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 Ghanas 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).

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;

To examine the various roles played by the community in the sustainable management of

facilities;
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

2
3

supply services?
What are the roles played by the community in the sustainable management of facilities?
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
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
3

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 Ghanas 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.
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
4

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.
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 dened 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
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
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).
7

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 UNICEFs Joint Monitoring programme for Water Supply
and Sanitation (2001) has estimated that about 62% of Ghanas rural population has access to
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). CWSAs 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
8

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, multifaceted 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
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
9

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
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.
10

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
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
11

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 projects 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
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
12

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 peoples reality and reduce the risk (Brett, 2005).
Collective action will be a function of individuals incentives to contribute to the maintenance
and abide by the rules and regulations, the capacity of the community as a whole to cooperate
and to manage the incentives, and the overall policy environment in which the institutions must
operate (McCarthy et al, 2002).

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 decisionmaking and interactive participation which empowered the beneficiaries.
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
13

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 dened 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
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 peoples 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
14

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
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.
15

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 decisionmaking 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
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.
16

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 peoples 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 peoples 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
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

17

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
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 womens 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 womens participation.
18

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
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
19

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
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).
20

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.
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
21

(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;
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;

22

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 (Jimnez & Prez-Foguet, 2011). Harvey, Uno, and Reed (2006) have 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.
23

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
project planners may acknowledge the problems that exist, project implementations often treat
communities as territorially dened intact wholes within the remit of the projects. Ahluwalia
(1997) argues that different water users often have different interests and that inter-group
conicts 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
24

uncritically espousing community and participation. Thus, while notions of community in water
management may be externally dened 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--vis the costs and benets 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 efciency, 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 decentralization of government
services and transfer of responsibilities to lower levels of government and ultimately to
communities themselves (Nicol, 2000).

25

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 548 North,
539 North and longitude 012 west and 022 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
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
26

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
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 25C in August to 28C 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
27

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
peoples 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
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
28

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
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,

29

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
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
30

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
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
31

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.

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.
32

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).
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 participants 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
33

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
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 resident
Resident Status
Yes
No
Total
Source: Authors Field Work, 2014

Frequency
72
0
72
35

Percentage
100
0
100

From 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 resident
No. Years of being a resident
Frequency
10 years and below
11-20 years
21-30 years
31years and above
Total
Source: Authors Field Work, 2014

6
21
18
27
72

Percentage
8.3
29.2
25
37.5
100

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

36

Table 4.3 Sex of Respondents

Sex

Frequency

Percent

Female

34

47.2

Male

38

52.8

72

100

Total
Source: Authors 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 Respondents
Age of Respondents (Years)
Frequency
18-35
26
36-55
32
56 and above
14
Total
72
Source: Authors Field Work, 2014

Percent ( %)
36.1
44.5
19.4
100

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
37

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. (IssahBello, 2011)
Table 4.5 Marital Status of Household Respondents
Marital Status
Frequency
Single
10
Married
61
Widowed
1
Total
72
Source: Authors Field Work, 2014

Percent (%)
13.9
84.7
1.4
100

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
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 Occupation
Occupation
Farmer
petty trader
public servant
Total
Source: Authors Field Work, 2014

Frequency
30
14
28
72

Percent %
41.7
19.4
38.9
100

38

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

Level of Education
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

54.2
16.6

Percentage

26.4
2.8

Source: Authors 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
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)
39

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

Source of Water
120
100
80
% of water users

60
40
20
0

abensu

Pokuase

Source: Analysis of data.

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

40

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.
Table 4.7: Constraints to Community Participation
Constraints
Abensu
Pokuase
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Yes
23
82.1
36
81.8
No
5
17.9
8
18.2
Source: Authors 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

41

Constraints
Illiteracy
Lack of general information on water project
Age (limiting active participation)
Time (limiting active participation)
Lack of support from the government/NGO
Lack of incentives for WATSAN committees
Total*
Multiple responses*

Abensu
Frequency
%
13
19.7
5
7.6
10
15.2
22
33.3
4
6.1
12
18.1
66
100

Pokuase
Frequency
%
30
15.2
31
15.7
20
10.2
35
17.8
42
21.3
39
19.8
197
100
Source: Authors

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 peoples participation. Some District officers

interviewed mentioned that support from the local government was important to increase
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
42

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,
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.
43

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
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 governments programmes and developments in their own communities and
that inefficient means of sharing information leads to low level of community participation on
government projects.
44

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
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).

45

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: Households Participation in Water Facilities Provision
Variable (Forms of Community
Participation)
choosing of site
choosing of technology
Election of WATSAN
Deciding on Capital Cost Contribution for
construction of facility e.g. labour or cash
Contribution towards O & M
Source: Field Data, 2014.

% of responses by
community
Abensu
Pokuase
n=28
n = 44
48.2
2.3
88.9
4.5
72.6
13.6
76.4
12.5
58.9

40.8

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.
46

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; ParryJones 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
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
47

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
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
48

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
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

49

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
Community
WATSAN Members
Males
Females
Abensu
5
2
Pokuase
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
50

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 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
51

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 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

52

community control of water supply systems, and if assumption of responsibility is pursued

gradually.
4.7 Assessment of Levels of Community Participation
Drawing on Prettys (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 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.

53

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 Introduction
This 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.
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
55

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.
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.

56

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
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
57

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 NonGovernmental 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 NonGovernmental 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
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.

58

References
Agarwal, 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. 3033) 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.

59

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.
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), 360371. 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). Ghanas 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.
60

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.
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 .8790). 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), 178184.
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
61

Khwaja, A. I. (2004). Is Increasing Community Participation Always a Good Thing? Journal of

the European Economic Association 2 (3), 42736.
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.
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: 114
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.
62

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
McCarthy, N., Cline 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.180192) 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 Wojylas theory of participation. Kritike, 1 (1)
pp. 71-85.http://www.kritike.org/journal/issue_1mejos_june2007.pdf(accessed on 2-1014).
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.
63

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.
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 Ghanas 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): 180119.
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.
64

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).
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.
65

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.
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: 15075.

66

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..
___________________________________________________________________

67

Please tick the appropriate answer and write in the spaces provided
where necessary.
Part 1 Personal Data
1. Sex M
2. Age

F
[18-35]
[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 necessary
a) Boreholes
b) Hand Drill Wells
c) Others (Specify).
5. What is the current status of your main water sources in terms of
functionality?
a) Functional
b) Non functional
c) Temporarily down
d) Dont 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 committee
b) More females in the committee
8. Which ways and/or method used to choose the committee members? (a)
Through democratic election
None of the above

(b) Nominated and/or appointed

9. For how long has the Water committee of your community existed?
68

(c)

a) Less than 6 months

b) Between 6-12 months
c) 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
b) They are very inactive
c) They are partially active
d) 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
above
d) 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?
69

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
20. Forced to participate? (a)Yes

(b) No

21. Level Community Contribution towards O&M

You may tick more than one where necessary
a) Initial investment cost
No
b) Operation and maintenance Yes
No
c) Do not contribute at all
d) Do not know
22. What was the community contribution in the
Labour
(b) Cash
(c) Both
Community Meetings
23. Were there any community meetings? (a) Yes

Yes

implementation? (a)

(b) No

24. Is everyone in the community contributing to the public meetings

discussion? (a) Yes
(b) No
Sustainability Issues
25. 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
70

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?....................................................................
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 government
34. 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
c). Others (Specify)

No

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). Prvate 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?

71

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
committees face?
a)
b)
c)
d)
40. In your opinion, what could be done to improve community management
of water sources in the communities?
a)
b)
c)
d)

72

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
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?
73

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

Appendix- 3: Pictures of interviews and focus group discussions

Figure 3: Author interviewing a District Water and Sanitation Officer (DWSO)

74

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.

Figure 6: A well-protected mechanised water pumping station at Abensu.

76