%) were residents of the study area and, therefore,

they would give valid and reliable information about water facility.

4.2.2 Years of being a resident

The study sought to find out for how long the household respondents had lived in the selected

communities.

Table 4.2 Years of being a residentNo. Years of being a resident Frequency Percentage

10 years and below 6 8.311-20 years 21 29.221-30 years 18 2531years and above 27 37.5Total 72 100

Source: Author’s Field Work, 2014

From the findings in Table 4.2, most of the household respondents (37.5%) had lived in the

selected communities for a period between 31 years and above, 29.2% for 21 to 31 years while

29.2% had lived for 11 to 20 years. The results suggests that, the household respondents had

lived in the communities long enough to give credible information.

36

4.2.3 Sex and Age of the respondents

Out of the 72 people surveyed 38 (52.8%) were males and 34 (47.2%) were females as shown in

table 4.3 below. This skewedness implies that more males got selected in the study than females.

The study shows that, in terms of household, the males are more than females. This is due to the

fact that, the males are the household heads who take decisions pertaining to community issues

such as water and sanitation (Koomson, 2008). These results confirm the Ga West District

Assembly’s report that the area is male dominated (Assembly Annual Report, 2013/2014)

Table 4.3 Sex of RespondentsSex Frequency Percent

Female 34 47.2

Male 38 52.8

Total 72 100

Source: Author’s Field Work, 2014

As indicated in Table 4.4, 36.1% of community members were between the ages of 18 and 35

years; 44.5% between the ages of 36 and 55 years; and 19.4% were above 56 years. The fact that

more respondents fell between the age range of 18 and 55 simply explains the full involvement

of the active age group in this study on community participation. Regardless of age disparity, all

respondents showed a positive attitude during the focus group discussion. This implies that the

selection of the respondents was gender sensitive. Effort to balance gender in the study was

important because of the role women play in community development and in particular

households.

Table 4.4 Age Structure of RespondentsAge of Respondents (Years) Frequency Percent ( %)18-35 26 36.136-55 32 44.5

37

56 and above 14 19.4Total 72 100

Source: Author’s Field Work, 2014

4.2.4 Marital Status of Household Respondents

From Table 4.5, 61 respondents who were married constituted 84.7%. 10 (13.9%) respondents

were single and 1.4% was widowed. This statistical trend suggests that the household

respondents were dominated by married people. It is believed within the study population that

those who are married are usually more responsible in many aspects of life than those who are

not. The implication of this is that there is high level of dependants among the married people

which results in high demand for water and sanitation facilities. Consequently, this category of

people would suffer more for inadequate provisions and breakdown of these facilities. (Issah-

Bello, 2011)

Table 4.5 Marital Status of Household RespondentsMarital Status Frequency Percent (%)Single 10 13.9Married 61 84.7Widowed 1 1.4Total 72 100

Source: Author’s Field Work, 2014

4.2.5 Occupation of Household Respondents

It is important to consider the occupation of the respondents in order to establish whether they

earn enough income throughout the year to pay for water services. Three different occupations

were identified. The first two largest cohorts included those in farming, 30 (41.7%), and public

service, 28 (38.9%). The others who are traders were 14 (19.4%). The trend in the occupation

survey shows that the majority of the respondents worked in the informal sector where they do

38

not receive regular income. This has an implication on their ability to pay for water services.

Additionally, their meagre income from their occupation could only help them raise income for

daily household needs.

Table 4.6 OccupationOccupation Frequency Percent %Farmer 30 41.7petty trader 14 19.4public servant 28 38.9Total 72 100

Source: Author’s Field Work, 2014

4.2.6 Level of education

The study sought to find the level of education of the respondents as this attribute could

contribute greatly to their level of understanding and contributions to discussions on issues

affecting the community.

Figure 1: Level of Education

Never Primary Secondary level

Tertiary level 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

16.6

54.2

26.4

2.8

Level of Education

Percentage

Source: Author’s Field Work, 2014

From Figure 1, majority of the household respondents (54.2%) had primary education, 26.4%

had secondary, and 16.6% had never attended school, while 2.8% had tertiary education. The

level of education as observed in Figure 1 suggests that the majority of the household

39

respondents had attained basic education and thus would provide valid and consistent

information about the project.

4.3 Sources of community water supply

According to the Ga West Assembly Annual Report (2013/2014), hand dug wells and boreholes

constitute the water sources. The total number of functioning water points in the District is 140,

out of which 104 are boreholes and 22 are hand dug wells. Statistics from the District Planning

and Coordinating Unit shows that the Abensu and Pokuase communities have one (1) and six (6)

boreholes respectively. On the whole these boreholes were characterized by frequent break

downs. However, information gathered from the Abensu community showed that repair works

were carried out more frequently. However, in the Pokuase community only two out of the six

boreholes were functioning.

Figure 2: Water sources reported in study communities

abensu Pokuase

borehole 100 86.4

handrill well 0 13.6

10

30

50

70

90

110

Source of Water

% o

f wat

er u

sers

Source: Analysis of data.

40

Figure 2 represents responses from the two study communities on their sources of water. The

analysis from the household interviews and FGD held within the two communities showed that

the main source of water is borehole (Figure 2). 13.6% of the household respondents in Pokuase

said they depended on hand- dug well. The communities revealed that, some of these water

sources were very far away from their households and some of them had broken down. From

Figure 2, it could be deduced that the Abensu community was highly dependent on borehole

water as compared with Pokuase community which operates a mixture of borehole (84.4%) and

hand-dug well (13.6%).As borehole water is the main source of safe water, it implies that

irrespective of the status of respondents: gender, age, marital status and occupational attainment,

every inhabitant needed it for their day –to-day domestic usage and other purposes.

4.4 Factors that affect community participation in the sustainable management of water

facilities

The sustainability of water facilities largely depend on the level of participation of water users.

Studies show that there is a direct relationship between participation and sustainability. The

higher the level of participation the more sustainable a project will be. In this light, the study

sought to find the factors that influence community participation in the Pokuase and Abensu

communities.

In order to understand the factors that determine community participation, information affecting

water facility users was gathered through interviews with the Water and Sanitation (WATSAN)

committees and household representatives as recommended by Komalawati, 2008.

Table 4.7 illustrates the perception of community members on constraints.

41

Table 4.7: Constraints to Community ParticipationConstraints Abensu Pokuase

Frequency % Frequency %Yes 23 82.1 36 81.8No 5 17.9 8 18.2

Source: Author’s Field Data, 2014

Table 4.7 indicates that community participation in water projects comes with many problems as

82.1% of respondents in Abensu and 81.8% respondents also in Pokuase testify to problem

specific as listed in table 4.8.

Table 4.8: Specific Constraints to Community Participation Constraints Abensu Pokuase

Frequency % Frequency %Illiteracy 13 19.7 30 15.2Lack of general information on water project 5 7.6 31 15.7Age (limiting active participation) 10 15.2 20 10.2Time (limiting active participation) 22 33.3 35 17.8Lack of support from the government/NGO 4 6.1 42 21.3Lack of incentives for WATSAN committees

12 18.1 39 19.8

Total* 66 100 197 100 Multiple responses* Source: Author’s Field Data, 2014

4.4.1 Lack of support from the Government and NGO

As presented in Table 4.8, a larger part of the respondents (21.3%) in the Pokuase community

expressed their heartfelt opinion that there was little or no encouragement from the local

government which was represented by the District Assembly to sustain the smooth running of

their water facility. Indeed, in line with good governance, some support from the local

government is an important influence on people’s participation. Some District officers

interviewed mentioned that support from the local government was important to increase

42

participation and project sustainability of water facilities in the target areas and this was

supported by the participants interviewed. According to them, local people still consider support

from the local government important for the implementation of the project activities. A District

officer said that “we visit the facility sites when they receive funding from the government”.

According to Gow & Vansant (1983), an unsupportive government may prevent projects from

effective local participation.

On the contrary at Abensu, only 6.1% of the respondents laid the blame on the NGO for lack of

support. A WATSAN member at Abensu said “more people get involved when the NGO

supported our activities. most NGOs provide us with the water services and attend our

meetings”.

4.4.2 Lack of incentives for WATSAN committee members

From table 4.8, 39 (19.8%) respondents from Pokuase and 12 (18.1%) respondents from Abensu

said lack of incentives for WATSAN committees was a problem. For instance, the DWST

members in Pokuase noted that members of the community tended to have less motivation to

participate as members of WATSAN when they realized that projects did not give money.

Again, in Pokuase, once WATSAN members realized the incentive was training and increasing

knowledge and skills, most people were reluctant to join the group. In Abensu, some of the

respondents said WATSAN was ineffective due to a number of reasons such as lack of interest or

weak community participation in the selection of committee members, lack of transparency in

the operation of WATSAN and the failure of the committees to account to their community

members. This challenge affects the willingness to pay for sustainable service delivery. Indeed,

43

in order to make WATSAN committees accountable to projects that they oversee, there is the

need to incentivise members with some allowances.

4.4.3 Time Constraints

Table 4.8 indicates that 35(17.8%) respondents in Pokuase and 22(33.3%) respondents in

Abensu stated that they did not have enough time to participate in community water projects as

they see participation as time consuming and worthless. This observation agrees with that of

Kumar (2000) who noted that community participation was time consuming and slows the

progress in the initial stages of the field work thereby delaying the achievement of physical and

financial targets. On the other hand, Burkey (1992) indicated that participation of the rural poor

in their own development has been measured as a key factor in the success of projects.

4.4.4 Illiteracy

Some (15.2%) of the respondents in Pokuase and 19.7% in Abensu attributed their low level of

education to one of the factors affecting their participation in community projects. The high level

of illiteracy indicated by respondents agrees with Kakumba and Nsingo (2008) who observed

that lack of sustainability in development projects occurred as a result of low level of education

and poor management abilities. Some participants interviewed admitted that the lack of technical

knowledge and low level of their education made it difficult for them to participate in the project,

specifically in decision-making processes. According to a DWST member, “participants with a

low level of education, usually just basic education, or those who do not have any education,

often had difficulties in expressing or giving their opinions and suggestions because they were

afraid to make mistakes. Again, they felt that they did not really know how to relate to the

project”. Illiteracy beyond being able to read and write was a real problem in the two

communities as it was seen as a stigma which led to inferiority complex. People exhibiting this

44

character were just afraid to take part or be fully involved in decision making, for fear of not

making worthwhile contributions (Molefe, 1996; Roak et al, 1989; Bjaas et al 1991).

4.4.5 Lack of general information

As reflected in table 4.8 that 31 and 5 respondents from Pokuase and Abensu respectively

pointed out that lack of general information about projects in their communities is the main

challenge that prevents their involvement in community water management. Dukeshire and

Thurlow (2002) support the assertion that rural citizen feel that there is a lack of access to

information about government’s programmes and developments in their own communities and

that inefficient means of sharing information leads to low level of community participation on

government projects.

4.4.6 Age

Age was also identified as a factor that inhibits some participants’ active involvement in the

water projects. 20 (10.2%) respondents from Abensu and 10 (15.2%) from Pokuase said age

inhibits their participation. The participants interviewed said that it was difficult to involve

participants with younger ages in decision-making process because they tended to be silent but

listen and avoid speaking or expressing their opinions. However, the people preferred to give

support and offer opportunities to the young members in the communities to play a more active

role, for example as the leader or book-keeper. Obviously, they felt that they did not have much

ability to play that role again. This difficulty could raise conflict between members if passive

participation of older age groups prevents the participation of younger age group. An officer of

the DWST (Figure 3) told me that it took time to encourage older age participants to participate

actively in decision-making processes (Personal communication, September.2014). In order to

encourage older age to actively participate, she approached them carefully, asked them questions

45

about their daily activities, or made a joke just to make them comfortable and have them trust

her. Thereafter she was able to involve them in discussions and also make them answer

questions. In spite of this degree of involvement, it was still difficult to ask them to be active in

leadership, management and administration activities. This observation agrees with McGregor et

al. (1992) who argue that age influences participation in local community activities. According

to these researchers, participation is the greatest among groups of people of more than 30 years

old. That is, older people participate more in community engagement. Other research

demonstrates that people between the ages of 50 and 74 participate in citizen consultation twice

as much as younger people (CLG 2009, Brodie et al. 2009).

4.5 Community Participation in the sustainable management of facilities

Community participation in water project activities is considered as very important because it

builds a sense of ownership and commitment among the local people (IRC, 2003). The forms of

participation vary as in planning, management, labour or even contributing money as shown in

table 4.9. There is also a general argument that community participation may contribute inputs

into the decision-making or implementation process of projects (Reed, 2010; Rowe and Frewer,

2004; Soneryd, 2004)

Table 4.9: Household’s Participation in Water Facilities Provision

Variable (Forms of Community Participation)% of responses by communityAbensun=28

Pokuasen = 44

choosing of site 48.2 2.3choosing of technology 88.9 4.5Election of WATSAN 72.6 13.6Deciding on Capital Cost Contribution for construction of facility e.g. labour or cash

76.4 12.5

Contribution towards O & M 58.9 40.8Source: Field Data, 2014.

46

The majority of respondents in Pokuase and Abensu communities did not participate in the

choosing of site for the water facility. In Pokuase only 2.3% and 48.2 % in Abensu participated

as shown in Table 4.9. This low involvement of community members in site selection is due to

low level of shared information at the initial stages of project design.

88.9% of respondents in Abensu and 4.5% in Pokuase admitted to taking part in the choosing of

water technology. According to respondents from Pokuase, lack of community participation was

due to lack of information on selection of technology for water project from the District

Assembly.

72.6% of respondents in Abensu community said they participated in the election of WATSAN

members whereas only 13.6% of respondents took part in Pokuase. There is growing

understanding that sustained water supply and delivery depends on sufficient user payments, but

also that stimulation of water users is essential. This incentive can happen through different

leverages and most importantly through cost-sharing. However, approaches of public water

source provisioning and subsidization need not be under estimated much as it is the mandate of

the local government to enhance community access to basic social services and infrastructure.

4.5.1 Contribution to Operation and Maintenance

Sustainability invariably depends upon communities taking financial responsibility for their

water facilities, which if achieved will enable scarce resources from government and donors to

be targeted specifically to areas where there is no improved water supply (Haysom, 2006; Parry-

Jones et al, 2001). Communities are normally expected to finance and manage the operation and

maintenance of a system. From the study 58.9% of the household respondents in Abensu

community admitted to contributing to the operations and maintenance of their facility. However

47

in Pokuase only 40.8% admitted to contributing towards the operation and maintenance of water

facility. In Pokuase most of the respondents said they did not know that it was their

responsibility to maintain the facility as the water facility was provided by the local government.

Operation and Maintenance (O&M) is a crucial element of sustainability, and a frequent cause of

failure of many water supply and sanitation service facilities (CASTRO, 2009).

With the community ownership and management, communities are responsible for all O&M and

related cost of their water facilities. That is the sustainability of the facilities rests on the

community. From the communities’ perspective, sustainability implies their ability to recover

from technical breakdown in the schemes with their own resources. Thus community members

are required to raise funds for O&M cost. As part of the community management, water facility

bank account is required where funds raised for new investment and O&M are lodged. However,

discussions with the WATSAN committees in both communities showed that no money was

saved in the bank after acquiring the facilities. This was because communities did not regularly

contribute towards operation and maintenance. Money raised for maintenance was usually raised

from the daily sales of water which were not enough for major repairs.

4.6 Sustainable Management skills

For water facilities to have sustainable use by the beneficiaries, some measures are expected to

be put in place to forestall any breakdown that may result in serious consequences.

4.6.1 Management Committee

Basically, management committee plays a major role in ensuring sustainability of water and

sanitation interventions. It is a normal practice that after the provision of the facilities, a

48

committee is put in place to oversee the day-to-day operation of the facilities. This practice is

expected to forestall any eventualities that may lead to total breakdown of the systems of

operation and management.

4.6.2 Management of Facility Sites

Management of water facilities is the responsibility of the WATSAN committees. In both

communities, communal cleaning was unplanned. It was done as and when the place was

perceived to be weedy or filthy. In all sampled communities, there were no by-laws on the use

and management of the facilities.

In spite of the training of the WATSAN members in the preparation of facility management

plans, none of them had action plans so they performed their activities on ad-hoc basis. The

study revealed that some had forgotten the procedure for action plan preparation whilst others

considered it as something they could manage without. A WATSAN Committee member in

Abensu expressed his view about action plans as follows:

“We were taught how to prepare action plans and we realised that the purpose was to ensure

the proper functioning of the facilities. My daughter, if we did not prepare an action plan but we

make sure that the facilities are functioning as expected, and then the same purpose is achieved.

We will continue to make sure that the facility functions even without the Action Plan”. In spite

of this reason from WATSAN Committee in Abensu, it could be revealed that the committee just

49

wanted not to be accountable to its community through action plan which could reveal some

lapses in their operation and, therefore, could be questioned.

The WATSANs failed to prepare action plans mainly because they did not want to be held

accountable. However, accountability of the WATSAN to community members is critical for

sustainability of the facilities. It is therefore essential that the idea of Community Ownership and

Management (COM) is adopted by district assemblies to promote accountability in these local

level institutions to ensure sustainability of water facilities. The study has revealed that those

WATSAN committees in Pokuase that were found ineffective were not accountable to their

community members in the management of their water facilities.

4.6.3 Gender in Water and Sanitation (WATSAN) Committee

The study also set out to establish gender participation in the various WATSAN committees.

Increased access to safe drinking water would mean much for women and their children in terms

of health, productivity and income. Therefore, the involvement of women has to be maximized

in terms of water supply scheme planning, implementation and management. The Focus Group

Discussions (FGDs) held in the Abensu and Pokuase had women numbers reported to be few in

the committees as illustrated in the table below. Women also had limited participation in terms of

decision making and contribution in community meetings related to resource mobilization and

allocation of water sources, operation and management in their localities.

It was widely believed that social, economic and cultural reasons limit the women participation

in water committee.

Table 4.10: Gender Composition in WATSAN

50

Community WATSAN MembersMales Females

Abensu 5 2Pokuase 3 0

Source: Field Data, 2014

4.6.4 Performance of WATSAN

An evaluation of the performance of the WATSAN in the study communities was carried out

during the focus group discussions. This was to ensure that the scoring reflected the true

performance of the institutions from the perspective of the stakeholders. Similar to the findings

of the WHO (1996), the poor performance of the institutions in the selected communities were

attributed to the low profile accorded to O&M, inadequate funds for O&M resulting from poor

fund-raising strategies and lack of directions (no action plans) for their operations. It was

revealed that the nomination of committee members rather than election as pertained in some

communities contributed to the malfunctioning of the committees. 70% of the respondents claim

they did not elect the WATSAN members. This confirms what Kalyan and Kakebeeke (2001)

identified in Mozambique. Whilst WATSAN performance in Abensu was said to be good that of

Pokuase was below average. In the latter community only three people (a caretaker and a

chairman) constituted the WATSAN Committee.

The other members had either left the community or refused to work because they wanted to

avoid derogatory remarks from the public. An interview with the ex-secretary of the committee

revealed that lack of transparency was the main cause of the poor performance of the WATSAN

committee in Pokuase (Field Work, 2014). This observation is similar to what Adomako (1998)

identified in the Manya and Yilo Krobo Districts as the cause of non-payment and

51

ineffectiveness of community management of facilities. The voluntary nature of the work of

WATSAN committees was another reason for the poor composition and non- performance.

4.6.5 Community Satisfaction with Facilities Management

Analysis of consumer satisfaction revealed that water sufficiency and reliability of supply,

trustworthiness of the WATSAN committees, prompt repairs of facilities and cleanliness of

facility sites were the prime indicators of consumers’ satisfaction. For instance, households in

Abensu were satisfied with the cleanliness of water facility site as shown in figure 5 as well as

the physical protection given to the water pumping station in figure 6. According to Tegegne

(2009) a motivated community is the one that needs the services more and there considers the

scheme as its own property. As a result, water supply schemes constructed by community

participation are likely to be sustainable. This kind of motivation has been displayed by the

Abensu community and therefore their water project could be described as sustainable.

However, a minority of 11.6% of the households indicated dissatisfaction with management for

lack of transparency in the use of public funds, lack of community interface, irregular flow of

water (without explanation), and lack of enforcement on payment of fees for repairs (Personal

Communication, September, 2014).

4.6.6 Capacity Building for WATSAN Committee

For water and sanitation facilities to operate optimally, it means that there must be provisions put

in place to ensure that at no point in time should the systems become dysfunctional. The

community members alluded to the fact that it was only at the time the facilities were to be

provided that some people were made to constitute the WATSAN committee and they were

52

given some training as to the role each member was expected to play. Thereafter no follow-up

training was given to WATSAN committees. The community members even wondered if the

initial training given to the WATSAN committees could stand the test of time especially when it

comes to fixing major breakdowns. To have a well periodically trained WATSAN committee in

place indicates that repair works, when necessary, are readily carried out on broken down

facilities to ensure continuous use of the facilities. Preventive maintenance should be a periodic

management practice that must be carried out by the committees in order to forestall any major

breakdown. Indeed, Opare (2011) noted that community management system works

successfully, if local capacity is adequately strengthened with external support prior to the

assumption of full community control of water supply systems, and if assumption of

responsibility is pursued gradually.

4.7 Assessment of Levels of Community Participation

Drawing on Pretty’s (1995) typology of participation, the forms of participation of WATSAN

and household members were analysed in an attempt to assess the level of Community

Participation (CP). From the FGDs and interviews held in the two focused communities, it was

realized that in the Abensu community the only water facility severing the whole community is a

mechanized borehole was later rehabilitated by the USAID. This water facility was originally

built by an NGO in consultation with the Abensu community after a careful site selection.

Gomez (2009) refers to this interaction between an NGO and the beneficiary community as

consultative participation. On the contrary, lack of community participation by way of

consultation has led to abandonment of many water projects in communities. For instance, out of

the three (3) water projects introduced by the District Assembly in the Abensu community, two

53

of them were abandoned midway because the project team realized the project site was not

conducive enough for a borehole system. Again, in the Pokuase community most of the

respondents claimed they were not consulted in the drilling of the boreholes. However, the only

time they were consulted was when they were asked to contribute five Ghana cedis towards the

construction of the facility. In Pokuase the level of participation realised, shows that

beneficiaries were only informed on what the district Assembly had already planned to

implement. This level of participation is what Theron 2005 refers to as passive participation.

Nekwaya (2007) pointed out that the route to effective community participation would depend

on selecting the right combination of approaches. However, this would determine whether the

community authorities actually allow the community to participate and make its own decisions.

54

CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY OF MAJOR FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 IntroductionThis chapter provides the summary of the findings of the study, conclusions drawn out of the

study, and the recommendations given for future considerations. It further highlights how the

specific objectives set for the study have been addressed. The study was conducted in two

communities in the Ga West Municipal Assembly of the Greater Accra Region. The focus of this

study was to assess the effectiveness of community participation in the sustainable management

water supply facility.

5.2 Findings of the Study

In order to examine the nature of community management of water supply facilities, three

objectives were developed as follows:

1. To identify major key factors that affect community participation in the sustainable

management of water supply facilities;

2. To examine the various roles played by the community in the sustainable management

of facilities;

3. To find out the level of participation of community members in sustaining water

delivery services.

55

The findings indicated that there was low level of community participation in water supply

facility management. To achieve effective community participation, development partners

should ensure a process whereby rural communities become more conscious of their own

situation, carefully understand rural socio-economic reality around them, have mutual

understanding amongst community members, understand their problems and the causes of these

problems, and what measures they themselves can take to bring about positive change in their

situation. A holistic approach to development at the local, national and international levels

should be followed to tackle the challenges of community participation. The recognition and

mobilization of the potential of all stakeholders and the community members themselves can

make a significant contribution to achieving effective community participation.

Government should create enabling environment for rural participation by addressing the factors

influencing community participation of which information sharing and consultation must be

paramount.

The substantial findings of this study forms the basis of drawing relevant conclusions on some

crucial issues relating to Community Participation and Management (CP&M) practices and

sustainability of water provision in the two research communities of the Pokuase Zonal Council.

It was evident that lack of management committee accounted for the inability to have sustainable

use of the water facilities. A management committee is responsible for the operation and

maintenance of the water facilities and therefore plays a crucial role in the sustainability of water

projects. The consequences of an ineffective of management committees cannot be

overemphasized as some of the water facilities had been abandoned since they broke down.

56

The community members often find it difficult to operate and maintain the facilities after they

had been provided simply because they were not involved in both the design and implementation

plan of the interventions. This assertion was demonstrated in the Pokuase Zonal Council where

water facilities were provided and had since been abandoned due to non-involvement of the

beneficiary communities in the initial project design as regards site selection.

Capacity building was found to be weak in the communities visited where these water facilities

were available. The WATSAN committees that are in place had not been trained adequately

thereby giving a big challenge to the operation and maintenance of the facilities. Considering the

poverty level of the community members coupled with lack of technical skills to manage major

breakdown of the water facilities, the community members result to seeking for both financial

and technical supports to fix the problems they encountered with the facilities.

From the responses gathered during the study, it was very clear that the beneficiaries would wish

that they are involved at every stage of donor intervention.

Much as the community members admitted that their contributions towards operation and

maintenance (O&M) is woefully inadequate coupled with the mode of payment which is also

unreliable, they all agreed to review the tariffs upwards to make it realistic with support from

their local authorities.

5.4 Conclusion

The issue of community participation in its true sense of ownership by the community has

proved to be the vehicle for the successful operation and functioning of a water supply scheme.

One of the main reasons why a true sense of ownership may be missing is the lack of effective

57

participation by the community in the planning and decision making stages. Other reasons are

lack of transparency about what financial and technical contributions would be required from the

community, and the failure to develop the skills and provide training for the WATSAN

committee members on who the effective management of the water supply systems depends on.

Recommendation

Based on the findings of the study, the following recommendations are made; to enhance

community participation in water delivery services and sustainability as follows:

1. The District Assembly, the Community Water and Sanitation team and Non-

Governmental Organisations should involve community members in all the stages of

water project cycle right from designing, planning, implementation, monitoring and

evaluation stages of the project;

2. District Water and Sanitation Team should put in more effort in sensitizing,

conscientising and educating community members to strengthen and also sustain their

active participation in water delivery in the district;

3. The District Assembly, the Community Water and Sanitation team and Non-

Governmental Organisations should provide community members continuous training

and education programmes to sufficiently empower them to own, maintain and sustain

the water projects in their communities;

4. District authorities should partner communities to prepare by-laws to govern the

operation and maintenance of water supply facilities.

5. Effective Operation (O) and Maintenance (M) is essential for sustainability and

community level Operation and Maintenance is one of the ways through which

58

sustainability can be achieved. District Authorities should, therefore, support WATSAN

committees to perform their roles creditably as they are the hubs of effective operation

and maintenance of sustainable water management in the Pokuase and Abensu

communities.

6. District Assemblies should organize field visits for WATSAN members to share best

practices in water and sanitation projects to enhance their management practices.

59

ReferencesAgarwal, B. (2001). Participatory Exclusions, Community Forestry and Gender: An Analysis

for South Asia and a Conceptual Framework. World Development, 29 (10): 1623 – 48

Agrawal A. & Gibson C. (2001). The role of community in natural resources conservation. In A. Agrawal & C. Gibson (eds.) Communities and the environment: ethnicity, gender, and the state in community-based conservation. (pp. 30–33) New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

Arnstein, S. R. (1969) A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35 (4) pp. 216-224. Retrieved May 23, 2014 from http://lithgowschmidt.dk/

sherry-arnstein/ladder-of-citizen-participation.html .

Babbie, E. R. (2001).The practice of Social Research (9th ed.). Belmont, CA , USA:Wadsworth Thomson Learning.

Ball, C. & Ball, M. (1991).Water Supplies for Rural Communities. London: IT Publication

Blackburn, J., Chambers, R. & Gaventa, J. (2002) Mainstreaming Participation in Development. In N.Hanna & R. Picciotto (eds) Making Development Work: Development Learning in

a World of Poverty and Wealth. World Bank Series on Evaluation and Development. Vol.4

Braimah, I. and Fielmua, N. (2011). Community Ownership and Management of Water and Sanitation Facilities: Issues and Prospects in the Nadowli District of the Upper West Region of Ghana. Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa, Vol. 13, No.2.

Brodie E., Cowling E., Nissen N., Paine A. E., Jochum V., & Warburton D. (2009), Understanding participation: A literature review, London: National Council for Voluntary Organizations.

Butterworth, J., Bethel, T., Demissie, B., Eyasu, M., Yeshumneh, T., & Jeths, M. (2009). Improving WASH information for better service delivery in Ethiopia: Scoping report of initiatives. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Burns, D and Taylor, M (2000) Auditing community participation – an assessment handbook, Bristol: Policy Press

Carter, R. C., Tyrrel, S. F., & 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.

60

Cernea, M. & Ayse K. (1997). Social Assessments for Better Development: Case Studies in Russia and Central Asia. Environmentally Sustainable Development Studies and Monographs. Series 16. World Bank, Washington, D.C.

Community Water and Sanitation Agency (CWSA). (2004). Small Towns Sector Policy. CWSA, Accra.

Cooke, B. & Kothari, U. 2001. The Case for Participation as Tyrany. In: B. Cooke & U. Kothari (eds.). Participation: The New Tyrany? (pp. 1-15) Norfolk: Biddles Limited.

Doe, S. R., & Khan, M. S. (2004). The boundaries and limits of community management: Lessons from the water sector in Ghana. Community Development Journal, 39(4), 360-

371. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsh032

Dollery, B. & Wallis, J. (2002).Economic Theories of the Voluntary Sector: A Survey of Government Failure Approaches. Otago University

Dorsener, C. (2004). Social Exclusion and Participation in Community Development Project. Pretoria: Van Schaik

Dudley E. (1993). The Critical Villager: Beyond Community Participation. London: Routledge.Evidence from Senegal. Social Policy and Administration Vol. 38, No.4.

Edig, A Van, Engel, S, Laube W. (2002). Ghana’s water institutions in the process of reforms: from the international to the local level. In S. Neubert, W. Scheumann, & A. Van Edig (eds.). Reforming Institutions for Sustainable Water Management. (pp.69-72) German development Institute (DIE): Bonn.

Elton, S. (2009). What is a Strategy, Evaluation and Efficiency, Oxford University.

Emmanuel, O. (1995). Community participation in rural water supply project: The world vision Ghana Experience. Cameu University.

Endashaw, M. (2011). An Assessment on Role of Community Participation in Rural Water Supply Project: The case of Debati Woreda, Benishangul Gumuz Regional State. Addis Ababa University.

Fielmua, N. (2011). The Role of the Community Ownership and Management Strategy towards Sustainable Access to Water in Ghana :A Case of Nadowli District. Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa. Vol. 4, No.3.

Fisher J (2011). Operation and Maintenance for Rural Water Service. WELL Briefing Note 15. Water Engineering and Development Centre (WEDC). Leicestershire, UK: Loughborough University.

Ga West Municipal Assembly (unpublished) 2010. Ghana Shared Growth and Development Agenda - Medium Term Development Plan 2010-2013.

61

Gender and Water Alliance (2006a). Resource Guide: Mainstreaming Gender in Water Management. Dieren: Gender and Water Alliance.

Gomez J.D & Nakat A. (2002). Community Participation in Water and Sanitation. Water International. 27:3, 343-353.

Ghana Statistical Service, (2012). 2010 Population and Housing Census: Summary Report of Final Result. Accra: Sakoa Press Limited.

Guijt, I. & Shah, M. (1998). Waking Up to Power, Conflict and Process. In I. Guijht & M. Shah (eds). The Myth of Community: Gender issues in Participatory Development. (pp .87-90). London: Intermediate Technology Publications.

Harvey, P., Uno, J. & Reed, R. (2006). Management of rural water services in sub-Saharan Africa. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Civil Engineering, 159(4), 178-184.

Heikkila, T. & Gerlak, A. K., (2005). The formation of large-scale collaborative resource management institutions: clarifying the roles of stakeholders, science, and institutions. The Policy Studies Journal, 3 (4), pp. 583-612.

Hickey, S. & G. Mohan (2004) Participation: From tyranny to transformation? – Exploring new approaches to participation in development. London: Zed Books.

IRC, (2003) Community Water Supply Management: History of a Concept; Delft, the Netherlands, pp 53-116.

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: 667-691

Issah-Bello, S., (2011) An Assessment of Sustainability of Water and Sanitation Interventions in Northern Region: A case study of Nanumba North District. Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology

Kasiaka K. (2004), Participatory Planning and Sustainability of Water TASAF Water Project, Tanzania: UDSM Press

Khwaja, A. I. (2004). Is Increasing Community Participation Always a Good Thing? Journal of the European Economic Association 2 (3), 427–36.

Kleemeier, E. (2000). The impact of participation on sustainability: an analysis of the Malawi rural piped scheme program. World Development, 28(5), 929-944.

Kleemeier, E. (2010). Private Operators and Rural Water Supplies, A Desk review of Experience. The World Bank.

62

Kleemeier, E., & Narkevic, J. (2010). A global review of private operator experiences in rural areas, Private Operator Models for Community Water Supply. The World Bank.

Koestler, L., & Shaw, R. (2009). Private sector involvement in rural water supply: Case studies from Uganda. Water, sanitation and hygiene: sustainable development and multisectoral approaches. Proceedings of the 34th WEDC International Conference, (pp. 410-413). Addis Ababa: United Nations Conference Centre.

Kokutse, F. (2009). WATER-GHANA: Something Doesn't Add Up, News Article, Inter Press Service News Agency. Retrieved September 2, 2014 from http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?

idnews=46780 .

Koomson, K. (2008). The role of community members in project management. Seminar Paper prepared for community interface programme with the Assembly. New Takoradi: Sokoa Press

Kumar, S. (2002), Methods for community participation: A complete guide for practitioners. London: ITDG Publishers.

Lammerink, M.P. (1998). Community Managed Rural Water Supply: Experiences From Participatory Action Research in Kenya, Cameroon, Nepal, Pakistan, Guatemala and Colombia, Community Development, Oxford University Press, 33 (4): 342-352.

Laryea, O. N. (1994). Challenges and Prospects of Community Management in Ghana UNPD/GWSC Rural Water and Sanitation Project, Sri Lanka: WEDC Publication

Leach M., Mearns R. & Scoones I. (1997). Challenges to community-based sustainable development: dynamics, entitlements, institutions. IDS Bulletin, 28: 1–14

Lockwood, H., A. Bakalian, & W. Wakeman. (2004). Assessing Sustainability in Rural Water Supply: The Role of Follow-up Support to Communities. Literature Review and Desk Review of Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project Documents. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

Maraga, J. N. (2010), Factors determining community participation in afforestation projects in River Nyando basin, Kenya. African Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 4(12):853-859.

Marshall, G. (1998). A dictionary of sociology. New York: Oxford University Press.

Mazango, N., & Munjeri, C. (2009). Water management in a hyperinflationary environment: Case study of Nkayi district in Zimbabwe. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth,34(1-2), 28-35.

Mba C.J, & Kwankye S.O. (2007). Population, Health and Development in Ghana: Attaining the Millennium Development Goals., Accra: Sub-Saharan Publishers

63

McCarthy, N., Céline D. & Boureima D. (2002). Cooperation, Collective Action in Natural Resources Management in Burkina Faso: a Methodological Note. Washington D.C: International Food Policy Research Institute

McCay B. (2001). Community and the commons: romantic and other views: In A. Agrawal &C. Gibson (eds.) Communities and the environment: ethnicity, gender, and the state in community-based conservation. (pp.180–192) New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

McCommon C., Warner D. & Yohalen D. (1990). Community Management of Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Services. Washington D.C: UNDP-World Bank.

McGarry M. G. (1991). Water Supply and Sanitation in the 1990s. Geneva Water International, Vol 16. pp. 153-160.

Meinzen-Dick, R. l., Di Gregorio, M. & McCarthy, N. (2004) Methods for studying collective action in rural development. http://www.capri.cgiar.org/pdf/capriwp33.pdf(accessed on 20-09-14).

Mejos, D. E. A. (2007) Against alienation: Karol Wojyla‟s theory of participation. Kritike, 1 (1) pp. 71-85.http://www.kritike.org/journal/issue_1mejos_june2007.pdf(accessed on 2-10-14).

Meyer, I. & Theron, F. 2000. Workbook – Public Participation in Local Government: A framework for action. Bellville: SOPMP, University of Stellenbosch.

Mcgregor A., Clapham D., Donnison D. (1993), Community participation in areas of urban regeneration, Research Report no. 23, Scottish Homes

Mosse D. (2003) The rule of water: statecraft, ecology, and collective action in South India. Delhi: Oxford University Press,

Mujwahuzi M. R. (1983). Community participation in rural water supply schemes in Tanzania, International Journal of Water Resources Development, 1:3, 231-242

Nampila, T. (2005), Assessing community participation: The Huidare informal settlement. Master of Arts thesis: Department of Social Work: University of Stellenbosch.

Narayan, D. 1993. Focus on Participation: Evidence from 121 Rural Water Supply Projects. UNDP – World Bank Water Supply and Sanitation Programme. Washington, D.C. World Bank.

Narayan, D. (1995). Participatory Evaluation: Tools for Managing Change in Water and Sanitation. Paper NO. 207, The World Bank, Washington, D.C., USA, 1995a.

Nekwaya, J. H. (2007), Assessing community participation in development planning and service delivery. A case study of the Omusati Regional Council. Master of Sustainable Development and management: University of Stellenbosch.

64

Nicol, A. (2000). Adopting a Sustainable Livelihoods Approach to Water projects: implications for Policy and Practice. London : Overseas Development Institute,.

Nyarko, K. B. (2007). Drinking Water Sector in Ghana: Drivers for performance. PhD Dissertation, UNESCO – IHE Delft, the Netherlands, July 2007. pp 42-50, 81.

Olson, M. (1965). The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge: Harvard University Press

Opare, S. (2011). Sustaining water supply through a phased community management approach: Lessons from Ghana’s “oats” water supply scheme. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 13(6), 1021-1042.

Ostrom, Elinor (1990): Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Peter, H. & Bob, R. (2004). Rural water supply in a Africa: Building blocks for hand pump sustainability . Water, Engineering and Development Centre, Loughborough: University press.

Pickford, J. P. Barker, B. Elson, C. Ferguson, J. Parr, D. Sayvell, R. Shaw, and Skinner, B., (eds). 1996. Sustainability of water and sanitation systems. Intermediate Technology Publication: London.

Pretty, J. N., Guijt, I., Thompson, J. and Scoone, I. (1995) Participatory Learning and Action: A Trainers‟ Guide. IIED, London.

Prokopy, L. S. 2005. The Relationship between Participation and Project Outcomes: Evidence from Rural Water Supply Projects in India. World Development, 33 (11): 1801–19.

Reed, M. S., Evely, A. C., Cundill, G., Fazey, I., Glass, J., Laing, A., Newig, J., Parrish, B., Prell, C., Raymond, C. & Stringer, L. C. (2010) What is social learning? Ecology and Society, 15 (4):1.

Rowe, G. & Frewer, L. J. (2004) Evaluating public-participation exercises: A research agenda. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 29 (4) pp. 512-556

Rowley, T. J. & Moldoveanu, M. (2003) When will stakeholder groups act? An interest- and identity-based model of stakeholder group mobilization. Academy of Management Review. 28 (2) pp. 204-219.

Sara J. & 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.

Schouten, T. (2006). Scaling Up Community Management of Rural Water Supply Resource Centre Network for Water, Sanitation and Environmental Health. http://www.lboro.ac.uk

/well/links.htm (accessed on 18-09-14).

65

Schouten, T., & Moriarty, P. (2004). Scaling up the community management of rural water supply. Waterlines, 23(2), 2-4.

Scott, J. (2000) Rational choice theory. In Browning, G., Halchi, A. & Webster, F. (eds) Understanding Contemporary Society: Theories of the Present. pp. 126- 138. Sage Publications.

Singh, U. (2005) Community Participation in the Management of Public Good: Myth or Reality, Case Study of Two Villages in India, ISS Research Paper, The Hague, Holland.

Slamet, Y. (1993). Insight Community Development Participation. Surakarta: Sebelas Maret University Press.

Soneryd, L. (2004) Public involvement in the planning process: EIA and lessons from the Orebro airport extension, Sweden. Environmental Science & Policy, 7, pp. 59-68.

Specter, M. (2005), The last drop: Confronting the possibility of a global catastrophe. The New Yorker, 82(34).

Sutton, S. (2008), The risks of technology-based MDG indicator for rural water supply, www.rwsn.ch (accessed on 20-09-14).

Svoboda, D. (2003). Impact Evaluation- Why, What and Who? Civic Association of Czech Republic.

Tegegne, T. M. (2009). Sustainability of Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Services in Ethiopia: A Case Study of Twenty Villages in Ethiopia. Cornell University

Therkildsen, O. (1988) Watering White Elephants: Lessons from Donor Funded Planning and Implementation of Rural Water Supplies in Tanzania, Scandinavian Institute of African

Theron, F. (2005), Public participation as a micro-level development strategy, in Davids, F. Theron and K. J. Maphunye. Participatory development in South Africa. A development management perspective. Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers.

Uphoff, N. (1999). Understanding Social Capital: Learning from the Analysis and Experience of Participation. In P. Dasgupta & I. Serageldin (eds.), Social Capital: A Multifaceted Perspective . Washington D.C: The World Bank.

United Nations Development Program (UNDP). (2006). Human Development Report 2006 – Beyond Scarcity: Power, Poverty and the Global Water Crisis. New York: UNDP.

Wade, R. (1990). Governing the Market: Economic Theory and the Role of Government in East Asian Industrialzation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

WEDC. (2003). Community and Management, A WEDC Postgraduate Module: WEDC, Loughborough University, UK.

66

WELL (1998) DFID guidance Manual on water supply and sanitation programmes. WELL, WEDC,LoughboroughUniversity,UK.http://www.lboro.ac.uk/well/resources/Publications

/ guidance-manual/overview.pdf (Accessed: 21/08/14)

World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED)(1987), Our Common Future, Oxford: Oxford University Press,.

Whyte, A. 1986. Guidelines for Planning Community Participation Activities in Water Supply and Sanitation Projects. World Health Organization. Offset Publication No. 96. Geneva: WHO.

Whittington D, Davis J, Prokopy L, Komives K, Thorsten R, Lukacs H, Bakalian A, Wakeman W. (2009). How well is the demand-driven, community management model for rural water supply systems doing? Evidence from Bolivia, Peru and Ghana. Water Policy, 11: 696-718

William, M. (2008). Assessment of community participation in water supply and sanitation Services: The Case of Yombo Dovya and Barabara ya Mwinyi, Water Community Projects Temeke. Tanzania, The Hague, the Netherlands.

World Bank (2004), World development report: Making services work for poor people. Washington DC: World Bank.

World Bank. (2008). Water and Sanitation Supply: Improving services for the poor. Washington DC: IDA Publications.

World Bank/UNDP(2000). “Sustainability Monitoring the VIP Way: A Ground-level Exercise.” Water and Sanitation Program-South Asia, UNDP/World Bank: Washington D.C., USA,.

WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation (2000) Global water supply and sanitation assessment – 2000 Report. Geneva, WHO.

Wright, A. M. “ Toward a Strategic Sanitation Approach: Improving the Sustainability of Urban Sanitation in Developing Countries.” UNDP/World Bank Water and Sanitation Program, Washington D.C., USA, 1997

Zimmerer K. (2000), Rescaling irrigation in Latin America: the cultural images and political ecology of water resources. Ecumene, 7: 150–75.

67

APPENDICE

APPENDIX-1: SURVEY INSTRUMENT

QUESTIONNAIRE

GHANA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

This questionnaire is designed to elicit information on the effectiveness of community participation in water management. It is a research work being carried out by a Masters of Development Management Student. You are kindly requested to provide answers to enable the researcher conduct the study.

Instructions to participants: This questionnaire is to be administered to respondents drawn from stakeholders including but not limited to water committees and their leadership, district assembly officers and community members in Ga West district. It is aimed at assessing the level of community participation and management towards sustainability of water facilities. Kindly be assured that your response(s) would be treated with utmost confidentiality. Thank you..___________________________________________________________________

Please tick the appropriate answer and write in the spaces provided where necessary.

Part 1 Personal Data

1. Sex M F 2. Age [18-35]

68

[36-55] [56 and above]

3. Marital Status: Single Married 4. Community of residence?5. How long have you stayed in your community? ………………..

Part II Existence of water sources and functionality 6. Which types of water sources are commonly used in this community?

You may tick more than one source where necessarya) Boreholes b) Hand Drill Wellsc) Others (Specify)……………………………….

5. What is the current status of your main water sources in terms of functionality?

a) Functionalb) Non functionalc) Temporarily down d) Don’t know

Part III Existence of water committees, caretakers and their functionality

6. Are there water committees in this community?a) Yes b) No

7. If yes, what is the composition in terms of gender?a) More males in the committeeb) More females in the committee

8. Which ways and/or method used to choose the committee members? (a)

Through democratic election (b) Nominated and/or appointed (c) None of the above

9. For how long has the Water committee of your community existed?a) Less than 6 monthsb) Between 6-12 monthsc) More than 1 year

10. What is your opinion about the role of water committee towards enhancement of participation and management of water facilities by all community members in terms of cleaning around sources and organizing management meetings?

a) They are very active

69

b) They are very inactivec) They are partially actived) Do not know

11. How many times in a month do water management committees in your community meet?a) Once a month b) twice a month c) Three times and above d) Do not meet at all

12. Are there caretakers of water sources in this community?a) Yes b) No

13. If yes, how many times in a week are they present at the water sources?a) Once a week b) Twice a week c) Three times and

aboved) Never present e) Do not know

Part III Community leadership aspects

14. Are you a member of water committee/Executive in this community i.e. chairman, secretary or treasurer?

a) Yes b) No

15. If YES what is your highest educational level? Primary level Secondary level Tertiary

16. What is your working experience as a member of water committee leadership?

[Between 0-12 months][between 1-2 years][More than 2 year]

17. Are there records of your water committee meetings? a) Yes b) No

18. Does your community water management committee have an Operation and maintenance Plan?

a) Yes b) No

Part IV Community Participation

19. Did you participate in the initial stages of projects planning? (a)Yes (b) No

70

20. Forced to participate? (a)Yes (b) No

21. Level Community Contribution towards O&MYou may tick more than one where necessary

a) Initial investment cost Yes Nob) Operation and maintenance Yes Noc) Do not contribute at alld) Do not know

22. What was the community contribution in the implementation? (a) Labour (b) Cash (c) Both

Community Meetings23. Were there any community meetings? (a) Yes (b) No

24. Is everyone in the community contributing to the public meetings discussion? (a) Yes (b) No

Sustainability Issues25. Who does monitoring the water sources/ facility (a) The community (b) District Assembly (c) Central Government 26. Do you have the capacity to maintain this project? (a) Yes (b) No

27. If you do not have the capacity where do you get assistance in case there is break down of the system…………………………………………………

29. (i ) Does the community contribute any user fees to cover operations and maintenance services?

a) Yes b) No If yes how much ……………………………(ii) Do all people contribute the same amount? (a) Yes (b) No

30. Is the amount collected enough to cover the operations and maintenance services? (a) Yes (b) No

31. If not where do you get extra money to cover the operations and maintenance of the system …………………………………………….

Problems in Participation of Beneficiaries 32. Are there any problems encountered in participation of the community? (a) Yes (b) No If yes what are those problems?....................................................................

71

33. Do you think community participation in planning, implementation and management of water project leads to the effective and sustainable of water and sanitation services? (a) Yes (b) No

Part V Level of support by government34. Is there any kind of support offered to your community or Community organizations/Committees by the following agencies?

a). District Assembly Yes No

b). Private contractors Yes No c). Others (Specify)……………

35. If yes, how satisfied are you with the level of support to ensure provision and sustainability of water supply by these agencies?Please indicate by ticking, whether you are; 1 = extremely satisfied, 2 = satisfied, 3 = dissatisfied or 4 = extremely dissatisfied, using a scale given between 1-4, with 4 being the highest score

a). District Assembly 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □b). Prívate contractos 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □c). Others (Specify)…………………………...

36. Has your community water management committee ever been trained?Yes No

37.If yes, what kind of support was provided and by which agency?………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

38. How many times in a year has the water committee/Organization of this community been trained? Once a year Twice Thrice Four times or more Never been trained

39. What challenges do communities and their water management committee’s face?

a)…………………………………………………………………………………b)………………………………………………………………………………c)…………………………………………………………………………………d)…………………………………………………………………………………

40. In your opinion, what could be done to improve community management of water sources in the communities?

a)…………………………………………………………………………………

72

b)…………………………………………………………………………………c)…………………………………………………………………………………d)…………………………………………………………………………………

Appendix-2: Structured Interview Guide for Key Informants Interviews & Focus Group Discussions

Instructions to participants: This interview is to be conducted with respondents drawn from stakeholders including but not limited to water

73

committee leadership, district assembly staffs in water provision in Ga West district. It is aimed at assessing the level of community participation and management for sustainability of rural water facilities. Feedback from this study will greatly contribute to a wealth of knowledge that can be used by policy makers and other research institutions for further improvement in water sector activities. Your participation will be appreciated and confidentiality will be observed with respect to your feedback.

1. In your own experience with water sector activities, do communities elect water management committees? If yes what is the composition in terms of gender?

2. What is your opinion about the level of participation and involvement of community members in committees and other community meetings in water activities in terms of gender?

3. Do water source committees hold meetings? If yes, how often do community water management committees of each water source meet?

4. In your own view and experience, do water committees keep records of their meetings?

5. In your own experience, are there caretakers of water sources in the communities? If yes, how often are they present at the water source?

6. Do you have any knowledge about the qualification of community leadership of water committees like members of committee executive?

7. Do community water management committees have an Operation and maintenance Plan (O&M)?

8. What is the level of compliance of communities towards contribution for Capital cost and O&M water facilities?

9. What is your comment about the quality of services provided by private contractors towards O&M of water sources?

10. Is there any kind of support that your organization provides to communities and their committees to ensure sustainability of water supply?

11. What kind of support was provided and by which agency?12. Has your organization provided any training to Water

committees and HPMs?13. What challenges do communities and their water management

committees’ face in the management of water sources?14. In your opinion, what could be done to improve community

management and sustainability of water sources?THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR PARTICIPATING

74

Appendix- 3: Pictures of interviews and focus group discussions

Figure 3: Author interviewing a District Water and Sanitation Officer (DWSO)

Figure 4: Author in a Focus Group Discussion (FGD) with WATSAN members and some community members at Abensu.

75

Figure 5: Well- maintained mechanized borehole water facility at Abensu.

76

Figure 6: A well-protected mechanised water pumping station at Abensu.

77