FINAL Dissertation May 16 2024

Assessing the Sustainability of Household Rural Water Access Service in Select Rural
Barangays in Victoria, Tarlac
Bertrand Alexander Jacob Lesaca
A dissertation submitted to the

National College of Public Administration and Governance
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Public Administration
University of the Philippines Diliman

July 2024
Thesis Classification
F
This thesis is available to the public
1
UNIVERSITY PERMISSION
I hereby grant the University of the Philippines a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free

license to reproduce, publish, and publicly distribute copies of this thesis in whatever
form subject to the provisions of applicable laws, the provisions of the UP IPR policy and
any contractual obligations, as well as more specific permission marking the Title Page.
Specifically, I grant the following rights to the University:
a) To upload a copy of the work in the theses database of the college/ school/
institute/ department and in any other databases available on the public internet.
b) To publish the work in the college/ school/ institute/ department journal, both in
print and electronic or digital format and online; and
c) To give open access to above-mentioned work, thus allowing “fair use” of the
work in accordance with the provision of the Intellectual Property Code of the
Philippines (Republic Act No. 8293), especially for teaching, scholarly, and
research purposes.”
BERTRAND ALEXANDER JACOB LESACA
2
NATIONAL COLLEGE OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND
GOVERNANCE
University of the Philippines Diliman, Quezon City
ACCEPTANCE OF DISSERTATION
The attached dissertation entitled, “Assessing the Sustainability of Household Rural Water
Access Service in Select Rural Barangays in Victoria, Tarlac”, prepared and submitted by
Bertrand J. Lesaca in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of
Public Administration (DPA), is hereby presented for acceptance.
Associate Professor Kristoffer B. Berse, Ph.D.

Adviser
This dissertation is recommended for acceptance in partial fulfilment of the requirements

for the degree of Doctor of Public Administration
Professor Erwin Gaspar A. Alampay, Ph.D.

College Secretary
This dissertation is accepted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Public Administration.
Associate Professor Kristoffer B. Berse, Ph.D.

Dean
E-mail Address: upncpagcpage@yahoo.com.ph

Website: www.ncpag.upd.edu.ph
Telephone Numbers: (63-2) 927-9085; 925-3851; Trunkline: (63-2) 981-8500 VOIP
(4154)
GOVERNANCE
ENDORSEMENT BY THE ADVISER

(4154)
GOVERNANCE
ENDORSEMENT BY THE CRITIC

(4154)
GOVERNANCE
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE
Associate Professor Kristoffer B. Berse, PhD

Adviser
Professor Jocelyn C. Cuaresma, DPA

Critic
Professor Maria Faina L. Diola, DPA

Chair
Professor Noriel Christopher C. Tiglao, D. Eng

Member
Atty. Analiza R. Teh

Member

(4154)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
i
DEDICATION
ii
ABSTRACT
Household water access service delivery is a devolved and delegated service of
the national government to local government units (LGUs) and is critical to the pursuit of
public health, poverty alleviation, and the improvement of both general and individual
well-being. However, in rural Philippines, this remains a formidable challenge, as the
World Bank (WB) and the Asian Development Bank (ADB) report that rural households
generally have little financial ability to pay for an improved water access service
(Hodgkin, 1994). While rural municipal governments are hard-pressed for access to
technical know-how and financial assistance to build needed water infrastructure to
deliver reliable household water access services (World Bank, 2015; Asian Development
Bank, 2013), very little has been done to alleviate this situation.
Pressing as it is, there is little knowledge about how communities as water rights
holders perceive the sustainability of their own household water access service and how
such can influence its sustainability and enhance local water policies and programs to
improve such rural household water access services. In light of this, the study
investigated community perceptions of the sustainability of their household water access
services from the perspective of select communities in the Municipality of Victoria,
Tarlac. It specifically delves into the self-assessment of households from four barangays
in terms of the following inter-related dimensions of sustainability: financial, technical,
institutional (FTI), socio-political (SP), and environmental (E) to certain socio-
demographic factors and living practices.
Data were collected through a structured questionnaire survey (n=3,448)
administered at the barangay halls of Balayang, San Fernando, San Jacinto, and Santa
iii
Barbara from August 16th to the 19th, 2019. Sustainability was assessed using a 5-point
Likert Scale that measured the respondents’ agreement or disagreement with statements
related to sustainable water access indicators (Bhandari P. , 2022). A Sustainability Score
(SS) was then calculated to estimate the overall water access sustainability in each
barangay based on the average FTI, SP, and E sustainability component scores. All data,
descriptive statistics, and Spearman’s correlation tests were tabulated, processed, and
generated using Microsoft Excel and SPSS v.27.
The results show that, overall, rural households have a high to very high
sustainability perception of their water access service. Among the sustainability
dimensions, SP had the lowest overall SS followed by FTI, which suggests that
correlation with certain socio-demographic profiles produces negative associations that
weaken the perception of sustainability.
Across barangays, the results show that the perception of sustainability is directly
related to certain socio-demographic and living characteristics, which when correlated
with the indicators, result in a high sustainability perception. On the other hand, rural
households with negative correlations between the dimensions and their indicators had
lower ratings for their perceived water access sustainability.
Across water service levels, however, the analysis revealed moderate but inverse
relationships in level III barangays than in level I/II barangays, where more positive but
weak associations were established.
Regardless, the results reveal that a community’s sustainability perception of its
rural household water access service can be used to gauge, albeit subjective, and further
understand a community’s propensity to come up with the monitoring and support, and
iv
adapt an attitude of sustainability, especially in rural household water access delivery
services.
Recommended Citation
Lesaca, B.J. (2023). Assessing the Sustainability of Household Rural Water Access
Service in Select Rural Barangays in Victoria, Tarlac. Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation, National College of Public Administration and Governance, University of
the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City.
v
List of Tables
Number Title Page

1 Function Overlaps in Philippine Water Institutions 8
2 Water Access Service Levels in The Philippines 12
3 Indicators For Household Water Access Sustainability 40
4 Relevant Definitions of Sustainability 41
5 Some Myths on Rural Water Access 47
6 MWSS Functions 52
7 No. Of Households and Water Access by Barangay (Victoria, 72
Tarlac)
8 Barangay Sampling 73
9 Data Sources 82
10 Scoring System 88
11 Sustainability Components and Their Indicators 91
12 Average (Approximate) Daily Household Water Consumption 91
13 Sustainability Score (SS) Index 93
14 San Jacinto Sustainability Score 98
15 Frequency Summary FTI - San Jacinto 98
16 Frequency Summary SP - San Jacinto 99
17 Frequency Summary E - San Jacinto 100
18 San Fernando Sustainability Score 101
19 Frequency Summary FTI - San Fernando 102
20 Frequency Summary SP - San Fernando 102
21 Frequency Summary E - San Fernando 102
22 Santa Barbara Sustainability Score 103
23 Frequency Summary FTI – Santa Barbara 1-3
24 Frequency Summary SP - Santa Barbara 1-5
25 Frequency Summary E - Santa Barbara 105
26 Balayang Sustainability Score 106
27 Frequency Summary FTI - Balayang 107
28 Frequency Summary SP - Balayang 107
29 Frequency Summary E - Balayang 108
30 Level I/II Sustainability Score 109
31 Frequency Summary FTI - Level I/II 110
32 Frequency Summary SP - Level I/II 110
33 Frequency Summary E - Level I/II 111
34 Level III Service Sustainability Score 112
35 Frequency Summary FTI - Level III 113
36 Frequency Summary SP - Level III 113
vi
37 Frequency Summary E - Level III 113
38 Profile - FTI Correlation San Jacinto 139
39 Profile - SP Correlation San Jacinto 140
40 Profile - E Correlation San Jacinto 141
41 Profile - FTI Correlation San Fernando 142
42 Profile - SP Correlation San Fernando 144
43 Profile - E Correlation San Fernando 145
44 Profile – FTI Correlation Santa Barbara 146
45 Profile - SP Correlation Santa Barbara 147
46 Profile - E Correlation Santa Barbara 148
47 Profile - FTI Correlation Balayang 148
48 Profile - SP Correlation Balayang 149
49 Profile - E Correlation Balayang 150
50 Profile - FTI Correlation Level I/II 150
51 Profile - SP Correlation Level I/II 152
52 Profile - E Correlation Level I/II 153
53 FTI Profile Perception - Level III 154
54 SP Profile Perception – Level III 156
55 E Profile Perception - Level III 158
56 Common Profiles - By Barangay 159
57 Common Profiles - By Water Access Service Level 160
58 Summary Average Frequency Totals 161
59 Moderate Correlations 162
vii
List of Figures
Number Title Page
1 Rural Water Access Sustainability - A Conceptual Framework 19
2 Rural Water Sustainability – A Theoretical Framework 20
3 A Water Governance Framework 33
4 Gap Identification Model 35
5 Sustainability Pillars 39
6 Organizational Relationship of Water Agencies 54
7 Quantitative Research Design 59
8 Financial, Technical & Institutional (FTI) – Design Process 61
9 Social-Political (SP) – Design Process 62
10 Environment (E) – Design Process 63
11 Mapping Victoria, Tarlac 70
12 Map of Barangay Santa Barbara 75
13 Map of Barangay San Fernando 77
14 Map of Barangay Balayang 78
15 Map of Barangay San Jacinto 79
16 Analysis Process 86
17 Profile Frequency Histograms for San Jacinto 116
A. Length of Residence in Community 116
B. Livelihood Sources 116
C. Household Size 117
D. Primary Household Water Access Service 117
E. Length of Use of Primary Water Access 118
F. Primary Water Access Suitable for Cooking/ Drinking 118
G. Availability of Alternative Water Access 119
H. Alternative Water Access Suitable for Cooking/ Drinking 119
I. Household Water Consumption (Hygiene/ Sanitation) 120
J. Household Water Consumption (General Daily Use) 120
18 Profile Frequency Histograms for San Fernando 122
viii
Number Title Page
19 Profile Frequency Histograms for Santa Barbara 127

20 Profile Frequency Histograms for Balayang 133
ix
Acronyms
3-FSAQ Three Factor Self-Administered Questionnaire

ADB Asian Development Bank
AO Administrative Order
BFAR Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources
BIOA British and Irish Ombudsman Association
BRL Bureau of Research and Laboratories
BSWM Bureau of soil and Waste Management
CBD Commercial Business District
CBMS Community - Based Monitoring System
COA Commission on Audit
CSO Civil Society Organization
DA Department of Agriculture
DAC Development Assistance Committee of the OECD
DENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources
DILG Department of Interior and Local Government
DILG-PMO-RWSS DILG-Project Management Office-Rural Water Supply
and Sanitation Project
DND Department of National Defense
DOE Department of Energy
DOF Department of Finance
DOH Department of Health
DOST Department of Science and Technology
DOT Department of Tourism
DOT Department of Transportation
DOTC Dep+B6artment of Transportation and Communication
DPWH Department of Public Works and Highways
DPWH-PMO-MFCP DPWH-Project Management Office-Major Flood Control
Project
DPWH-PMO-RWS DPWH-Project Management Office-Rural Water Supply
x
DPWH-PMO-SWIM DPWH-Project Management Office-Flood Control
DROP Benefit of Governance in DROught adaPtation
DTI Department of Trade and Industry
E Environment
EDA Exploratory Data Analysis
EHS Environmental Health Sciences
EMB Environmental Management Bureau
EO Executive Order
FMB Forest Management Bureau
FTI Financial, Technical, and Institutional
GOCC Government Owned and Controlled Corporation
ICF Inner City Fund is a consulting firm registered in the
United States
IEC Information, Education, and Communication
IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development
LDWQMC Local Drinking Water Quality Monitoring Committee of
the Department of Health
LGU Local Government Unit
LLDA Laguna Lake Development Authority
LWUA Local Water Utilities Administration
MGB Mines and Geosciences Bureau
MM Metro Manila
MMDA Metro Manila Development Authority
MWD Municipal Water District
MWSS Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System
NAMRIA National Mapping and Resources Information Authority
NAPC National Anti-Poverty Commission
NAPOCOR National Power Corporation
NAWASA National Waterworks and Sewerage System Authority
NEA National Electrification Administration
NEDA National Economic Development Authority
xi
NIA National Irrigation Authority
NPC National Power Corporation
NWRB National Water Resources Board
NWRC National Water Resources Council
OCD Office of Civil Defense
OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
PAF Philippine Air Force
PAGASA Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical, and Astronomical
Services Administration
PCAFNRRD Philippine Council for Agriculture Forestry, Natural
Resources and Resource Research and Development
PD Presidential Decree
PNSDW Philippine National Standards for Drinking Water (2017)
PPA Philippine Ports Authority
PPP Public Private Partnership
PSA Philippine Statistics Authority
PTA Philippine Tourism Authority
PwC PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited
PWSSMP Philippine Water Supply and Sanitation Master Plan
RA Republic Act
RWSA Rural Waterworks and Sanitation Associations
RWSP Rural Water Supply Project
SDG Sustainable Development Goals
SP Socio-Political
SS Sustainability Score/ Sustainability Perceived Score
TARELCO Tarlac Electric Cooperative
UN United Nations
UNDP United Nations Development Program
UNICEF United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund
UNMDG United Nations Millenium Development Goals
UN-WGF United Nations Water Governance Facility
xii
USAID United States Agency for International Development
WB World Bank
WHO World Health Organization
WSP Water Service Provider
xiii
Table of Contents
Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ................................................................................................... i
DEDICATION .................................................................................................................... ii
ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... iii
List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... vi
List of Figures .................................................................................................................. viii
Acronyms ............................................................................................................................ x
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................. xiv
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background ................................................................................................................ 2
1.1.1 Water Access Service in the Philippines ............................................................. 6
1.1.2 Institutional State of Water Access in the Philippines ........................................ 8
1.2 Knowledge Gap ....................................................................................................... 10
1.3 Problem Statement ................................................................................................... 13
1.4 Purpose Statement ................................................................................................... 16
1.5 Research Questions.................................................................................................. 16
1.6 Objectives of The Study .......................................................................................... 18
1.7 Significance ............................................................................................................. 19
1.8 Conceptual Framework............................................................................................ 19
1.9 Scope, Assumptions, and Limitations ..................................................................... 24
1.9.1 Assumptions of the Study ................................................................................. 25
1.9.2 Scope and Limitations of the Study .................................................................. 26
1.10 Summary................................................................................................................ 27
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................... 29
2.1 Water Governance ................................................................................................... 32
2.2 Perception ................................................................................................................ 38
2.2.1 Community Perception...................................................................................... 40
2.2.2 Drivers of Perception ........................................................................................ 40
2.3 Sustainability ........................................................................................................... 42
2.3 Sustainability Assessments ...................................................................................... 46
xiv
2.3.1 Resilience and Sustainability ............................................................................ 47
2.3.2 Community Perception and Sustainability ........................................................ 49
2.4 Summary.................................................................................................................. 50
CHAPTER 3. WATER GOVERNANCE IN THE PHILIPPINES .................................. 53
3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 53
3.2 Institutional Bases in Philippine Water Governance ............................................... 53
3.3 Water Institutions and Arrangements ...................................................................... 54
3.4 Prevailing and Emerging Issues .............................................................................. 59
CHAPTER 4. METHODOLOGY .................................................................................... 62
4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 62
4.2 Research Design ...................................................................................................... 62
4.3 Operational Definitions ........................................................................................... 70
4.4 Study Area ............................................................................................................... 74
4.5 Target Population .................................................................................................... 78
4.6 Sample Size and Sampling Technique .................................................................... 78
4.7 Selected Barangay Profiles ...................................................................................... 80
4.7.1 Santa Barbara .................................................................................................... 81
4.7.2 San Fernando ..................................................................................................... 82
4.7.3 Balayang ............................................................................................................ 84
4.7.4 San Jacinto......................................................................................................... 85
4.8 Sampling Procedures ............................................................................................... 86
4.9 Data Collection Tools /Techniques ......................................................................... 86
4.9.1 3 Factor Self-Administered Questionnaire (3-FSAQ) ...................................... 89
4.9.2 Document Review ............................................................................................. 89
4.10 Data Reliability and Validity ................................................................................. 89
4.10.1 Reliability ........................................................................................................ 90
4.10.2 Validity ............................................................................................................ 90
4.11 Data Collection ...................................................................................................... 91
4.12 Data Analysis ......................................................................................................... 92
4.12.1 Profiles ............................................................................................................ 93
4.12.2 Sustainability Perception Survey .................................................................... 93
4.12.3 Financial, Technical, Institutional (FTI) ......................................................... 95
xv
4.12.4 Social – Political (SP) ..................................................................................... 96
4.12.5 Environmental (E) ........................................................................................... 96
4.13 Sustainability Scoring (SS) .................................................................................... 99
4.14 Ethical Considerations ......................................................................................... 102
CHAPTER 5. FINDINGS ............................................................................................... 103
5.1 Sustainability Perception Score (SS) - By Barangay............................................. 103
5.1.1 San Jacinto SS ................................................................................................. 104
5.1.2 San Fernando SS ............................................................................................. 107
5.1.3 Santa Barbara SS ............................................................................................. 110
5.1.4 Balayang SS .................................................................................................... 113
5.1.5 Level I/II Service SS ....................................................................................... 116
5.1.6 Level III Service SS ........................................................................................ 119
5.2 Profile Associations with Sustainability Perception .............................................. 122
5.2.1 Correlations in Barangay San Jacinto ............................................................. 122
5.2.2 Correlations in Barangay San Fernando ......................................................... 128
5.2.3 Correlations in Barangay Santa Barbara ......................................................... 135
5.2.4 Correlations in Barangay Balayang................................................................. 141
5.3 Sustainability Perception Score and Correlation Analysis .................................... 147
5.3.1 Barangay San Jacinto ...................................................................................... 147
5.3.2 Barangay San Fernando .................................................................................. 152
5.3.3 Barangay Santa Barbara .................................................................................. 157
5.3.4 Barangay Balayang ......................................................................................... 159
5.3.5 Level I/II Water Service Barangays ................................................................ 161
5.4 Implications of The Sustainability Perception Score (SS) And Correlations ........ 170
6.0. CONCLUSIONS, FURTHER STUDY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................ 176
6.1 Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 176
6.2 Further Studies ....................................................................................................... 183
6.3 Recommendations ................................................................................................. 186
Bibliography ................................................................................................................... 189
Appendix 1. 3-FSAQ ...................................................................................................... 202
Appendix 2. Location Maps ............................................................................................ 208
Appendix 3. Frequency Tables - Respondent Profile by Barangay ................................ 210
xvi
Appendix 4. Frequency Table - Response by Barangay ................................................. 212
Appendix 5. Codebook ................................................................................................... 216
Appendix 6. Respondent Profiles Percentages - All Barangays ..................................... 218
Appendix 7. Respondent Profile Chart – Summary........................................................ 220
Appendix 8. Respondent Profiles Summary by Service Level ....................................... 225
Appendix 9. Perception Data – FTI by Barangay ........................................................... 227
Appendix 10. Perception Data – SP by Barangay .......................................................... 232
Appendix 11 Perception Data – E by Barangay ............................................................. 237
Appendix 12. Level I/II Statistics Information Summary .............................................. 240
Appendix 13. Level III Statistics Information Summary................................................ 241
Appendix 14. Tarlac Field Notes .................................................................................... 242
xvii
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
Rural households have little financial ability to pay for improved water access
services (Hodgkin, 1994), whereas municipal governments are hard-pressed for access to
technical know-how and financial assistance to build water infrastructure to deliver
reliable household water access services (World Bank, 2015; Asian Development Bank,
2013).
Globally, at least half of the population (around 4 billion) live under highly water
stressed conditions, where the demand is greater than the water resource available, for at
least a month every year with 25%, or around 2 billion, having inadequate access to safe
drinking water.
In the Philippines, despite being blessed with bumper water resources, the country
still faces water stress where safe water availability was at 1,300 m3 per capita which is
well below the 1,700 m3 limit for water stress. While 96.3% of families in the country
had access to safe drinking water from improved sources, 2.3%, or 646,608 families, still
remain using water from unreliable and unprotected sources.
This chapter introduces the landscape and the backdrop and issues that this study
looks into. It provides a bird’s eye view of the landscape by which the research proceeds
and can be seen in three (3) conceptual parts.
The first part (Section 1.1) presents the background of the problems and
challenges confronting household water access sustainability in rural Philippine
communities. This section further outlines the state of rural water access in the
Philippines and provides a brief overview of the country’s water-access institutions.
1
The second part (sections 1.2 to 1.6) discusses the observed gaps in current
academic research and provides an introduction of the problem and purpose statements
that guide the study. This section also presents the research questions and objectives of
this study.
The third part (sections 1.7 to 1.9) explains the significance of this research, the
conceptual framework used, and the scope and limitations of the study. Finally, section
1.10 gives a summary of the chapter.
1.1 Background
Consumption practices of rural water for household (domestic) use, such as for
personal hygiene, sanitation, backyard gardening, washing, etc., are performed bereft of
any thought that such water access may be abruptly cut off or one day become arduous to
obtain. Although the domestic demand for water in the Philippines ranks after agriculture
and industrial usage (Asian Development Bank, 2013), there is an immediate and adverse
impact on the general population when rural water access is curtailed. It is therefore
important to ensure that the present rural household water-access service remains
sustainable.
Water quality, determined by smell, taste, and clarity (Philippines Statistics
Authority [PSA], 2015), is a major issue in both urban and rural settings. For drinking or
cooking purposes, 44% of rural households use retail water, which is filtered bottled
water that is sold commercially (PSA & Inner City Fund, Limited [ICF], 2018). While
the water supplied by rural water districts is mandated to be monitored daily for quality,
only 12 % of rural households with level I or II water access services would use it for
2
drinking or cooking purposes (PSA & ICF, 2018). Even in areas where the rural water
districts can provide Level III water access services, only 24% of connected households
use it for drinking or cooking (PSA & ICF, 2018).
The national government is aware of the challenges inherent in providing
improved household water access service to rural households, where most water
infrastructure projects undertaken by the government during the 70’s with assistance
from foreign loans were targeted for rural areas throughout the Philippines.
Unfortunately, an audit by these Lending Institutions after 10 years, report that at least
90% of these projects were found either inoperable or non-existent (World Bank, 1995).
Since our country has an abundance of water sources, rural water supply was not
considered much of a serious concern in the Philippines. The challenge in distribution
and rural water access services became the focus. In the late 1970s, the Philippine
government, together with the United States Agency for International Development
(USAID), launched the Barangay Rural Water Supply Program in order to improve rural
water access services. The program also established the Rural Waterworks and Sanitation
Associations (RWSA) that served as the policy making body that determines local water
rates and fees as well as look after client payments and collectables of the association.
But since this scheme required rural households to be part of the association to avail
themselves of the affordable water services, it also carried with it a minimal one-time
membership fee which did not sit well with the rural neighborhood (Bohm, Essenburg, &
Fox, 1993); (Aguaconsult, UK, 2016). It was observed that the program, without the
needed community support for it, eventually failed soon after completion, (World Bank,
1995). While there is no doubt that having such community organizations in place greatly
3
increases the chances of rural water access service sustainability, it does not guarantee it
(Awortwi, & (Netherlands), & I., 1999); (Kendall, 1976); (McCommon, Warner, &
Yohalem, 1990). The question now is how to get the needed community support for rural
water access service projects and make it sustainable.
Perception has been found to directly affect and shape individual opinion and can
pave the way to obtain community support for its sustainability (Force, 2015).
Using the rural household’s perception of the sustainability of their household
water access service in their locality, together with the three-level classification of water
access services in the Philippines, this study argues for the use of perception to provide a
snapshot of the sustainability of a barangay’s rural water access service, providing local
government authorities with the idea of the state of their rural community’s water access
services’ level of sustainability.
With Philippine rural municipalities already challenged for financial and technical
assistance to develop and improve their household water access, the lack of local
technical talent within their communities due to in-migration toward the cities and
commercial business districts where more employment and diverse livelihood
opportunities abound. This rapid urbanization exacerbates societal problems of
discrimination and wealth inequalities, further perplexing rural communities for
infrastructure and financial and technical assistance that will improve their water access
(UN, 2015; PwC, 2012). Although the challenges faced by rural communities in having
improved and sustainable household water access may be seen as either financial or
institutional by nature, these challenges are easily politicized and appear to have nurtured
an attitude of indifference among rural communities when it comes to satisfying their
4
individual household water needs, giving rise to unhealthy and wasteful water practices,
leading to unsustainable water consumption and supply (World Bank, 2015).
Maintaining a dependable water supply often requires technical knowledge of the
locality’s natural hydrological cycle, local weather conditions, ground and surface water
recharging rates, water pollution risks, water quality, storage, and distribution system, to
name a few. As a result, any development in rural water access services requires a large
capital outlay as well as operational and technical support, and other resources are not
readily available or easily accessible to rural communities. In fact, a recent study revealed
that 84% of the people who did not have access to water came from rural and agricultural
areas (WHO-UNICEF, 2017).
Although access to financial and technical resources plays a major role in the
development and improvement of an area’s water access service, water projects and
programs need to be more people-centered to provide the necessary care and maintenance
to ensure proper and continuous functioning (Hiwasaki, Luna, Syamsidik, & Shaw,
2014). Without the community’s participation, the sustainability of such a project or
undertaking would become highly dubious. Interestingly, such community interaction
also promotes “social capital” development (Diola, 2009), which can be used as a form of
currency among neighboring communities as they partner with each other in response to
the exigencies of global warming and climate change.
Further, efficient local rural water consumption practices that maximize water
usage while minimizing water loss are definite avenues that can easily be pursued locally,
implemented, and enforced by rural communities. Additionally, promoting awareness
through information dissemination in water conservation and environmental protection in
5
rural communities can be accomplished through continued community interaction, which
is affordable and simple to implement locally. Such initiatives also help negate existing
wasteful water behaviors within the community, making household water access more
customer-centered, especially in rural communities where household water access
delivery services remain a challenge.
Such customer-centeredness is therefore an economical and logical approach to
follow when developing community capabilities that will serve as a foundation for
institutionalizing good conservation practices by the community and promoting
sustainable household water access (Columbia Water Center, 2012 and Masduqi,
Soedjono, Endah, & Hadi, 2009).
1.1.1 Water Access Service in the Philippines
In the Philippines, the local government units (LGU), especially barangays, have
a constitutional and legal mandate to ensure the provision of basic public services such as
household water access.
Household water access service in the Philippines is classified into three (3)
levels, namely Levels I, II, and III. Level I come directly from a point source with no
distribution system and with questionable water quality. Level II utilizes a communal
pump that is shared among adjacent households, with some water quality monitoring.
Level III is a paid service that entails a piped network distribution system with a water
collection and treatment facility to ensure the quality of water delivered to the household.
Owing to the country’s inequitable distribution of wealth, Level III services are enjoyed
mostly in urban and commercial business districts, where private water access service
6
providers can apply economies of scale to recover their large investments made to build
the required water access and delivery infrastructure. In the countryside, rural household
water access services are mostly Level I, Level II, or both. The paper groups levels I and
II together as level I/II, focusing on assessing the water access service itself. Thus, it
involves rural water access levels I/II and III.
The barangay was designed to be both a basic political and administrative unit at
the community level (Republic Act No. 7160, 1991 and Philippine Constitution, 1987).
As a political unit, it serves as the collective voice of the citizenry in the national
government. It promotes the programs of the national government and serves as the basic
electoral precinct in national and local elections. As an administrative unit, it serves as a
final delivery mechanism for public goods and services. It is responsible for the equitable
distribution of such goods and services to the general public. Since the inception of the
barangay during the Marcos Administration, although it has an important role in affecting
the health and well-being of the country’s grassroots citizenry, it has been largely ignored
as an administrative unit and treated more by the national government as political rent-
seekers whose loyalties determine the quality and quantity of public goods and services
they receive (Dohner & Intal, 1989).
This situation has never been corrected by any of the following administrations
since the Martial Law era. This creates a problem when a public health emergency such
as the global COVID-19 pandemic is currently experiencing. Vital health and economic
assistance were poorly distributed, with rent-seekers treating such goods and services as
political favors and selectively distributed, causing delays, loss of confidence, and
exposing the public to health risks.
7
Water plays an important role in household water-access services. There is a
marked silence in the sustainability of household water access services. Although
household water access services have been outsourced to private water service providers
in metropolitan areas and commercial business districts, owing to economies of scale, this
practice is slowly being embraced in the countryside as well. This poses a problem when
the concessioner serves only its own business interests. Although such practices are
slowly becoming common in rural areas, the responsibility to ensure household water
access services reamins with the LGU, especially barangays, as the final delivery arm of
the national government.
1.1.2 Institutional State of Water Access in the Philippines
There are four (4) government levels in the Philippines: national, provincial,
municipal, and barangay (community). Being unitary in its form, political power and
authority flows from top to bottom; from the national level down to the barangay units
within a municipality. Traditionally, since its creation by the Presidential Decree in the
late 70s, the barangay has been treated as a grunt that serves its mayor’s interest. Most
times, these barangays rely on rent-seeking and patronage to finance their progress and
development (Rola, Lizada, Pulhin, Dayo, & Tabios III, 2015).
The state of Philippine water institutions has been described as both multi-layered
and fragmented (Hall, Abansi, & Lizada, 2018). With a unitary form of government, the
responsibility for the planning and monitoring of water resources becomes duplicitous, as
different administrative levels pursue varying agendas. While the various policies appear
sound and coordinated on paper, the problem lies in the implementation and enforcement,
when each agency start pushing for their own special interests, and often resolved by
8
politics (Hall et al., 2015; Hall, Abansi, & Lizada, 2018; Horbulyk & Price, 2018; Israel,
2009).
Table 1 provides a bird’s eye view of the 14 areas of responsibilities and interests
in the Philippine water sector among the 17 agencies that involved in water management
(Hall, Abansi, & Lizada, 2018 and Rola, Lizada, Pulhin, Dayo, & Tabios III, 2015).
Table 1. Function Overlaps in Philippine Water Institutions

Function
Scientific modeling
Organization development
Operation of water
Public relations, capacity

Infrastructure and
Information, Education,
Data monitoring
Policy planning
and Communication
Local Rural Based

development
development and
Regulatory
Financing
functions
facilities
program
Agency
NWRB ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
LWUA ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
DENR ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
LGU ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
DPWH ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
DOH ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
NIA ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
NAPOCOR ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
PAGASA ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
DOF ✓ ✓ ✓
MWSS ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
DILG ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
DOE ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
MMDA ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
DOT ✓ ✓
LLDA ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
NEDA ✓ ✓
Source: Adopted from Rola, Pulhin, & Hall, 2018.
From tables 2 and 3, rural water access service in Victoria exhibits dependence on
the water supply involved. As a result, unlike in urban and commercial business districts,
the three water access service levels overlap according to the water supply. Thus, in
Victoria, rural water access service may be seen as a hybrid type LI/II that the local
9
Victoria
Cooking in
Water for
Access To
15,192 Number of Households

Number of Households
15,192
1,912 Own use faucet community water
system Own use faucet community
825 water system
446 Shared faucet community water
system
Shared faucet community water
5,296 system
Own use tubed/piped deep well
432
agricultural community can afford.
7,275 Shared tubed/piped deep well
Source: PSA, 2015 Population Census

3,533 Own use tubed/piped deep well
Source: PSA, 2015 Population Census
Table 3. Access to Water for Cooking

110 Tubed/piped shallow well Shared tubed/piped deep well
8,272
Tubed/piped shallow well
Table 2. Access To Drinking Water In Victoria
1 Dug well 44
2 Protected spring
Dug well
-
4 Protected spring
2 Unprotected spring
Unprotected spring
1
Source of Water Supply for Cooking

- Lake river rain and others
Water Supply Access for Drinking in Victoria, Tarlac
Lake, river, rain and others

2
2 Peddler 16 Peddler
146 Bottled water
2,062 Bottled water
1 1 Others
Others
-
1 Not Reported Not Reported
10
1.2 Knowledge Gap
Over the years, mankind has developed ways to manage nature and control the
environment (Folke et al., 2010), which has given rise to wasteful behavior and
destructive consumption patterns. There is now an urgent need to change our ways to
stem the adverse impact on our environment (Harrison, 2016). However, because water is
essential to life and quality of life, addressing the problem of household access to water is
imperative, especially for affected rural communities (Abulencia et al., 2010).
With rural communities hurting capital and technical support to develop and
improve their household water access, it is of great importance to ensure that the current
level of water access services currently in place should at least be sustainable for the
community. To do so, the rural community, as water rights holders, should be
empowered to engage and participate in the processes of policy and decision-making.
This requires a people-centered policy approach to governance and continuous
development in capacity building that improves the rural community’s capability to
engage in and take ownership of their water governance.
Assessments of water governance regimes have focused mainly on the
governance aspect, as well as its resilience to local hazards that may possibly lead to
disasters. Existing studies are lacking in terms of achieving a sustainable state for rural
household water-access services (Gosling & Edwards, 1995). In addition, the use of
community perception as an important precursor for sustainability in the context of good
water governance in quantitative research is limited. This study explored such use for
barangays to consider when planning rural household water-access services (Wiek &
Larson, 2012).
11
The Philippine Journal of Science, in the article Challenges of Water Governance
in the Philippines (Rola et al., 2015), has determined that the country’s water institutions
do not have adequate human and financial resources at the local level to effectively carry
out their mandate to provide improved household water access and sanitation services
(level III). Further studies have shown that water programs and projects with community
support have higher success rates (Botes, 2013; Davies & Lemma, 2009; Kumar, 2002;
Peltz, 2008). While the water development literature (Kegan, 1994; Torbert, Cook-
Greuter et al., 2004) has provided a better understanding of how good water governance
principles, if well planned, can help promote rural water access sustainability, the
existing data collection mechanism remains lagging. Only recently have researchers
begun using the power of smartphones and laptop computers to obtain real-time data
from the field. Such everyday technologies can help barangay leadership govern and
manage local water resources for household rural water access service sustainability
(Cox, 2005; Van Velsor, 2009). In fact, while there is a clear and constant call for strong
and effective interaction between an LGU and its constituents to better oversee and
achieve sustainable rural household water access initiatives (Kakabadse & Kakabadse,
2007; Senge et al., 2008), few studies have operationally defined or explained the
mechanics of community perception (Brown, 2011).
In addition, there are observable water policy overlaps that must be addressed to
lessen the constraints brought about by the lack of capacity at the barangay LGU level as
well as the restricted access to financing for infrastructure projects that will improve the
delivery of local household water and sanitation services (Pascual, Abadilla, & Acedebo,
2007).
12
Moreover, development at all levels of human capital, together with national and
international engagements in climate change policy, would clearly add much benefit to
rural LGUs (Fleurbaey et al., 2014).
Finally, there is a void in existing knowledge about how communities, as rights-
holders, perceive the sustainability of their own household water access service, and how
such knowledge can inform local policies and programs that strengthen the sustainability
of a rural household water access service.
1.3 Problem Statement
The slow pace of development to improve household access to water in Philippine
rural communities, together with the high operational costs that accompany it, have
prevented local water districts from expanding water services to the general population.
Water access services play an important role in maintaining public health and
safety. To improve water access services and provide a measure of its services, the
National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) has defined the current water
access service delivery system levels in the country. Table 4 details the three (3) levels of
water access services delivery systems in the Philippines. As the level of water access
increases, the service becomes more convenient and safer. On the other hand, so do the
capital resources needed to operate and maintain it. As a result, rural water access
services outside metropolitan Manila, as well as other centers of commerce and trade in
the country, can be expected to be Level 1, II, or both.
In this study, level I and level II communities were grouped together to form rural
water access service level I/II. This grouping is substantiated by RA 7160 (or the local
13
government code), specifically Book III, Title 1, Section 386, which requires a barangay
to have at least 2,000 individuals. In addition, based on the 2020 population census,
approximately 4.1 individuals make up a rural household. This equates to approximately
488 rural households that needed to become a barangay. With level I water access service
able to serve only 15 households (Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA), 2017), there
were very few municipalities with level 1 rural water access for research that necessitated
such grouping. Water governance in the Philippines is discussed separately in section 3.
An LGU refers to the provincial, municipal and barangay levels of government
(RA 7160, 1991). Given that the barangay, as the basic unit and final distribution
mechanism of the local government to its constituents, is responsible for the delivery of
basic public goods and services, there is a noticeable gap between their responsibilities as
public servants and their capability to help sustain their rural water access service. This
gap makes matters worse as it casts doubt on the LGUs capability and paves the way for
the community’s negative perception when it comes to rural water access service
delivery. It is this negative perception that sparks the community’s skeptical attitude
toward its barangay (SEPO, 2023).
Thus, the problem of this research can be stated as follows.
Can a community’s perception of their rural household water access service level
be used to provide, through an assessment mechanism, a snapshot of the sustainability
level of such water access service.
14
TABLE 4. WATER ACCESS S ERVICE LEVELS IN THE P HILIPPINES
Maintenance and
Water Access
Description knowledge of the
Service Level Price1
Technology2
• a protected well or a developed spring with an
outlet but without a distribution system
• generally adaptable for thinly scattered
Level I communities. Free Low
• water user is not more than 250 meters from
water source.
• Serves, on average, 15 households
• a water supply facility composed of a source, a
reservoir, a distribution network with adequate
treatment facility and communal faucets that each
serve 4 to 6 households.
Level II • generally suitable for rural areas where most Minimal Medium
houses are clustered to justify a simple piped
system.
• The farthest household user is not more than 25
meters from the communal faucet system.
• A water supply facility with a source, a reservoir,
Metered
a piped distribution network, an adequate
Water
Level III treatment facility and individual household taps High
rates plus
• generally suited for densely populated urban
fees
areas
Source: PSA, 2017; NEDA, 1994
Studies by the World Bank in 2010 favor level III water access, as this provides the
most convenient and effective way to deliver water and sanitation to most households.
While level I and II water access services are provided at minimal cost to the rural
community, they tend to encourage irresponsible water consumption and poor waste
management practices that result in over-extraction and possible contamination of local
water supplies. Such practices are untenable and will undoubtedly affect public health
1
Represents the cost to the rural household. Minimal ranges from ₱ 0 to ₱ 50 per
HH/month and High refers to costs > ₱ 50 per HH/month.
2
Represents the amount of information available to the household regarding the
technology used, both expressed or implied through the survey.
15
and safety as well as result in water shortages and possible conflicts among water users
(Sarker, Baldwin, & Ross, 2009).
In rural areas, where local water districts are unable to provide universal water
access coverage to their communities, the sustainability of rural household water access
has come to the fore.
1.4 Purpose Statement
The purpose of this research study is to understand and be acquainted with how a
community’s perception of their rural household water access service level can be used to
provide, through an assessment mechanism, a snapshot of the sustainability level of such
water access service.
1.5 Research Questions
Outside of Metro Manila are substantial scatterings of rural communities with
varying water access service levels. In choosing the study area, the location should be
mostly level land and landlocked. Of the country’s 81 provinces, 15 are landlocked. Of
the 15landlocked provinces, 12 are in Luzon (PhilAtlas, 2019). Of these, only the
province of Tarlac has mostly plains.
In arriving at the target population sample size, the study identified the water
access service level of each barangay from information provided by the municipality.
Applying the stratified sampling technique, the study selected the top two (2) barangays
with the highest number of households per water access service level. This will provide
the study with four (4) sample barangays.
16
After the sample barangays have been selected, the following research questions
are presented:
1. How do households from select barangays in a municipality in Tarlac perceive the
sustainability of their water-access services? Specifically, what is the
community’s self-assessment of the sustainability of water services in terms of the
following dimensions: financial, technical, institutional, socio-political, and
environmental?
2. Are there any patterns in how households assess the sustainability of the water
access service? Do socio-demographic characteristics such as length of residence
in the community, livelihood sources, and household size play a role? Do water-
use practices—primary household water access, length of use of primary
household water sources, primary water access suitable for cooking and drinking,
availability of alternative household water access, alternative water access
suitable for cooking and drinking, household water consumption for hygiene and
sanitation, and household water consumption for daily use—influence
households’ assessment of sustainability?
3. Is there any relationship between a household’s water access service level and
perceived sustainability? Is higher rural water access service level less sustainable
in the eyes of the community?
4. Policy recommendations can be made to strengthen the sustainability of
household water-access services at the municipal level.
17
1.6 Objectives of The Study
The following are the objectives of the study:
1. Determine the sustainability of water access services from the perspective of
households in select barangays in a municipality in Tarlac
2. Analyze the relationship between sustainability components FTI, SP, and E, and
certain community characteristics, as follows:
a. Length of residence in the community,
b. Livelihood sources,
c. Household size,
d. Primary household water access,
e. Length of use of the primary household water access,
f. Primary water access suitable for cooking and drinking
g. Availability of alternative household water access,
h. Alternative household water access suitable for cooking and drinking,
i. Household water consumption for hygiene and sanitation, and
j. Household water consumption for daily use
3. Determine the relationship, if any, between a household’s water access service
level and its perceived sustainability by community households
4. Identifying policy recommendations to strengthen the sustainability of household
water access services at the barangay and municipal levels.
18
1.7 Significance
This study contributes to the practice of public administration by laying down and
introducing groundwork on the use of local household perception as an important
precursor of sustainability.
Along with promoting efficient household water use, a component of the seven
priority areas identified in the Philippine Development Plan 2017–2022, the National
Budget Memorandum of March 23, 2017 (Horbulyk & Price, 2018), and UN-SDG
Number 6, which aims to provide universal access to sustainable water and sanitation for
all by the year 2030 (UN, 2015), the study also recognizes the important role played by
women and children in the context of achieving sustainable rural household water access
services, during its initial visit to the municipality, where most interviewees were female,
as well as during the conduct of the survey where more females than males participated.
However, due to time and financial limitations, the study focused on the household
survey participant regardless of sex.
Finally, the study’s timeliness in a state of current public health emergency and
frequent household water shortages in both rural and urban settings make it a wake-up
call to rural LGUs to include community perception as they address the sustainability of
rural household water access services in their jurisdictions.
1.8 Conceptual Framework
19
Assessments and evaluations of water access services often require both technical
know-how and specialized training, not readily available to rural LGUs, specifically at
the municipality and barangay level, to use. (Aguaconsult, UK, 2016); (Abulencia, et al.,
2010); (Adam, 2017); (Gosling & Edwards, 1995). As a result, these rural LGUs become
dependent on foreign aided water projects with assistance from the national government.
In this study, sustainability is not a goal to be achieved but a state to be
maintained. While sustainability takes on a different meaning across various contexts
upon which it is applied, the main characteristic of a sustainable state in this study is the
support accorded to it by the community it serves. By identifying common content
indicators derived from studies on the theories of water governance and sustainability, the
study came up with three (3) water sustainability components: Financial, Technical, and
Institutional (FTI), socio-political (SP), and environment (E).
Briefly, these components are:
• Financial, Technical, and Institutional (FTI): In this component, the reliability
of the technology and equipment used to provide rural water access service to
the community comes to the fore. Applied technology, as it relates to the
economic and institutional aspects involved in providing such rural water
access services, should be appropriate, feasible, and acceptable to the locality.
The indicators represented by each statement for evaluation included ease of
use, water security, water quality, water safety, reliability, affordability, LGU
responsiveness, WSP responsiveness, and sufficiency (Beder, 2006); (Berkes
& Folke, 1994); (Buclet & Lazarevic, 2015).
20
• Socio-Political (SP): This component is where the domestic water needs of the
rural barangay households and the ability of the municipality to provide them
with such services meet. When basic needs, such as rural household water
access services, are addressed by the community leadership, their community
expectations are generally met, and the barangay community works and
cooperates well with its municipality to ensure a sustainable state is reached
and maintained for the existing rural household water access service. The
indicators represented by each statement for evaluation included transparency,
accessibility, equitability, proper technology, maintenance, monitoring,
community cohesiveness, cost equality, and service equality (Beder, 2006);
(Bhandari & Grant, 2007).
• Environment (E): This component focuses on the general maintenance and
cleanliness of the community’s surroundings, especially in common areas
where rural household water can be accessed. There is evidence that general
community awareness of the need to protect and conserve water resources and
the environment translates to positive behavior toward its protection and
conservation. The indicators represented by each statement for evaluation
included water conservation (personal), water conservation (garden), water
conservation(laundry), environmental protection, risk reduction (solid waste),
and risk reduction (biodegradables) (Harris, 2000).
Figure 1 illustrates the conceptual framework showing the relationships between
sustainability determinants that are relevant and appropriate to the sustainability of rural
household water access services and served as a guide during the design and development
21
of the study’s self-administered questionnaire (3-FSAQ). By focusing on the variables
within the highlighted area, statements were formed to determine the presence of
sustainability indicators as well as their degree or magnitude. It is in the evaluation of
such data, collected directly from rural households, that the desired sustainability picture
of the existing rural water access service can be seen through the community’s
perception.
FIGURE 1. C ONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Note: Adopted from Macharia, Mbassana, & Oduor, 2015.
This theoretical framework was guided by content and thematic commonalities
from good water governance and sustainability, in the context of a rural household’s
water access services, as shown in Figure 2. In this framework, the rural community’s
22
sustainability perception of their household water access service is connected to water
governance to indicate how governance affects rural household water access service
(Dijksterhuis & van Knippenberg, 1998). The six (6) sides of hexagon represent the six
elements of good water governance. The connection between good water governance and
sustainability represents how governance affects the long-term sustainability of the water
access service.
Figure 2. Theoretical Framework
Source: Adopted from OECD, 2015; Tropp, 2007 and OECD, 2022
Studies have propounded that an individual’s perception plays a major part that
can support sustainable development (Lee T.H., 2013 and Lee & Jan, 2019). In fact, there
exist research on sustainability perceptions that conclude that an individual’s experience
23
on local issues can be the key for successful replications of community good practices
when they take ownership and take part in the operation and management of its local
rural water access service project given by its rural LGU (Bell, Green, Fisher, & Baum,
2001; UNMDG, 2013).
Using the rural household’s perception of the sustainability of their household
water access service in their locality, together with the three-level classification of water
access services in the Philippines, this study argues for the use of perception to provide a
snapshot of the sustainability of a barangay’s rural water access service, providing local
authorities with the idea of the state of their rural community’s water access services’
level of sustainability (Dijksterhuis & van Knippenberg, 1998).
1.9 Scope, Assumptions, and Limitations
This study regards water as both a human right and public good. Therefore, the
burden of responsibility for providing household water access services falls on the
shoulders of the LGU.
The scope of the study covers Philippine rural communities (barangays) whose
households have mostly level I and II water access services and come from a
municipality with a water district that can provide level III water access service, but with
more than half of its constituent barangays not connected. These areas are predominantly
supplied through groundwater sources, and those supplied though other means may not
yield the same result.
This self-sponsored study faced financial challenges due to its budget-limited
research time and location. Costs were kept to a minimum by holding special and
24
informal consultations with friends who are experienced market researchers to help guide
the study with an affordable and acceptable research and data collection methodology.
As in most descriptive research, the findings of this study cannot establish causal
relationships between variables. In addition, while precautions and consultations were
performed to ensure data integrity from research bias, Likert scales are prone to
distortions, and the 3-FSAQ should improve with timely usage.
1.9.1 Assumptions of the Study
The supply and demand of water for domestic use, in this paper, is considered a
given and the focus of this sustainability perception study is the existing rural water
access service itself. In this study, the water access service levels were further grouped
into levels I/II and III. With the information provided by the municipality, all barangays
were classified as either Level I/II or Level III. This information forms part of the profile
information.
The independent variable here is Profile Information, and the dependent variable
is the perception of sustainability of the factors FTI, SP, and E.
The study assumed that survey respondents are able to read and write in either
English or Filipino, and will answer the survey questions truthfully and accurately, based
on their experience.
In addition, the study assumed and practiced political neutrality when interacting
with the rural community during data collection.
In determining the perceived sustainability score (SS) of the rural households’
water access service, the assumption here is that the higher the score, the higher (more
25
positive outlook) the rural household water access sustainability perception, which
implies that actual rural household water access service sustainability is achievable and
can be supported by the community.
Consequently, there is also the expectation that the higher the number of
households in a rural community, the more likely they will have level III water access
service. In addition, a barangay’s proximity to the municipal hall may be a factor such
that the closer the barangay, the more movement toward level III water access services
can be anticipated. This may be because of the economies of scale that municipal water
districts and rural water service providers would like to have to reduce costs associated
with an improved rural water access service.
1.9.2 Limitations of the Study
The scope of the study covers Philippine rural municipalities whose barangay
communities mostly have households with concurrent level I and II rural water access
services and whose municipality has a rural water district but is unable to provide
universal level III rural water access services to their constituencies.
As previously mentioned, this self-sponsored study is limited to a specified time
schedule and geographical location owing to logistics and budget constraints. To
maximize the use of available funding, informal consultations were held with
experienced researchers and statisticians to ensure that the study followed a sound
research methodology, and data collection processes were strictly adhered to.
26
This study may not be applicable to urban and highly commercialized business
districts because of the differences in population and household densities that bring other
factors into play, which may not be present in a rural setting.
Finally, the study focused on water’s domestic (household) use and was thus
considered by this researcher as being outside the scope of the research and may be a
subject fit for future research.
1.10 Summary
Again, we are reminded of the fact that humans are part of the natural
environment, and that although our country is blessed with an abundance of water, it is
important to observe frugality in its use and conservation of our water supply to ensure its
sustainability for future generations. Rural municipalities are prone to wasteful water
practices and poor waste management, a situation akin to the Tragedy of the Commons
(Hardin, 1968).
The problem of sustainable household water access in rural Philippine
communities is thus evident. Global institutions such as the International Monetary
Fund, the World Bank, ADB, UN, and non-governmental organizations have reported
that while there has been a marked increase in the number of households with improved
access to water and sanitation, there still remains a great number of households,
especially in rural and far-flung areas, that still have to regularly travel some distance to
meet daily household water needs. In addition, rural municipalities in the Philippines are
hard-pressed for infrastructure and technical assistance to improve water access services
27
in their areas. Meanwhile, most rural communities are clueless regarding the
sustainability of their current water access services.
How can a rural municipality easily and affordably determine the sustainability of
its water access services to households and ensure its current and future viability?
Like the adage that there is no garden without a gardener, the study argues that
the rural community should learn and be able to take ownership of their household water
access service. This can be accomplished using community perceptions of the
sustainability of the household rural water access service. However, the relationship
between them remains unclear (Lee T. H., 2013).
28
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Household water access service delivery is considered one of basic public
services our government is expected to provide (RA 7160, 1991). It is also a devolved
function that has been passed to the of local government units (LGUs) and is critical to
the pursuit of public health and safety, poverty alleviation, and the improvement of both
general and individual wellbeing.
This paper considers household water access both as a public good as well as a
human right that should be universally and equitably provided to everyone, regardless of
social or economic status (de Oliveira, 2017). Yet, this is easier said than done and
remains a governance challenge to any administration.
According to reports from the World Bank (WB) and the Asian Development
Bank (ADB), household water access services is even worse in the countryside where
rural households have little financial ability to pay for improved water access services
(Hodgkin, 1994), while municipal and provincial governments are hard-pressed for
access to technical know-how and financial assistance to build water infrastructures to
deliver reliable household water access service (Asian Development Bank, 2015; World
Bank, 2015). The water goals of the Philippines have been revised time and again, but
can always be classified into two groups, namely, the Domestic Water Goals and our
International Commitments as a member of the United Nations.
Current domestic water goals are expressed in the Philippine Water Supply and
Sanitation Master Plan (PWSSMP) 2019-2030 (NEDA, 2019) and are meant to create an
enabling environment as well as boost infrastructure development in the water sector.
29
These are:
• Set-up of effective WSS sector institutions.
• Bolster the regulatory landscape.
• Establish and validate effective WSS services.
• Standardize water supply and demand.
• Mainstream climate resiliency.
• Provide access to funding and financing.
• Management of data and information; and
• Steer appropriate research and development
With the promise of vigorous financial support to back-up targeted interventions
in the water sector, more rural households will have access to clean and safe water with
improved sanitation.
Internationally, the Philippines have committed to the UN sustainable
development water goals, especially goal number 6, ensuring the availability, provision,
and sustainable management of domestic water and sanitation for all, by the year 2030.
While the legal and institutional bases for the management of our water resources
involves multi-agency participation and appears fractured due to numerous overlaps in
authority (Rola et al., 2015), the challenge lies in the implementation and proper
enforcement of the various water laws and regulations. Despite this, the water quality in
Metro Manila is identified as one of the best for drinking in Asia (NEDA, 2021), and can
be attributed to the proper operation and application of both RA 9275 (Philippine Clean
Water Act) and Departments of Health (DOH) Administration Order (AO) No. 2017-
0010 (Philippine National Standards for Drinking Water) where strict water testing for
30
quality control is performed at least three times a day, especially in Metro Manila (Smith,
2010).
This literature review perused good governance theory, perception, and
sustainability, as it pertains to rural household water access for domestic use. While
studies that have shown that, while a relationship can be established between
sustainability perceptions and the needed community support to make it sustainable, the
nature of such relationship remain uncertain (Lin, Lee, & Wang, 2021). There are very
few studies that delve into sustainability using community perceptions derived at the
household level (Lee T. H., 2013 and Lin, Lee, & Wang, 2021) to the extent that it can be
used to provide the LGU with an idea of the level of perceived sustainability by rural
household water access services which reveals how much community support can be
expected to make rural water access more sustainable in the locality.
Pressing as it is more studies on how communities as water rights-holders
perceive the sustainability of their own household water access service and how such can
inform local policies and programs to promote and improve sustainable rural household
water access delivery are needed (Stojanovic, Ateljevic, & Stevic, 2016). In this chapter,
the study scanned studies having to do with the principles of perception, good water
governance and sustainability as it relates to achieving sustainable rural water access
services relevant to the rural conditions in the country and creating a framework for rural
household water access service sustainability that can be used as a sound basis to perform
a quick dipstick assessment to determine the level of their rural households’ water access
sustainability.
31
This review of related literature is presented in four (4) sections. The first section
discusses the literature on good governance theory as it relates to water access
sustainability, especially in the context of service provision. The second part reviews
perception theories as it applies to sustainable water access and its management. This is
followed by sustainability theory concepts and proven indicators related to assessing
sustainable water and water access. To avoid having to re-invent the wheel at the same
time maximize the scarce funding of this research, the study was guided by the OECD
(Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) and the BIOA (British and
Irish Ombudsman Association, 2009) water governance assessment indicators discovered
through their comprehensive research and review of global water governance factors and
indicators. The work the OECD has done has been both tested and verified, with timely
updates provided where needed. The third section describes the current assessments that
relate to household water access sustainability. This is followed by the fourth section that
provides a summary and recapitulates all the previous sections. Additional facts and
information on rural household water access service are also further listed in table 5,
which provides facts to dispel certain myths people have on rural water access service.
2.1 Water Governance
Water governance is good governance as it applies to the management of our
country’s freshwater resources, especially household access to it. Literature presents
water as a complex system, involving various institutions that are more often than not
mired in the political dynamics of power and authority that limits and slows down the
32
process of true devolution and delegation of authority to Philippine LGUs as expressed in
the Philippine Local Code of 1991 (RA 7160, 1991).
Consistent through the years is the lukewarm attention accorded to the
community’s contribution, which is central to water governance (Malayang, 2004). Water
governance is said to be the spectrum of political, social, economic, and administrative
systems that are in place to develop and improve the delivery of water services to the
different levels of society (Global Water Partnership, 2002). The water governance
regime must be able to identify human factors that provide the support needed for the
sustainability of a transparent, accountable, and equitably allocated water for domestic
use (Tropp, 2007). Water governance is also about dealing with the local dynamics of
compunctions, conflicts and corruptive practices that may be present in local water
governance (Miranda, Hordijk, & Molina, 2011). Water is a major factor in the creation
of communities and is therefore imperative to link democratic processes with institutional
capacity-building for water intervention activities (Turton, et al., 2007).
In 2013, the United Nations Water Governance Facility (UN-WGF) described
water governance as a mechanism to address the challenges of equitable distribution and
efficiency in the development and use of water resources. Water access service calls for a
clear delineation of roles and accountabilities of government, civil society, and the private
sector in the ownership, management, and administration of water services (Araral &
Wang, 2013; UNDP, 2013). Water governance in the Philippines, having evolved into a
complex process involving many institutions at various levels and mandates, has become
problematic. (Pasimio, 2011).
33
In 2015, Hall, et al., observed that in the Philippines, water managers are not up to
date with policy shifts and have little understanding of formal and traditional water rights
in a locality when settling local conflicts using formal mechanisms. This results in
ineffective interventions that are useless when addressing local water conflicts (Hall et
al., 2015). Household water access service, as a policy area in the country, does not
address rural household water needs due to an institutional fragmentation, where many
agencies at different levels of government, makes regulatory decisions at the same time
making enforcement difficult (Malayang, 2004). In fact, a study found that most water
regulations were poorly planned and enforced by unrelated agencies and institutions
representing various sectors of Philippine society (Rola et al., 2015). Yet, even with well-
planned water service delivery regulations in place, institutional problems remain,
leaving households with extremely limited choice for their water source. (Israel, 2009).
The OECD in 2015 suggested that water governance systems should be designed
based on the challenges they are to address. To meet such challenges, water governance
should be guided by the locality’s economic situation as well as the purpose and need for
water governance (OECD, 2015).
Good governance starts from within the individual (Malayang, 2004 and Senge et
al., 2008). However, as a collective, good intentions do not always equate to community
benefit and that is why, all forms of community feedback should be encouraged and
considered as a societal compass to help guide and prevent undesirable deviations from
the collective benefit or goal (Araral & Wang, 2013; Macharia, Mbassana, & Oduor,
2015; Paul, 1987).
The decentralization and devolution of basic services brought about by the
34
Philippine local government code to its barangays (RA 7160, 1991), includes local water
governance together with the local enforcement of water laws and regulations, down to
the barangay level, highlights the need for capacity building among rural barangays
(Falkenmark et al., 2007). Capacity development among local government units in the
Philippines has been inequitable and insufficient due to income disparities between them
(Araral & Yu, 2009), with rural barangays often at a disadvantage when it comes to
access to external financial support and assistance. Relying on possibly outdated ways of
water management combined with the lack of relevant knowledge on effective water
governance, rural barangays, run the risk of being dependent on their municipality as to
be deprived of a sustainable household water access service (Daemane, 2015). Most
studies have focused and revolved around metropolitan and commercial business districts
instead of the countryside.
Water governance is recognized as a necessary pillar for sustainable development
(Dhaoui, 2019), and in response to the challenge of sustainable rural household water
access confronting a local rural water governance, studies have come up with both
traditional and innovative ways to improve its efficiency and effectiveness by developing
water governance indicators in order to identify and be able to measure both strengths
and weaknesses that exist in the local water governance (BIOA, 2009; DROP, 2013;
Graham, Amos, & Plumptre, 2003; OECD, 2015). These indicators were grouped
according to the dimensions which were identified through the accepted definition of
water governance. Today, water governance requires indicators to address institutional,
social justice and inclusiveness issues (Dhaoui, 2019).
35
This trend is noticeable when Hakan Tropp, in 2007, identified four (4)
dimensions, namely: the social (focused on the equitable access and use of water), the
political (whose emphasis is on the provision of equal water rights and opportunities), the
economic (which focuses on the efficient delivery and consumption of water) and the
environmental (which is concerned about the sustainable supply and demand of water
resources) dimensions. This model was adopted by the United Nations Development
Program (UNDP) and has been widely accepted as the basis of the water governance
model used for this study. Then in 2013, the INTERREG IVb DROP project in Europe
came up with its five (5) dimensions and four (4) quality criteria. These dimensions are
Levels & Scales, Actors & Networks, Perceptions & Goals, Tasks & Resources, and
Strategies & Instruments. The criteria used were extent, coherence, flexibility, and
intensity (DROP, 2013). In Addition, and more recently, the OECD came up with its own
version of a three (3) layered dimensional approach which they described as the content
layer, the institutional layer, and the relational layer (Havekes et al., 2016). Further, to
organize these indicators into an accessible database, the OECD, in 2015, published the
OECD inventory of water governance indicators and measurement frameworks (OECD,
2015). This provided a quick reference secondary source of information for the study.
The creation of indicators leads to the development of various water governance
assessment tools that are currently in use today. It is noticeable from the literature that
these assessment tools are based on certain focuses such as performance, function,
output, and productivity which are designed to address the specific conditions of a
specific group. And although these tools have been proven to provide the measurement
information needed by the country where such assessment was performed, a careful
36
perusal of the indicators used reveals knowledge gaps such as household water access
service sustainability, which is important to the target community.
Without having to re-invent the wheel, of particular interest and use for this study
is the inventory of water governance indicators and measurement frameworks compiled
by the OECD in 2015. The OECD’s inventory of indicators catalogs the various
assessment tools and arranges them according to what it measures and why it is being
measured, which further supports and verifies the UNDP approach to water governance
assessments (UNDP, 2013). Using thematic commonalities that can be observed among
accepted assessment indicators of good water governance (Araral & Yu, 2009 and
OECD, 2015), and sustainability (World Bank, 2017), combining the functions and
attributes to produce outcomes resulting in the proper management of water, that can be
sustained for household use. Figure 3 provides a picture of the water governance
framework.
Figure 3. A Water Governance Framework
Source: Jimenez et al., 2020
37
2.2 Perception
Studies have propounded that an individual’s perception plays a major part that
can support sustainable development (Lee T.H., 2013 and Lee & Jan, 2019). In fact, there
exist research on sustainability perceptions that conclude that an individual’s experience
on local issues can be the key for successful replications of community good practices
when they take ownership and take part in the operation and management of its local
rural water access service project given by its rural LGU (Bell, Green, Fisher, & Baum,
2001; UNMDG, 2013).
Perception and expectation are two very related concepts. The closer the
perception is to the individual’s expectation, the more positive the perception becomes
(Yttredal & Homlong, 2020). Interventions should therefore focus on how these two
concepts get reconciled producing eventual desirable behavior (Demuth, 2013;
Dijksterhuis & van Knippenberg, 1998).
Perception can therefore provide important insights and clues that in turn, help in
influencing future human actions and behavior, based on certain stimuli (Demuth, 2013;
Lin, Lee, & Wang, 2021).
The most appropriate method of measuring perception is to capture it through
self-reported mechanisms, such as Interviews, focus groups, and self-administered
surveys (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1988). Yet, while much has been said of
Perception, little can be found on assessments using rural household perception as an
input that will provide rural LGUs an idea of the sustainability of their rural community’s
38
household water access service, in the context of community support to the sustainability
of such service (Lin, Lee, & Wang, 2021).
Perception studies of this type have been done mostly for marketing purposes
with the use of the pioneering research on service quality framework of SERVQUAL
(Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1985) and rarely, if ever, used in conjunction with
water access service to enhance local rural water governance and sustainability (See
Figure 4).
Figure 4. Gap Identification Model
Source: Adopted from Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1988
39
2.2.1 Community Perception
Community perception can be described as the mathematical mean of the
aggregate perception of the individual households within a community and can be
expressed as:
Community Perception (CP) = Total (expressed) Perception Value / # of (expressed)
households
2.2.2 Drivers of Perception
There have been studies establishing perception as a channel that reveals an
individual’s evaluation of an environment or situation that is founded on personal
experience (Bell, Green, Fisher, & Baum, 2001; Mesch & Manor, 1998) and is an
important factor in support of sustainable development (Lee T. H., 2013); (Shynu,
Santhosh Kumar, & D., 2021). Community perception can therefore be regarded using
the household’s perception of their water access service sustainable rural water access
service in their locality, together with the three-level classification of water access service
in the Philippines, the study provides both insight and application of an assessment
mechanism that serves as quick dipstick test that gives the level of sustainability of a
household’s rural water access service in a rural barangay (Smets, 2015).
It is a known fact that our brain is where inputs from our sensory receptors are
continuously processed. How we see this information affects our personal impressions
and social interactions (Demuth, 2013). Perception is about how we are able to organize,
interpret, and experience this information. It involves the dual processes of bottom-up
40
and top-down processing, where the former are perceptions formed from sensory input
and the latter depends on what we know, experiences we’ve gone through, and our own
thoughts which may be culturally influenced (Roberts et al., 2022).
Because perception provides clues about an individuals’ point of view as well as
its future behavior and attitude toward certain things, it is significant to sustainability
since it can make or break the locality’s sustainable practices (Demuth, 2013).
Sustainable practices are those that benefits both natural and man-made environments,
and together with the people who live and work in the area. Households who fail to
understand the impacts of their actions on the environment at the same time have a low
perception for the need for sustainable practices will undoubtedly cause its failure
(Sanchez- Hernandez et al., 2021).
One thing in common on existing studies about sustainability perceptions is that it
has been shown to promote actions that confronts rural water access challenges. (Fan,
Tang, & Park, 2019). In addition, community perceptions of risks to household water
access encourages overall community awareness resulting in effective water policy
enforcement with a more proactive programs on sustainability related community
concerns. Moreover, local community capacities have a strong influence in risk reduction
(Fan, Tang, & Park, 2019).
The higher the perception, the most likely the community will get involved by
supporting in its sustainability (Demuth, 2013) . Community perception of the
sustainability of household water access is dependent on a number of factors which
includes social, political, economic, and environmental community practices (Messakh,
Fanggidae, & Moy, 2020). But it is when the community takes ownership of its
41
household water access systems that paves the way for the sustainability of their water
access service level (UNMDG, 2013).
While causality relationships between perception and sustainability remain
unclear, common factors have been observed to have an influence over an individual’s
sustainability perception of the of their rural water access service. Factors such as water
quality, service/technology reliability, accessibility, affordability, and water supply
conservation and protection should be considered to determine to what degree these can
influence perception. (de Oliveira, 2017); (Smets, 2015).
2.3 Sustainability
The concept of sustainability in the context of sustainable development of the water
sector gained impetus after the 1987 World Commission on Environment and
Development which came out with a report entitled Our common future. This report
defined sustainable development as being the kind of development that addresses current
needs without having a negative impact on the ability of future generations to address
their own needs (Brundtland, 1987). With this definition, the assessment of sustainability
entails determining whether the project will be sustained in the medium or even longer-
term after the project has been handed over to its intended beneficiaries (Macharia,
Mbassana, & Oduor, 2015). In the context of water governance, sustainability is said to
be a factor that integrates the social, political, environmental, and economic
responsibilities in the community (Berkes & Folke, 1994). In fact, because sustainability
has strong implications to day-to-day living, it has different meanings and perceptions to
different people, with each choosing to look at sustainability from different perspectives
42
with varied significance attached to the different aspects (Hodgkin, 1994). The triple
bottom line approach was a well-known principle of sustainability assessment, which
makes use of the environmental, economic and social aspects of sustainability (Farsari &
Prastacos, 2002; Ekins et al., 2003).
A good example to illustrate Sustainability is shown in Figure 5, there the three (3)
pillars are very similar to the study’s own approach using the sustainability components
FTI, SP, and E. These components were evaluated using the community’s perception of
the sustainability indicators of each component. The intersections are the areas where the
rural LGU should be steered toward to. It is in these areas where Perception can be
affected (Buclet & Lazarevic, 2015).
Figure 5. Sustainability Pillar
Note: Adopted from the University of Nottingham, 2015
43
Sustainability is better appreciated and understood when taken into a specific
context. Current literature describes various contexts by which sustainability is used but
with common content which has the capacity to influence sustainability (Macharia,
Mbassana, & Oduor, 2015). Table 5 summarizes some of the contexts by which
sustainability in water resources is used in the study. These provided the blueprint for the
creation of the 3-FSAQ questions in the survey.
Sustainability is a state that may be described as the uninterrupted and continuous
enjoyment of a benefit derived from a public good or service. While lapses and breaks
occur, these are insignificant when there is an effort at sustainability (Adam, 2017). It is
not a goal to be simply attained. Sustainability entails monitoring and because of this, an
understanding of the community’s sustainability perception of their rural household water
access service is needed to support its realization (Abulencia et al., 2010;Binder, 2008;
Nikkhah & Redzuan, 2009; Wanjiru, 2014).
44
Table 5. Indicators For Household Water Access Sustainability
Context Local Practices/Indicators Description
Ease of Use Intuitive and Easy to use
Financial, Technical &
Water Security Protection and Conservation
Water Quality Water Quality Standards
Institutional
Water Safety Efforts against pollution
(FTI)
Reliability The applied technology can be relied upon
Affordability Willingness to pay/share for water access services
LGU Responsiveness Responsiveness of LGU to water access problems
WSP Responsiveness Responsiveness of WSP to water access problems
Sufficiency Output produced meet household needs
Transparency Transparency of processes in to obtain water access
Accessibility Easily accessed services (in line with local practices)

Socio-Political
Equitability Equitable distribution of water access services within

(SP)
Proper Technology Equipment used meets locality’s water needs

Maintenance Easy to maintain
Monitoring Easy to monitor
Community Cohesiveness Kinship and sense of community
Cost Equality Costs are standardized across water users
Service Equality Service quality is the same for all water users
Water Conservation (personal) Conservation and protection efforts done personally
Water Conservation (garden) Conservation and protection efforts when gardening

Environmental
Water Conservation (laundry) Conservation and protection efforts doing laundry

(E)
Environmental Protection Environmental Protection awareness

Risk Reduction (solid Waste) Risk Reduction efforts for solid waste management
Risk Reduction (Biodegradables) Risk Reduction efforts such as recycling and waste
segregation
Source: Binder, 2008; Dhaoui, 2019; Macharia, Mbassana, & Oduor, 2015
Sustainability is said to be the commitment to meet service expectations and the
needs of communities in the long-term (Binder, 2008; Dungumaro & Madulu, 2003;
Livingstone & McPherson, 1993; McCommon, Warner, & Yohalem, 1990; Narayan,
1994; Nikkhah & Redzuan, 2009; Paul, 1987; van Wijk-Sijbesma, 1995; Wakeman,
1995; Yacoob & Walker, 1991).
45
Although the literature is filled with broad and varying definitions of
sustainability, a shared commonality of continuity and shared benefits can be observed.
Most differences lie in its emphasis. How sustainability is defined often sets the
parameters by which one can measure and understand the factors that contribute to, or
work against, sustainability
For the water supply and sanitation sector, sustainability was initially associated
with the financial aspects of water service delivery and highlighted the need for water
users to share in the costs (Black, 1998). From this perspective, sustainability includes
health benefits and the continued convenience of having household water access.
2.3 Sustainability Assessments
Sustainability assessments often use engineering and technical indicators and
overlook the human factor which is important in both water governance and sustainability
(Bamberger, 1991). In assessing rural household water access sustainability, the
indicators used were discovered through the layering of existing ones from the fields of
water governance and sustainability.
When water access policy is made, there must also be a plan to assess the impact
such policy will have on water access sustainability (Juwana, Muttil, & OPerera, 2012).
The focus of this study is to find a way for rural barangays in the Philippines to
assess their household water access service using their community’s perception in order
for them to discover local ways to enhance their sustainability capabilities.
While, unfortunately, there exists little knowledge about how communities, as
rights-holders, perceive the sustainability of their own household water access service
46
and how such can inform local policies and programs to improve water access delivery,
there is sufficient information from water assessment literature that allows the study to
form a framework to achieve its goal.
2.3.1 Resilience and Sustainability
The concept of Resilience initially posed a challenge to this research as it closely
relates to the concept Sustainability. These two concepts are so much related yet mean
differently when used in the context of rural household water access service.
In fact, the initial research topic for the study was determining the resilience of
household rural water access services which lead to much confusion as to the real
problem being addressed by the paper. This was, fortunately, addressed and it was agreed
that Sustainability was the correct concept in play and not Resilience.
Far from being a technical paper, the study calls attention to sustainability, as a
state to be maintained and not a goal to be achieved. As such, monitoring and reporting is
required of the barangay as final distributor of public goods and services.
Resilience can thus be part of the greater Sustainability umbrella, but not vice
versa since it is more descriptive of an organization, system, or infrastructure.
When the water access service is no different from alternatives provided, the
social playing field is leveled with the rich being as much affected as the poor by their
common lack of water. Their common need for water access can bring them to work
together to negotiate and effect change (Narayan, 1994). Other characteristics of equal
importance in influencing perception include gender, income, education, knowledge and
47
skills, and social cohesion. Certain leadership qualities together with the presence of
existing leadership are key when initiating change that results in sustainability (Narayan,
1994).
In addition to the above, and equally important, is the role women play in the
collection, management, and use of water for the household. There is clear evidence to
support increasing the active involvement of women, especially in rural household water
access services (Mukherjee & van Wijk, 2003). It is therefore not surprising for women
involvement be identified as an important determinant of rural water access service
sustainability (Asian Development Bank, 2013; Carter, Tyrell, & Howsam, 1999).
Some studies identify motivation as another key to attaining water access
sustainability (IFAD, 2009). Household willingness to take part in the maintenance of a
water access system is based on a perceived benefit, which acts as the motivation. In the
case of a level II water access service, it is imperative that for the operation and
maintenance of a communal water supply system, motivation and willingness must be
generated on both the rural households and its community. External actors may also be
motivated to contribute towards supporting community- managed rural water services
when, for example, the local government identifies a political benefit to the activity, or
when the private sector detects profitability in the action, or when the national
government intervenes as part of a broader national development agenda (Velasco L. ,
2018). For whatever reason, motivation is clearly a sustainability factor in rural
household water access.
In addition to the foregoing factors that positively influence sustainability, a
degree of propinquity within the rural community is fundamental for sustainability. The
48
rural community’s willingness to maintain sustainable rural household water access is a
form of social cohesion which arises from the enjoyment of a shared benefit. On the other
hand, this can also present as a challenge as some researchers have suggested, this
community spirit may be directly threatened by the development project and splinter the
rural community (Carter, Tyrell, & Howsam, 1999).
2.3.2 Community Perception and Sustainability
Community perceptions are the total of the individual perceptions from the same
community (Qiong, 2017). This shows that such data can be used to gauge the level of
satisfaction to a particular product or service and is seen as valuable primary feedback for
sustainability as well as give rise to additional benefits and solutions to water access
barriers when incorporated in a sustainability assessments (Ferguson & Bargh, 2004).
Such information is therefore critical for the sustainability of a water access service. It is
also through the individual’s perception that we can derive information when designing
targeted interventions to increase their capacity and performance (Abulencia et al., 2010;
Binder, 2008). Sustainability perception, although subjective, has been known to reflect
the community’s attitudes, beliefs, and behavior toward sustainability issues. In the
context of this study, a community’s sustainability perception gives important insights
into their current rural household water access services, its water quality, reliability and
affordability, in addition to their attitudes toward sustainable water practices.
There has been little said in the literature regarding sustainability assessments on
household water access service using the perception of a household water access service
in our rural barangays. The bulk of perception research focuses on marketing and
49
customer satisfaction, and software applications are derivatives from the predecessor in
the field which is SERVQUAL (Bhandari & Grant, 2007). While these were designed to
improve customer satisfaction, the study applies the same concepts but instead of
customer satisfaction, the end result is a sustainable, and effective water governance
regime, especially in the rural setting.
2.4 Summary
Current literature has shown that there are several factors identified to have a
direct impact on the sustainability of a rural household’s water access service. With
studies indicating that the involvement of beneficiaries can largely determine the
sustainability of a rural project or initiative, , it is important to revisit our rural
communities and in the context of perception of a rural household’s access to water
service (Wanjiru, 2014).
A review on the work done after the first UN Millennium Development Goals
(MDG) deadline in 2015, globally, water and sanitation are seen to be driven by two
issues. First is the need for continuity in the pursuit of human development goals. This is
quite a challenge since the Philippine government, from its independence from Spain, has
been observed to still identify with the United Staes of America, the country’s last
colonizer, and therefore tend to adopt North American methods in addressing sustainable
rural water access service and meet our country’s obligation in connection with the 2010
United Nations General Assembly resolution on the universal human right of access to
safe water and sanitation (64/292 (WHO, 2012) as well as goal number 6 of the UN
SDG.
50
In the UN resolution, approved in 2010, reaffirmed the major role that equitable
access to safe, clean drinking water and sanitation plays as an integral component for
realizing human rights as well create the conditions necessary for making household
water access service sustainable as a goal (WHO, 2012).
Perception can affect institutions, and the main reason for low perception has
been the continued below par performance of those responsible for household water
access services. There has been a failure in framing important issues in institutional rather
than technological terms (Narayan, 1994). In fact, it has been found that to see rural water
access primarily as a technology issue reduces the community’s incentive and lowers
motivation as the creation of neighborhood associations are seen more of a compliance
issue than actual concern for the locality (Bhandari & Grant, 2007; Narayan, 1994).
Over the years, much has been done to ensure universal household access to water
for domestic use. Table 6 shows a summary of fallacies surrounding rural water access.
By shedding light on such misinformation about the sustainability of household rural
water access services, community self-confidence is cultivated and provides a sense of
empowerment to act which furthers the long-term viability of household water access.
51
Table 6. Some Myths on Rural Water Access
Myth Fact Argument
• poor families are unable to avail
• the poor can pay and oftentimes themselves of wholesale water discounts
must pay more than the rich. and often pay for water at retail prices
The poor should be provided with free • the poor are willing to pay for that are much more than the wholesale
water because they are unable to pay reliable water services (Narayan, price which the rich can get.
1994). • In addition, they also must spend time
traveling some distance to get water,
impacting their health.
• those in poverty are found to be
creative due to their condition in
• the poor are more flexible and can easily
life.
Poor people are helpless and do not adapt to meet new challenges.
• they have a different perspective
know what is good for them • with enough assistance, they often rise to
on life.
meet their challenges
• they can adjust more easily than
their rich counterparts.
for limited water resources to be spread to a
large segment of the population:
• people become alienated and
The access service must be set at a
unwilling to participate in
minimum so that it can be delivered • financial subsidies should not move
collective action when they do not
equitably and given to as many as away from the self-selection process of
get what they need.
possible. the community.
• estranged people refuse to pay for
• the service level should be based on the
the stated fees.
willingness of the household or
community.
• women rarely become community
leaders and often do not participate in
decision making.
• unless specifically targeted to
More women will be reached if • women are often more disadvantaged
develop their empowerment,
beneficiary participation is made a goal than men because they get less income,
women will not be reached
are more isolated, receive minimal
information, have poor health, and have
less educational opportunities.
• in rural areas with few economies • innovations are key to unlocking the
The main task is to build and construct of scale, the engineering challenges of ownership, organization,
and success is measured on its departments have more success and management of water assets.
completion. with monitoring and providing • public agencies should provide
technical support. monitoring and technical assistance as
locally needed
• master plans stunt the growth and • extensive planning before
evolution of participatory implementation paralyzes community
Prior to implementation, extensive data
programs. decision making and tends to manipulate
gathering is needed in order to come up
with a standard approach. • data collection needs to continue community choices to fit what has
throughout project already been decided.
implementation. • the success of a water project depends on
community initiatives and its choices
• while there is a tendency to
• the participatory process is about
underestimate a rural community’s
giving a voice and a choice to the
Community decision making should be achievement, they have been found able
people.
limited to well-defined parameters. to manage both communal and private
• the participatory processes entail
resources effectively.
giving control to the communities.
Source: Adopted from Narayan, 1994
52
CHAPTER 3. WATER GOVERNANCE IN THE PHILIPPINES
3.1 Introduction
This chapter describes the current state of water governance in the country as it
specifically affects rural household water access. The first section outlines the water
policies and laws that serve as the legal and institutional basis for water governance in the
Philippines. The next section discusses the institutional arrangements of water
governance that directly affect household water access. The last section deals with the
prevailing and emerging issues of water governance and sustainability in the country as it
relates to rural household water access.
3.2 Institutional Bases in Philippine Water Governance
While there are numerous laws and regulations dealing with the country’s water
resources, the following lists those that directly affect household rural water access
services and indirectly. its sustainability:
• RA 6234 (1971) – Creating the MWSS to replace NAWASA

• PD 424 (1974) – Creating the NWRC, the precursor of the NWRB
• PD 1067 (1976) – Water Code of the Philippines
• PD 1206 (1977) – Public Service Commission Board of Waterworks functions
assigned to the NWRB
• PD 1152 (1977) – Environmental Code of the Philippines
• 1987 Philippine Constitution
• EO 124-A (1987) – Converted NWRC into the NWRB
• RA 7160 (1991) – Local Government Code
• RA 7718 (1994) – Public-Private Partnerships (PPP)
53
• RA 8041 (1995) – National Water Crises Act
• RA 9275 (2004) – Philippine Clean Water Act
• DOH-AO No. 2017-0010 (2017) – Philippine National Standards for Drinking
Water
The various laws and regulations affecting the country’s water resources are
meant to appropriate, control, and conserve freshwater resources. These laws were
created with the intention of fully developing, using, conserving, and protecting water
resources (Tabios, 2020). Because water has numerous applications, water resource
management functions have been conferred among various agencies, based on how these
water resources are seen and used under their areas of responsibility, such as the DOH,
MWSS, LWUA, DENR, and DILG. The responsibility for coordination and overall
management is bestowed on NWRB as its basic mandate.
Although these regulations look good on paper, their implementation and
enforcement leave room for improvement. The devolution of providing basic public
services, such as household water access, to LGUs has since been provided, but has not
been properly handed down to them. Often, these laws are conflicting, if not confusing,
leading the community to surrender certain household water access liberties such as the
choice to avail themselves of free household access to potable water.
3.3 Water Institutions and Arrangements
In Chapter 1, the discussion of the state of water institutions throughout the
Philippines covers the many uses of freshwater resources. As such, it was observed that
numerous institutions involved have overlapping functions, resulting in a fracture in
54
implementation and enforcement. However, when it comes to providing household water
access services, the four main government agencies involved are:
• The Department of Health (DOH),
• The Metropolitan Water Works and Sewerage System (MWSS),
• Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)
• The National Water Resources Board (NWRB), and
• The Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA).
The DOH is responsible for establishing the technical parameters for water
quality, as well as implementing rules and regulations to ensure that the water delivered
or used by households is safe for human consumption. Although their main concern is
public health, the DOH recognizes the need for safe drinking water to be part of a
society’s well-being. As a national agency and part of the executive branch, the DOH has
a national mandate that is accomplished through its field offices across the country. Thus,
it is no surprise that the DOH has issued numerous memos and administrative orders
affecting the technical and practical aspects of the country’s water quality. One such
memo is circular 2021-0063 which created an operation manual for local drinking water
and the establishment of the local drinking water quality monitoring committee
(LDWQMC) tasked with drinking quality monitoring. The other was the DOH
Administrative Order (AO) 2017-0010, that provided the Philippine National Standards
for Drinking Water (PNSDW) to protect general public health. Part and parcel of sound
disaster risk management was also the reason for the DOH AO 2020-0032, that provided
for a national policy on water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH), which is of great
importance in times of crises, emergencies, and disasters.
55
The MWSS, created by the Republic Act (RA) 6234, is mandated to
• Ensure the proper operation and maintenance of a waterworks system.
• Ensure the sustainability of supply and distribution of potable water for
household use.
• The proper monitoring and maintenance of sewerage systems.
Given their jurisdiction, which covers the entire metropolitan Manila, as well as
parts of Rizal and Cavite, the MWSS can be seen as a two-part agency, namely the
corporate office and the regulatory office. The functions are summarized in Table 8.
To further strengthen this institution, Executive Order (EO) 149 S.2021 was
issued, which transferred the administrative supervision of the MWSS from the DPWH
directly to the Office of the President.
56
Table 7. MWSS Functions
MWSS Area Functions
Collaborate with water concessionaires in
identifying and developing new water
sources
Improve the exercise of the agency powers
to the concessionaires
Proper appropriation of MWSS loans used
in the performance of its functions as well
as those of existing projects
Corporate Office
Assure effective and transparent control
over all retained earnings
Properly perform services or functions as
defined in concession agreements
Define and implement concession
agreements, including concessionaire and
customer contracts and service level
agreements
Audit & reporting
Responsible for the rules on cost allocation
and rate-setting methods
Reevaluation of water supply and sewerage
rates as well as the Extraordinary Price
Regulatory Office adjustments and provisions on Rate
Rebasing for water
Take action to prosecution and defense
proceedings before the Appeals panel
Take litigation and defense proceedings
before the Appeals panel
Source: mwss.gov.ph; ro.mwss.gov.ph, ND
The NWRB, was created in 1974 as the agency that will:
• Coordinate and regulate all water resources management and activities
• Formulate and develop national policies on water use and distribution
• Management and supervision of water utilities and franchises
• Perusal and management of water rates
The NWRB’s main purpose is to ensure the orderly and scientific development of
all the water resources of the country, following the sustainable development principle of
57
maximum use, conservation, and protection of current needs without adversely affecting
its benefits for future generations (Harris, 2000).
LWUA is a government-owned and controlled corporation (GOCC) created by
PD 198 in 1973, later amended in 2010, to promote and regulate the development of
water supply systems through its financial and technical services and developing local
water districts to be sustainable. LWUA can be said to be the MWSS counterpart for
provinces and municipalities in the countryside. It has the authority and responsibility to
set standards that govern local water utilities, the WSP, and water districts. The agency
also collaborates with other government agencies to ensure its viability and effectiveness.
These agencies interact, coordinate, to do their jobs. However, bureaucracy needs
to flatten so as not to intimidate the citizenry it serves or create the perception that
government services take too much time. The use of available technology and tools, such
as desk/laptop computers and smartphones, can expedite and streamline existing
processes. However, the status quo appears to prefer labor-intensive automation, and such
a culture should be challenged. Figure 6 provides a picture of the relationship between
water agencies that have a direct hand with regard to household water access.
58
Figure 6. Organizational Relationship of Water Agencies
Note: Adopted from PacificWater.org, 2012 and Asian Development Bank, 2022
3.4 Prevailing and Emerging Issues
With the top-to-bottom unitary character of our government, composed of several
layers, the status quo of authority over water resources, especially in rural household
water access, remains with the top echelons. Despite an existing law mandating the
delegation and devolution of functions that provide basic public services to the LGU,
there is empirical evidence of the LGU’s heavy dependence on the central government.
Barangays, as the basic distribution mechanism of public goods and services, are treated
more as political units than administrative units. Hence, instead of providing an equitable
59
and efficient distribution service, political patronage and rent seeking take over the
process. Mismanagement occurs at the basic level.
This situation casts doubt on the sustainability of household water access,
especially in the countryside. When households in a community are ignored and kept out
of discussions regarding their household water access, community support wanes, and
with it, the maintenance and sustainability of such water access.
While actual devolution, as described in the Civil Code, does not seem to be on
the horizon, making for a gloomy setting, there is an emerging movement toward
togetherness as a nation initiated by both government and citizens.
Moreover, an observable shift in institutionalizing gender equality remains stable
and robust (Bhandari & Grant, 2007). This is no surprise since women have been found
to be the primary decision makers when it comes to rural household water access services
(UNDP, 2006). The involvement of women in rural water access schemes leads to timely
solutions that collectively benefit rural communities (Sandys, 2005). By capitalizing on
their unique skills developed and sharpened through traditional roles as household and
child development managers, conservation and awareness initiatives are better handled
when women are employed (OECD, 2018; Benedict & Hussein, 2019). In fact, from 121
rural supply projects financed by the World Bank, those with active women involvement
were found to be six (6) to seven (7) times more effective than those without (World
Bank, 1995). Notwithstanding the invaluable services and talent that women bring to the
table, they still remain marginalized and underrepresented in the context of sustainable
household rural water access services (Njie & T. Ndiaye, n.d.; Sadoff, Borgomeo, & De
Waal, 2017). The attainment of the goal of having universally improved rural household
60
water and sanitation access services can be achieved sooner if women are allowed and
encouraged to take part, as equals to their male counterparts (FAO, 2016). This will result
in LGUs’ ability to give households in the community equal time and opportunities to
seek other sources of income and enable them to engage in local governance while at the
same time ensuring that community matters affect sustainable household water access
services.
Sustainability is made easier if members of the community feel good about
themselves and are financially secure. An example is the AngatBuhay 2040 project
movement spearheaded by the NEDA in 2015. This program aims to uplift the condition
of the Filipino by encouraging the community to take charge of their future through the
realization of three defined Filipino character value goals: Matatag, Maginhawa, and
Panatag na Buhay (David, 2015). Through dialogues, tie-ups, projects, and activities
with government agencies, international institutions, and the private sector, it is
envisioned to be accomplished by 2040.
61
CHAPTER 4. METHODOLOGY
4.1 Introduction
This chapter describes the methods and methodology used in this study. With a
focus on the rural barangay as a basic unit that is comprised of constituent households,
this descriptive quantitative research aim is to determine:
• Determine the relationship between community perception and the
sustainability of their household rural water access service.
• Come up with an easy-to-use dipstick assessment mechanism for the rural
barangay, as the delivery arm of the local government, that will determine the
level of the sustainability of their rural water access service.
Through the application of quantitative research design, the study begins with the
identification of qualitative data needed by the study and ends with the final field
collection of said data, through a 3-FSAQ survey.
4.2 Research Design
The study employed a quantitative descriptive research design with an inductive
approach and guided by the SERVQUAL framework (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry,
1988). The responses were then tallied and encoded into Excel as well as the IBM SPSS
programs to expedite data manipulation for statistical analysis.
The specially designed structured self-administered survey (3-FSAQ) used the
three (3) sustainability components (FTI, SP and E) which follows the sustainability
62
model shown in Figure 5 (Chapter 2). The data collection was conducted in four (4) rural
barangays in the municipality of Victoria in the province of Tarlac, on the main
Philippine Island of Luzon. Additionally, an external desk review of secondary sources
was performed prior to review and gain some insights on rural household water access
service and ways to assess its sustainability.
The research also describes what was noticed and observed during the conduct of
the surveys and transcribed into informal notes which can be referred to in Appendix 14.
The 3-Factor self-administered questionnaire referred to as the 3-FSAQ) is the
mechanism that captures the quantitative (categorical, nominal, and ordinal) data,
utilizing the Likert five (5) scale measure and served as the primary instrument for data
collection. The 3-FSAQ is made up of two (2) parts, namely, the Profile section and the
Evaluation portion.
The Profile section gives data about the socio-demographic characteristics and
local water use practices of the local households. The second part, the evaluation portion,
is made up of three (3) sections. The first covers the FTI sustainability factors and has
nine (9) statements to evaluate, each representing a water sustainability indicator. The
second section covers the SP sustainability factors which are presented and organized the
same way as FTI component. The final part covers the E sustainability component and
has six (6) statements to evaluate.
This quantitative study addresses the gaps in knowledge previously outlined in
Chapter 1. Briefly, that there is a great need for more studies on community and
household perception and how it affects local capacity to sustain public services such as
63
the sustainability of a rural household’s water access service. Figure 7 summarizes the
quantitative research design adopted by the study.
Figure 7. Quantitative Research Design
Source: Creswell, 2013; Behrens, 1997; Kothari, 1990
64
With the top-to-bottom unitary character of our government, composed of several
layers, the status quo of authority over water resources, especially in rural household
water access, remains with the top echelons. Despite an existing law mandating the
delegation and devolution of functions that provide basic public services to the LGU,
there is empirical evidence of the LGU’s heavy dependence on the central government.
Barangays, as the basic distribution mechanism of public goods and services, are treated
more as political units than administrative units. Hence, instead of providing an equitable
and efficient distribution service, political patronage and rent seeking take over the
process. Mismanagement occurs at the basic level.
This situation casts doubt on the sustainability of household water access,
especially in the countryside. When households in a community are ignored and kept out
of discussions regarding their household water access, community support wanes, and
with it, the maintenance and sustainability of such water access.
The identification of the research data was accomplished in three (3) phases. The
first phase involves conducting desktop research and an eventual visit to the identified
possible sample study area, which in this study is the province of Tarlac. While several
municipalities looked promising on desktop review, a site visit, the second phase, was
conducted, from the 19th to the 21st of July 2019 and again from the 29th to the 31st of
July 2019. Finally, the last phase included visits to the four (4) potential study sites of
Paniqui, Ramos, and Pura, where it was revealed that outdated information caused
disparity between what can be found, written or online, versus the actual local conditions.
It was in the municipality of Victoria, where the study’s criteria were met. Field notes
from this activity are found in Appendix 15 (Tarlac Field Notes).
65
Having identified the sample municipality, informal talks, and interview between
municipal officials (such as the Mayor, the Municipal Engineer, the Municipal Planner
and some representatives from the nearby barangays). The research team also made a
courtesy call with the municipal Mayor for the purpose of introduction, getting familiar
with the locality as well as the identification of Level I/II and III rural water access
service coverage, per barangay, for all the barangays of the municipality.
Armed with the various information about the barangays in the municipality of
Victoria, in Tarlac province, came the second phase with the design of the 3-FSAQ, and
the formulation of the statements based on the conceptual framework. Figures 8 to 10
show the analytical framework and illustrate the process behind the statement design and
survey statements which will be evaluated in the 3-FSAQ, using a 5-point Likert scale.
66
Figure 8. Financial, Technical & Institutional (FTI) – Design Process
Source: 3-FSAQ
67
Figure 9. Social-Political (SP) – Design Process
Source: 3-FSAQ
68
Figure 10. Environment (E) – Design Process
Source: 3-FSAQ
With the initial statements produced from the above process, a 3-Factor SAQ
survey was created (Appendix 1). Termed as the 3-FSAQ, the pilot version was tested for
validity in an informal test survey conducted with six (6) volunteer households in
barangay UP campus, in Quezon City.
69
The field survey team was made up of the researcher, a volunteer research
assistant, and seven (7) experienced survey enumerators who are residents of the
municipality who were locally referred by the LGU and took instructions directly from
the research team. The survey was carried out from the 16th to the 18th of August 2019, at
the barangay halls of the selected barangays in the municipality of Victoria, Tarlac.
4.3 Operational Definitions
The following terms are defined for this study:
Barangay: The basic political and administrative unit of the Philippine government that
oversees legally defined local communities. According to RA 7160, it is composed of
contiguous territories with a population of at least two thousand (2,000) inhabitants (RA
7160, 1991). In this study, the word “community” is interchanged with the barangay, and
vice versa.
Capacity development: The process by which an individual, community, society, or
organization, through the improvement of knowledge, skills, systems, and institutions,
develop their capacities to attain mutually agreed social and economic goals (UNISDR,
2009).
Community Perception: Average of the aggregate household perception.
Domestic use: Refers to the various uses of water by the household such as for cooking,
bathing, washing, drinking, backyard gardening, personal hygiene, and sanitation
(UNDP, 2013). Used interchangeably with Household use.
70
Engagement: Refers to the involvement and actions done by individuals from a given
community in the process of participation. Used interchangeably with Participation
(Dungumaro & Madulu, 2003).
Governance: The use of economic, political, and administrative authority in
managing all levels of a country’s affairs (UNDP, 1997).
Household: a basic social unit in a community, consisting of at least one (1) person,
living alone, or a group of persons who sleep in a common housing unit with food
preparation and consumption arrangement.3
Institutions: Longtime rules, procedures, and practices that continue to dictate or affect
human interactions. These rules can be formal (such as rules and laws) or informal (such
as norms, conventions, and traditions). In these contexts, it is used to link society to
nature with the aim of regulating societal use of the environment for socio-ecological
objectives (Burton, Cutter, & Emrich, 2010).
IWRM: Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM). A process that fosters the
coordinated development and management of water and related resources for the purpose
of maximizing economic, and social welfare in an equitable manner without
compromising the environment (Global Water Partnership, 2002).
Participation: a voluntary process by which individuals from a community can
collectively influence or have some control over decisions and actions affecting their
3
PSA website at http://nap.psa.gov.ph/glossary/popn.asp accessed on January 14, 2019.
71
water access. The spirit of such participation is founded in the democratic principle of
being heard and having alternative choices considered (Narayan, 1994).
Perception: An individual’s empirical understanding of the state of conditions as
experienced sensorily (Force, 2015). In this study, household perception gives a clue to
the community’s future behavior and stand to support rural household water access
service initiatives , such that the better the perception, the more positive it is and is
expected to contribute more to make such service sustainability possible. It is also an
individual impression of something that is based on previous experience or a propagated
idea.
Resilience: In the context of sustainability, resilience is a characteristic of a system that
can survive the disastrous effects of a natural or man-made hazard and can bounce back
from such events better than before.
Retail Water: Retail water is defined in this paper as clean, filtered, and potable water
for drinking or personal hygiene that is purchased from commercial water refilling
stations and the like.
Rural Barangay: A barangay is considered rural if it has less than a population density
of one thousand (1,000) persons per square, a patterned network of streets either parallel
or right angled, and less than 6 business (i.e., commercial, manufacturing, recreational,
and/or personal services) establishments. In addition, the following further classifies a
barangay into rural (PSA, 2015):
• There is no public plaza, park, or cemetery;
• There is no church, chapel, or mosque with services at least once a month
72
• There is no marketplace or building where trading activities are carried out at
least once a week.
• There is no public building like a school , hospital, puericulture or health center,
or library public building like school (elementary, high school, and college),
hospital, puericulture or health center, or library
Self-Sufficiency: The ability to independently decide upon a selection or a course of
action to be taken in case of sudden interruptions.
Sustainability: The management of water resources in a manner that ensures its benefits
for both current and future generations (Brundtland, 1987). In this study, Sustainability is
not a goal to be met but a state to be achieved and maintained (or monitored) over time. It
can also be seen as a way of thinking that brings about the community’s continued
enjoyment of an identified benefit of a particular public service.
Sustainability of water access service (Functional Sustainability): A state or condition
of a public service or function that satisfies a common and beneficial need without
adversely affecting the environment, characterized by its continuity over periods of time.
Safe Drinking Water: Water that is free of microorganisms or disease-producing
bacteria (pathogens). In addition, the water should not possess undesirable tastes, odors,
color, levels of radioactivity, turbidity or chemicals, and it should pass the standards of
the Philippine National Standards for Drinking Water. Operationally considered sources
of safe drinking water are piped water, public tap, boreholes or pump, protected well
(PSA, 2017).
73
Water District: a local corporation that is government-owned and/or controlled that is
set up to operate and maintain a water supply and delivery system in one or more
provincial cities or municipalities (LWUA, 2017).
Water Governance: Range of political, social, economic, and administrative systems in
place for the development of water resources as well as the delivery of water services to
the different levels of society (Rogers & Hall, 2003; Global Water Partnership, 2002).
Water Quality: Determined by the smell, taste and clarity from a consumer’s viewpoint.
Technical specifications are determined by the DOH and conducted under laboratory
settings.
4.4 Study Area
In the Philippines, Luzon is the largest and most developed island and is located
at the northern part of the Philippine archipelago. It is also home to Metro-Manila (MM) -
the country’s largest metropolitan area with the highest population density. Not
surprisingly, Luzon is also the most developed island in the Philippines, serving as home
to the economic and political hubs of the country.
However, outside of MM are substantial scatterings of rural communities with
varying water access service levels. In choosing the study area, the location should be
mostly level land and landlocked. Of the country’s 81 provinces, 15 are landlocked. Of
the 15landlocked provinces, 12 are in Luzon (PhilAtlas, 2019). Of these, only the
province of Tarlac has mostly plains.
Geographically and historically known to be the melting pot of Luzon, the
province of Tarlac, at the crossroads of four provinces, has a diversified population
74
hailing from most regions in Luzon. This Province plays a crucial role as a source of
agricultural produce as well as being a key steward to the Agno River basin and
watershed system which is a major source of freshwater for the rest of the main island of
Luzon, including Metro Manila.
The sampling method used to identify the study used both probability and
purposive sampling strategies in accordance with the quantitative research method. This
method involves dividing the target study population into the study’s identified scale or
level. This method is akin to taking a random sample of a small number of units from a
much bigger target population (Kemper, Stringfield, & Teddlie, 2003).
From Figure 11, mapping Victoria, Tarlac, we can see that the province of Tarlac
lies on a valley between the mountain ranges of Zambales to the west and Benguet on its
northeast. These qualities make the Province of Tarlac an ideal provincial area for the
study.
75
Figure 11. Mapping Victoria, Tarlac
Source: Google Maps
In choosing the municipality where the survey questionnaire will be fielded, the
following criteria were applied:
• It should have a Water Service Provider (WSP) such as a rural or municipal
water service district that provides water access service.
• It should have half its rural communities under level I or II water access
service.
76
The presence of a Municipal Water District (MWD) or Rural Water Service
Provider (RWSP) indicates that there are communities with improved access to water for
domestic use or those with level III type water access. It also indicates a viable water
access service and some processes or practices already in place and as desired by the
rural community. The second criteria are required by the study in the assessment of the
sustainability of rural household water access for domestic use, where Level I/II and
Level III water access will be compared and correlated.
Of the 17 municipalities of Tarlac, only the municipality of Victoria meets the
study’s criteria. Table 6 shows the population in the municipality of Victoria, broken by
class, barangay population, approximate households, and water access service level.
The municipality of Victoria is in the northeast part of the province of Tarlac. It
has a land area of 110 km2 (40.60 mile2) representing 3.65% of the province’s total land
area. With a population of 63,715, Victoria represents 4.66% of the provincial population
or 0.57% of the overall population of the Central Luzon region. The population density is
571 inhabitants per km2 or 1,480 inhabitants per mile2 (PSA, 2015). Table 7 provides the
estimated average number of households by water access service level in Victoria, Tarlac.
Also, Table 6 also shows that of the 26 barangays in Victoria, eight enjoy Level III water
access service provided by the Balibago Water Service - a private water provider
contracted by the municipality. Of the remaining barangays, there are still 18 barangays
with either Level I or II water access service.
77
4.5 Target Population
As defined by (Grinnell & Williams, 1990), the target population is the totality of
persons or objects that the research is concerned or focused on. In this study, the
barangays in the municipality of Victoria are the target population and the unit of analysis
is the household.
4.6 Sample Size and Sampling Technique
To arrive at the target population sample size, the study identified the water
access service level of each barangay from information provided by the municipality.
Applying the stratified sampling technique, the study selected the top two (2) barangays
with the highest number of households per water access service level (Krejcie & Morgan,
1970). This will provide the study with four (4) sample barangays. From these four (4)
barangays, the number of households is summed up in Table 7 to provide the target
population sample size.
78
Table 7. No. Of Households and Water Access by Barangay (Victoria, Tarlac)
Access Level
Barangay4 Class Bgy. Pop.5 # of HH6
(I, II or III)
Baculong Urban 4087 950 II
Balayang Rural 3257 757 II
Balbaloto Rural 1942 452 II
Bangar Rural 2255 524 II
Bantog Rural 2207 513 II
Batangbatang Rural 1380 321 II
Bulo Rural 2428 565 II
Cabuluan Rural 1339 311 II
Calibungan Rural 2363 619 II
Canarem Rural 2181 507 II
Cruz Rural 1869 435 II
Lalapac Rural 2221 517 II
Maluid Rural 3081 717 III
Mangolago Rural 2477 576 II
Masalasa Rural 1691 393 II
Palacpalac Rural 1672 389 II
San Agustin Rural 3204 745 II
San Andres Rural 2211 514 II
San Fernando (Pob.) Rural 3098 720 III
San Francisco Rural 1603 373 III
San Gavino (Pob.) Rural 2268 527 III
San Jacinto Rural 3248 755 II
San Nicolas (Pob.) Rural 2739 637 III
San Vicente Rural 2103 489 III
Santa Barbara Rural 5230 1216 III
Santa Lucia (Pob.) Rural 1561 363 III
Source: PSA, 2015 & Municipality of Victoria, 2019
Level I/II Level III
Using Survey Monkey7, we calculate an acceptable statistical sample size of three
hundred forty-eight (348) using the target population size of three thousand four hundred
4
https://psa.gov.ph/classification/psgc/?q=psgc/barangays/036917000&page=1
5
As of 2015 census
6
Based on an average household size of 4.3 (Ave Tarlac Provincial # of HH + Ave Victoria # of HH / 2)
from the 2015 census
7
Survey Monkey is an online survey and sampling service from
https://www.surveymonkey.com/mp/sample-size-
calculator/?cmpid=&cvosrc=&keyword=%2Bsurveymonkey%20%2Bsample&matchtype=b&network=g&
mobile=0&searchntwk=1&creative=291733534009&adposition=1t1&campaign=60_Shared_Google_WW
_English_Search_Brand_Beta&cvo_campaign=60_Shared_Google_WW_English_Search_Brand_Beta&cv
o_adgroup=&dkilp=&cvo_creative=&utm_source=adwords&utm_medium=ppc&utm_content=291733534
79
forty-eight (3,448) with a ninety-five percent (95%) confidence level and a five percent
(5%) margin of error. Table 8 summarizes the figures used to determine the barangay
sample size.
Table 8. Household Sampling by Barangay

Barangay Population Approx # of HH8 Sample Size9
757
Balayang
3,257 (22%) 77
755
San Jacinto
3,248 (22%) 77
1216
Santa Barbara
5,230 (35%) 122
720
San Fernando
3,098 (21%) 72
Total 3,448 348
Source: PSA, 2015; Municipality of Victoria, 2019
4.7 Selected Barangay Profiles10
This section details the profiles of the selected Barangays in the Municipality of
Victoria. This study requested the municipality to provide a list of all barangays and their
corresponding rural water service. From the list provided, two (2) barangays with rural
water access service Level I or II were selected with another two (2) with service Level
III. Respectively, these are San Jacinto and Balayang for Level I/II and San Fernando and
Santa Barbara for Level III.
009&utm_adgroup=56921819204&utm_term=%2Bsurveymonkey%20%2Bsample&utm_bu=Core&utm_n
etwork=g&utm_campaign=1402109702&&gclid=Cj0KCQjwgezoBRDNARIsAGzEfe5PzQ_tnvXE0XGp
DASM1qhGlNfj0SaqxUFD18fjcgXMmXQCPXma3q4aAvXhEALw_wcB accessed on June 15, 2019.
8
Approximation is arrived at by dividing Population by 4.3 (average HH size) (PSA, 2015)
9
Rounded
10 Barangay profile information were provided by the Municipality of Victoria, 2018.
80
4.7.1 Santa Barbara
Barangay Santa Barbara is located just east of the Municipal Hall. It has a
population of approximately 5,323 whose median age is 25 years old. With the
Barangay’s land area of 458.68 hectares, Santa Barbara is considered the most densely
populated barangay in the municipality of Victoria.
Barangay Santa Barbara’s main source of income comes mainly from agricultural
and farming services, where approximately 30% (or 1,597) of the barangay’s population
depend on it.
Residents of Barangay Santa Barbara are innovative hard workers and can be
described as self-sufficient and adaptable. This observation is further supported by the
existence of other sources of income coming from both regular salaries and through
outsourced service contracts (self-employment). It is classified by the municipality as a
level III rural water access. This access service level is made possible by a joint service
contract between the Municipality of Victoria and Balibago Waterworks System
(Municipality of Victoria, Tarlac, 2019). Figure 12 shows the geographical location of
barangay Santa Barbara in the municipality of Victoria, Tarlac.
81
Figure 12. Map of Barangay Santa Barbara
Distance to
Municipal Hall /
Población Area):
2.43 km (1.51 miles)
Source: Google Maps, 2019
4.7.2 San Fernando
West of the Municipal Hall is barangay San Fernando, with a total land area of
153.40 hectares and home to some 3,120 people (PSA, 2015). With its various
commercial establishments, some family-owned, barangay San Fernando can be said to
be the commercial district of the Municipality of Victoria. It also houses the Tarlac
Electric Cooperative (TARELCO I), and the Memorial High School.
Other than farming, income sources in barangay San Fernando include local and
overseas employment, as well as outsourced service contracts.
82
The barangay also serves as the Población, where the Municipal Hall of Victoria
is located, and like barangay Santa Barbara, also enjoys Level III water access service
from Balibago Waterworks.
Figure 13 shows the geographical location of barangay Santa Fernando in the
municipality of Victoria, Tarlac.
Figure 13. Map of Barangay San Fernando
Distance to Municipal
Hall / Población Area):
901.36 m (2,957.23 ft)
83
4.7.3 Balayang
Barangay Balayang is located southeast of the Municipal Hall of Victoria. With a
land area of 729.41 hectares, and a population of 3,257 (PSA, 2015), barangay Balayang
is the most sparsely populated. Its main source of income comes from farming and
agricultural services. While self-employment and other work opportunities exist, these
are all related to agriculture.
With its low population density, it comes as no surprise that the barangay rural
water access service here is classified by the municipality of Victoria as Level I/II.
Figure 14 shows the geographical location of barangay Balayang in the
Figure 14. Map of Barangay Balayang
Distance to
Municipal Hall /
Población Area):
3.85 km (2.39 miles)
84
4.7.4 San Jacinto
Barangay San Jacinto is southwest of the Municipal Hall of Victoria. It has a
population of 3,248 and a land area of 321.99 hectares. Like most barangays in the
municipality, the main industry in barangay San Jacinto is Farming and related
agricultural ventures.
The barangay, like Balayang, is classified by the municipality as having a Level I/II
rural water access service, and outside of the Balibago Waterworks system.
Figure 15 shows the geographical location of barangay San Jacinto in the
Figure 15. Map of Barangay San Jacinto
Distance to
Municipal Hall /
Población Area):
2.70 km (1.68 miles)
85
4.8 Sampling Procedures
Using the sample size of three hundred 348, and applying the sample
proportional-cluster sampling method, the study determined the number of samples for
each barangay using the proportions previously shown on Table 7.
Households, through a volunteer participant act as the representative family
member who is at least 21 years old and has some responsibility regarding their
household water access service, are invited to participate and chosen randomly by the
survey team on the day of the survey. The survey team were composed of compensated
volunteers from the local barangays where the survey was conducted. Other
requirements, such as use of the barangay hall and the distribution of thank-you tokens to
the survey participants, were made possible with the full support of the LGU of Victoria.
4.9 Data Collection Tools /Techniques
The data collection tool of general acceptance in social research is the
survey/questionnaire, face to face interviews, observation, and focus groups. This study
will employ the survey/questionnaire, in particular the self-administered survey (3-
FSAQ) as its primary data collection method. In addition, data from relevant national
agencies such as the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), the
Department of Health (DOH), National Anti-Poverty Commission (NAPC), Philippine
Statistics Authority (PSA), and the LGU’s will be sought.
Prior to the actual survey, the 3-FSAQ was tested using a group of about ten (10)
volunteers from the municipality of Victoria. The feedback obtained during this test was
used to further improve the 3-FSAQ statements for evaluation to ensure the validity,
86
reliability and appropriateness of the sought data is collected. The test also provided the
survey team with better insights that will provide participants with clear and easy to
understand language.
The required time allotted for the actual 3-FSAQ was considered and is part of the
pre-departure activities as indicated in the Research Timeline in Appendix 2.
In addition, to facilitate the collection of the requisite data, Table 8 outlines the
study’s data sources.
The 3-FSAQ was designed following the conceptual framework of the study (see
Chapter 1, page 17). It is made up of two (2) main parts, namely the respondent profile
and the questionnaire portion.
The questionnaire portion is made up of 24 statements which are evaluated using
a five (5) point scale from highly agree, assigned to choose number one (1), followed by
agree (choice number 2), neither agree or disagree (choice number 3), disagree (choice
number 4) and highly disagree (choice number 5). The statements are arranged according
to the sustainability pillars of Financial, Technical, and Institutional (FTI), Social-
Political (SP) and Environmental (E). Thus statements 1 to 10 deals with FTI, statements
11 to 20 on SP and statements 21 to 30 on E (see Figures 2-4 previously).
Informal field notes and audio interviews (where possible) were also performed
during a weeklong field visit of Victoria from late July (29th to 31st) to early August
(1,2,5,6) in 2019, and provided additional ground information and insights to the
barangay’s situation. These visits were meant to primarily get a feel of the socio-political
and environmental atmosphere of the barangay as well as the municipality of Victoria.
87
The activities conducted during these times involved shadowing the municipal mayor11 as
he made his daily rounds. Encounters with the public, as the mayor made his rounds,
were data collection opportunities and these informal field notes helped in the analysis of
the collected data. The 3-FSAQ survey was conducted from the 16th to the 18th of August
2019 with the help of municipal worker volunteers, who were given prior instructions and
procedures. Additional data was identified, together with its source, as shown in Table
10.
Table 9. Data Sources

Data Description Source
Water Availability
Water sources (main LGU, Water Districts,
Ground, Surface, Rain, Retail12
and alternatives) LGU
Water Collection and HH water storage, water access, distance
Survey, LWUA, LGU
Distribution from the source
Water Quality
Water Pollution Protection, Conservation LGU, DENR
Water District, Health
Water Contamination Water quality, monitoring, maintenance
Dept., DOH
Water Practices
Volume consumed per HH member per Survey, PSA, LGU
Cooking & Drinking
day
Hygiene & Sanitation survey, LGU, DOH,
The volume used per HH (member or HH)
NAPC
Livelihood
How it relates to the volume used by HH
PSA, LGU
Population
Household size Persons living in the HH
Survey
Migration Patterns How extended is the HH (transients,
LGU, PSA
visiting/out of town relatives, others)
Source: PSA & ICF, 2018
11
Mayor C. T. Yap
12
Retail water is defined as clean, filtered and potable water for drinking or personal hygiene that is
purchased from commercial water refilling station and the like.
88
4.9.1 3 Factor Self-Administered Questionnaire (3-FSAQ)
Saunders et al. (2015), defined a survey questionnaire as a method of collecting
data where participants are asked to respond to the same set of questions in a
predetermined order. The advantage of the 3-FSAQ is that it allows for the collection of
data from the sizeable population in a highly economical way (Kothari, 1990). Further,
the questionnaire method has the following advantages of time and economy. The main
attraction of a 3-FSAQ is the relative ease of gathering a large set of responses.
4.9.2 Document Review
To acquaint and familiarize the research on the state of household rural water
access sustainability of the locality, an external document review was conducted focusing
on historical as well as current information regarding factors that may affect the
perception of sustainability of a household rural water access at service levels II and III.
Permission to access these documents were given and provided by the municipality of
Victoria through the strong support and full cooperation of the Office of the Mayor (Hon.
C. T. Yap).
4.10 Data Reliability and Validity
Data reliability and validity are important concepts to consider ensuring the
quality of the research. These two (2) determines what effective research method and
techniques to be used in the study. Reliability can be seen to be about standards and
consistency of measures taken, while Validity is about the measure’s accuracy.
89
4.10.1 Reliability
Reliability is the extent to which results of a study are consistent over time and
there is an accurate representation of the total population under study (Golafshani, 2003).
Reliability analysis aims at finding out the extent to which a measurement procedure
produces the same result when the process is repeated under the same conditions (Toke,
Gupta, & Dandekar, 2012).
To address reliability, the study made sure that the statements to be evaluated by
the respondents were related to the research questions and that the same steps and
procedures were always adhered to during the conduct of the 3-FSAQ survey.
4.10.2 Validity
Validity determines whether the research items truly measured what they were
intended to measure or how factual the research results are (Golafshani, 2003). To test the
extent to which the sample is representative of the study population, consultations with
research experts were performed and their opinion sought (Macharia, Mbassana, &
Oduor, 2015).
Prior to the field application of this study, an informal pre-test survey was
conducted with households having the same profile as those being researched (i.e. those
with either Level I/II or level III). This pre-test provided the research with as much
response variations expected of a 3-FSAQ as the main instrument for data collection and
analysis needed by the study.
90
4.11 Data Collection
The unit of analysis for this study is the rural household within a barangay. As
quantitative research, data were collected at the barangay household level.
The main research instrument for this research is the 3-FSAQ survey which will
be created using statements where the participant decides from a Likert scale from one
(1) to five (5), with one (1) being strongly agree, two (2) agree, three (3) as neither agree
nor disagree, four (4) as disagreeing and five (5) as strongly disagree. The basis for
scoring is the community’s perception, belief, and faith in their barangay’s capability
when it comes to the uninterrupted provision of water to the households. The survey is
organized into 3 parts, representing the three (3) sustainability indicators of FTI, SP, and
E.
The water governance and sustainability indicators, when utilized as a content
indicator, using the rural household sustainability perception of their water access
service, can provide revealing information about the rural community’s attitude toward
rural water access (Sherry, 2017).
The study developed a questionnaire survey that can be used as an assessment
tool to provide the rural barangay with a snapshot of the community’s perceived level of
sustainability of their rural household water access service, as well as an affordable and
easy to use assessment tool. The approach is to use household perceptions using behavior
responses of the households. Appendix 1 provides additional information on the data
collection procedures of the study.
91
4.12 Data Analysis
This quantitative study will use descriptive and inferential statistics as well as
exploratory data analysis (EDA) method in evaluating the data obtained from the
structured self-administered questionnaire.
The 3-FSAQ has two (2) parts. The first part (“Profile”) provides the study with
socio-demographic profiles of respondents regarding certain characteristics and living
practices of the local households. The second part (“Perception”) contains the three (3)
sustainability sections which capture the rural household’s perception of the sustainability
of their rural water access service, in the context of the sustainability components of FTI,
SP, and E. Figure 16 illustrates a summary of the EDA analysis process.
Figure 16. Analysis Process
Source: Bhatia & Jaggi, 2022
92
4.12.1 Profiles
The first part of the 3-FSAQ captures certain characteristics and living practices
within the local community, such as length of residency in the community, livelihood
sources, household size, primary rural water access service used, length of use of the
primary rural household water access service, primary water access suitable for cooking
and drinking, availability of alternative household water access, alternative water access
sanitation, and household water consumption for daily general use.
The 3-FSAQ were completed by volunteer respondents who are members of a
household within the selected barangay, is at least 21 years of age, and can make
decisions regarding their household water access. Appendix 6, Participant Profile Tables,
provides such data and reported per barangay.
4.12.2 Sustainability Perception Survey
In a perception study, sustainability deals with abilities that can meet current
needs without prejudice to the needs of future generations (Brundtland, 1987). Being able
to assess the sustainability of a rural community’s household water access service using
their household’ perception of its sustainability uncovers local beliefs and attitudes
regarding sustainable household water use as well as the community’s willingness to
adopt to sustainable water use practices.
To meet this end, the second part of the 3-FSAQ was designed to capture the
household’s sustainability perception of their rural water access service by asking
participants to evaluate each statement, which has been grouped according to the study’s
93
three (3) components of sustainability, namely, the financial, technological, and
institutional (FTI), the Social-Political (SP) and the environmental (E) (Macharia,
Mbassana, & Oduor, 2015). The evaluation is through a five (5) point Likert scale that
goes from strongly disagree (choice number 1), agree (choice number 2), neither agree or
disagree (choice number 3), disagree (choice number 4) and strongly agree (choice
number 5). Table 8 outlines the sustainability components and their indicators as used in
the study.
The data was tallied into the MS-Excel software program. These were then scored
(see Table 10). Using the mean of the frequency data, standard statistical tests for central
tendencies and normal distribution were performed. Once all the frequencies were
encoded into scores, a sustainability matrix (see Table 13) was arrived at, giving an idea
of the level of sustainability for each of the 3 sustainability factors, FTI, SP, and E, by
barangay and by water access service level.
With the perception section of the 3-FSAQ, the Spearman rank-order correlation
was used to examine, and determine, if there are any relationships or patterns that exists
in terms of how the households perceive the sustainability of their rural water access
service vis-à-vis the respondents socio-demographic characteristics and living conditions
such as Role in the Household, Length of Residence, Source of Livelihood, Household
Size, Level of Education, Main Water Source, Length of Use, Availability of Other
Water Sources, Bathroom Usage, and Household Consumption . The tables in Appendix
12 on page 166 provide more detail from the Spearman Rho test results.
Table 10 summarizes the scoring scheme used in the indexing for SS. The score
given to score 3 is zero but is higher than scores 4 and 5. This is because the study treats
94
this moderate level as open minded and may well justly lack additional information to
make a decision. Unlike scores 4 and 5, which indicates a degree of displeasure already
arrived at. With this scoring system, the higher the number, the higher the perceived
sustainability of their rural household water access service.
Table 10. Scoring System

Description Likert Scale Value Score
Strongly Agree 1 2
Agree 2 1
Neither (Agree nor Disagree) 3 0
Disagree 4 -1
Strongly Disagree 5 -2
Source: 3-FSAQ
4.12.3 Financial, Technical, Institutional (FTI)
The Financial, Technical, Institutional (FTI) pillar is a sustainability component
that covers the reliability of the technology behind the water system used, the pricing and
affordability based on the technology used in the extraction, collection, treatment and
delivery of rural water and its relevant applicability to the economic state of the locality.
As such, a sustainable household water access be easy to use and is responsive to the
daily needs of the households in rural communities in the Philippines which are either
agriculture or tourism-based economies.
When water accessibility is curtailed, the responsiveness of both the water service
provider (WSP) and the local government unit (LGU) is imperative and can be expedited
through community cohesiveness.
The financial, technical and institutional (FTI) component also calls for the
security of local water sources, especially from natural and man-made hazards that can
95
contaminate and pollute the water supply and present a health risk to the general public.
These components and corresponding indicators are summarized in Table 12.
4.12.4 Social – Political (SP)
The Social-Political (SP) component is about striking a balance between the costs
involved for the water service and the ability of the household to pay for such a service.
The water technology should be proper and appropriate to the local environment.
Accessibility to water should be universal to all the communities. The pricing, as well as
the quality of service, should also be equally applied to all the households in a barangay.
To have transparency in the management of local water resources, the community should
be aware, if not involved in, of all water access-related contracts and agreements and
their impact on the delivery of water to their household. The monitoring and maintenance
of the water system should consider and be designed according to the institutional
support available to the community and should be equitably provided and appropriate, if
not complimentary, to the abilities of locally available talent. The more knowledgeable
and agreeable a community is to water system in their community, the cohesive it
becomes resulting in a more positive perception of the sustainability of their community’s
rural water access service, and thus more likely to be more involved to ensure such rural
water access service is remains uninterrupted.
4.12.5 Environmental (E)
Finally, the Environmental component (E) is indicated by the presence of risk
reduction measures in the community as well as water conservation initiatives that are
easy to implement as it applies to personal, gardening and local laundering practices.
96
Protection of the environment is usually supported by regulation and its implementation
is usually spearheaded by local community leaders with support from Civil Society
Organizations (CSO), and the LGU at the municipal, provincial or national levels.
The protection of the local environment by the community is also manifested by
the awareness and community practices in sound solid waste management. As well, the
reduction of household waste through recycling and re-use activities further strengthens
the sustainability of household rural water access within the barangay.
Climate change was an issue that was not brought up although it was informally
acknowledged by the locals as a challenge to their livelihood. As such, the study focused
on water’s domestic (household) use and was thus considered by this researcher as being
outside the scope of the research and may be a subject fit for future research.
Table 11. Sustainability Components and Their Indicators

Component Indicators
Financial, Technical, Ease of Use, Water Quality, Water Safety, Water Security,
and Institutional Reliability, Affordability, LGU Responsiveness, WSP
(FTI) Responsiveness and Sufficiency of the applied technology.
Transparency, Accessibility, Equitability, Proper Technology,
Social-Political
Maintenance, Monitoring, Community Cohesiveness, Cost Equality,
(SP)
and Service Equality.
Water Conservation (Personal), Water Conservation (Garden), Water
Environmental
Conservation (Laundry), Environmental Protection, Risk reduction
(E)
(Solid Waste) and Risk Reduction (Biodegradable).
Source: Abulencia et al., 2010 & Basiago, 1999
Lastly, as a point of reference in the interest of comparison regarding average
household water consumption, the amounts, in liters, are presented in Table 13 (David &
Inocencio, 1996).
Keeping things in perspective and to serve as an example, the average water
consumption of an individual that is specific to household water consumption for general
97
daily use can be arrived at as follows:
High = (9 liters x No. of bathroom visit) + 18 liters or 27 liters a day, per person, with 1
bathroom visit, per day.
Low = (6 liters x No. of bathroom trips) + 18 liters or 25 liters a day, per person, with 1
bathroom visit, per day.
This average approximate water usage per individual per trip was derived using
the information found in Table 13 (Gleick, 1996).
Table 12. Average (Approximate) Daily Household Water Consumption

Average Water Consumption
Activity
High Low
Toilet (sanitation) 9 to 20 liters 6 to 7 liters
Shower Up to 275 liters up to 90 liters
Dishwashing 50 liters 15 to 18 liters
Personal Health & Hygiene (bathing,
525 liters 230 liters
washing hands, brushing teeth, etc.)
General (washing car, housekeeping, etc.) 120 liters 60 liters
Garden Watering 1,000 liters 950 liters
Laundry 50 liters 38 liters
Source: US NAS, Engineering, and Medicine, 2012; Inocencio, Padilla, and Javier,
1999
98
4.13 Sustainability Scoring (SS)
In assigning scores to the collected data, the following convention is used in
converting the frequencies into a sustainability perception score:
Likert Scale Description Assigned Weight
1 Strongly Agree 2
2 Agree 1
313 Neither Agree nor Disagree 0
4 Disagree -1
5 Strongly Disagree -2
In determining the mathematical mean, from the frequency data of sustainability
components FTI, SP, and E, the following formula was used to determines the average
score:
FTI = Q1, Q2, … Q9 / 9
SP = Q10, Q11, … Q18 / 9
FTI = Q19, Q20, … Q24 / 6
Sustainability Score (SS) = (FTI + SP + +E) / 3
To interpret the SS values, the higher the scores are, the higher the sustainability
perception of the barangay community on their existing rural household water access
service which implies that such rural water access service level is sustainable through
community support. Table 14 provides the index of the range of scores and the equivalent
13
Note that choice 3 is given a weight higher than choices 4 and 5 since the study considers them open
minded, lacking the information to decide, than those of scales 4 and 5 who have their minds made up
99
perceived level of sustainability, in the context of household water access service, where
the direction is denoted by a negative SS value.
Table 13. Sustainability Score (SS) Index

Level Range
Very High Sustainability 224 to 373
High Sustainability 76 to 225
Moderate (-74) to 75
Low Sustainability (-222) to (-73)
Very Low Sustainability (-372) to (-223)
Source: 3-FSAQ
In determining if any relationship exists between the sustainability factors FTI,
SP, and E, and socio-demographic characteristics of Length of Residence in Community,
Livelihood Sources, and Household Size, as well as, local water use practices namely,
Primary Household Water Access Service, Length of Use of Primary Water Access,
Primary Water Access Suitable for Cooking/Drinking, Availability of Alternative Water
Access, Alternative Water Access Suitable for Cooking/Drinking, Household Water
Consumption (Hygiene & Sanitation), and Household Water Consumption (General
Daily Use), the Spearman rho test for correlation, magnitude and direction. In addition,
descriptive and inferential statistics and exploratory data analysis (EDA) tools available
in Excel and IBM SPSS software applications were also employed where needed.
100
For the correlations, the following criteria were applied:
• statistically significant association exists if:
P ≤ 0.05
• Magnitude of relationship:
Very Weak Weak Moderate Strong Very Strong

.00 to .19 .20 to .39 .40 to .59 .60 to .79 .80 to 1.0
-.19 to -.00 -.39 to -.20 -.59 to -.40 -.79 to -.60 -1.0 to -.80
• Direction of Relationship:
(+) is a positive relationship, where an increase in one variable would also
increase the other.
(-) is a negative relationship, where an increase in one variable would
decrease the other.
Having determined the level of the community’s sustainability perception score of
their community’s household water access service, the Spearman rho test for correlation
was used to find significant statistical relationships between these and certain socio-
demographic characteristics of Length of Residence in Community, Livelihood Sources,
and Household Size, as well as water use practices such as Primary Household Water
Access Service, Length of Use of Primary Water Access, Primary Water Access Suitable
for Cooking/Drinking, Availability of Alternative Water Access, Alternative Water Access
Suitable for Cooking/Drinking, Household Water Consumption (Hygiene & Sanitation),
and Household Water Consumption (General Daily Use).
101
4.14 Ethical Considerations
Aside from the strict observation of the survey participant’s privacy and
anonymity, no other ethical concerns are associated or identified with this study.
Confidentiality was strictly observed and all participants, prior to taking part in the
survey, should have completed the study’s informed consent forms.
Other than refreshments and snacks during the survey, participants did not receive
any form of remuneration to ensure there is no induced bias in their responses. However,
to show appreciation for their voluntary participation, each participant was given a small
token of appreciation, upon full completion of the questionnaire, for their voluntary
participation in the survey.
102
CHAPTER 5. FINDINGS
This chapter presents the findings and discussions of the study. The first part,
section 5.1, presents the community’s sustainable perception score (SS), reported by
barangay (sections 5.1.1 to 5.1.4), and then by water access service levels I/II and III
(section 5.1.5 to 5.1.6). Section 5.2 presents the profile association with sustainability
perception components. The section shows the statistical relationships between certain
socio-demographic characteristics and local water use practices. In addition, sections
5.2.1 to 5.2.4 provide a description of each of the participating barangay community
using the socio-demographic information provided about their living conditions as well
as the rural household’s water use practices.
Histogram charts were used to provide a visual idea of the data distribution,
variances and deviations. From these histograms, the study can safely assume a normal
distribution of the collected data. Section 5.3 compares the frequency and correlation
findings and presents an inductive discussion of these findings. Finally, section 5.4
discusses the implications derived from all the information obtained.
5.1 Sustainability Perception Score (SS) - By Barangay
The sustainability perception score is based on the rural household’s sustainability
perception of their water access service. These frequencies were tallied into Excel. Upon
completion of the tallying, these were converted into a score using the convention stated
in section 4.13 of the previous chapter. Then, using the Sustainability Score Index (Table
3), we obtain the level of sustainability of the household water access service.
103
Spearman rho correlation tests were performed to identify associations between
certain socio-demographic characteristic and local water use practices and the elements
within sustainability components FTI, SP, and E. These two results are then compared to
each other for further information mining that can prove useful in improving the
community’s sustainability perception of household water access service especially in the
rural areas of the country.
5.1.1 San Jacinto SS
From Table 15, barangay San Jacinto’s sustainability perception of their
household water access service can be said to be high as the data clusters around scale 1
for all sustainability components FTI, SP and E. A high score indicates a positive
perception.
Further, it shows that 97% of respondents are agreeable, of which 82% strongly
agree, resulting in a moderate-high sustainability perception of their rural household
water access service for the FTI sustainability component in barangay San Jacinto. 2% of
respondents lack information to make a decision and only 1% disagree with the current
FTI component of their water access service.
95% of respondents in barangay San Jacinto are agreeable, with 81% strongly
agreeing and giving a moderate-high sustainability perception of the SP component of
their rural household water access service. 4% need further information to decide and 1%
do not agree.
Of the 97% who agree in barangay San Jacinto, 78% strongly agree, 3% need
further information to decide. Those who disagree are negligible. This gives a medium-
104
high sustainability perception of the E component of their rural household water access
service. Overall, across the 3 sustainability components of FTI, SP, and E, barangay San
Jacinto appears to have a medium-high sustainability perception of their current rural
household water access service with no observable urgent moves or behavior, on the part
of the rural households of the barangay, toward or away from having a level III water
access service level.
Table 15 provides the data collected for sustainability component FTI. Here, the
data can be observed to be more clustered around the scale of 1, indicating a generally
high sustainability perception by the community.
Table 14. San Jacinto Sustainability Score

San Jacinto
Component Scale Frequency Score
Q114 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9
1 68 53 73 74 74 73 67 61 72 615 137
2 18 28 8 4 9 11 16 12 8 114 13
FTI
3 0 0 2 2 3 0 2 4 1 14 0
4 0 0 4 3 1 1 1 1 0 11 -1
5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18
1 65 77 67 67 66 74 71 70 67 624 139
2 11 6 16 12 12 9 14 9 19 108 12
SP
3 9 4 2 4 4 0 1 4 1 29 0
4 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 4 0 7 -1
5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Q19 Q20 Q21 Q22 Q23 Q24
1 65 68 68 53 73 62 389 130
2 17 13 6 30 7 20 93 31
E
3 1 2 6 0 2 2 13 0
4 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
5 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
Source: 3-FAQ (Excel)
Tables 16 to 18 provide further insights into the data collected from barangay San
14
Q1 to Q24 represents the statements that were evaluated. See Appendix 5 (Codebook).
105
Jacinto for sustainability components FTI, SP, and E respectively. Here, the frequency
data for barangay San Jacinto is more centered and less dispersed when compared to the
other barangays. These Tables show that households in San Jacinto have some
disagreements, but none strongly disagreed, which is evident from columns Low and
High.
Table 15. Frequency Summary FTI - San Jacinto
N Low High Mean Std. Dev. Var

Ease of Use 86 1 2 1.21 .409 .167
Water Security 81 1 2 1.35 .479 .229
Water Quality 87 1 4 1.28 .726 .528
Water Safety 83 1 4 1.20 .658 .433
Reliability 87 1 4 1.21 .553 .306
Affordability 85 1 4 1.16 .459 .211
LGU Responsiveness 86 1 4 1.27 .562 .316
WSP Responsiveness 78 1 4 1.29 .626 .392
Sufficiency 81 1 3 1.12 .367 .135
Source: 3-FSAQ
Table 16. Frequency Summary SP - San Jacinto

N Low High Mean Std. Dev. Var.
Transparency 85 1 3 1.34 .665 .442
Accessibility 87 1 3 1.16 .479 .230
Equitability 87 1 4 1.30 .631 .398
Proper Technology 83 1 3 1.24 .532 .283
Maintenance 82 1 3 1.24 .534 .285
Monitoring 83 1 2 1.11 .313 .098
Community Cohesiveness 87 1 4 1.22 .515 .266
Cost Equality 87 1 4 1.33 .773 .597
Service Equality 87 1 3 1.24 .457 .209
Source: 3-FSAQ
106
Accessibility 87 1 3 1.16 .479 .230
Equitability 87 1 4 1.30 .631 .398
Maintenance 82 1 3 1.24 .534 .285
Monitoring 83 1 2 1.11 .313 .098
Cost Equality 87 1 4 1.33 .773 .597
Water Conservation (Personal) 83 1 3 1.23 .451 .203
Water Conservation (Garden) 83 1 3 1.20 .462 .214
Water Conservation (Laundry) 80 1 3 1.23 .573 .328
Environmental Protection 83 1 2 1.36 .483 .234
Risk Reduction (Solid Waste) 82 1 3 1.13 .409 .167
Risk Reduction (Biodegradable) 86 1 5 1.36 .701 .492
Table 17. Frequency Summary E - San Jacinto
Source: 3-FSAQ
5.1.2 San Fernando SS
From Table 19, barangay San Fernando’s sustainability perception of their
household water access service is moderate for all sustainability components FTI, SP and
E. A moderate score indicates a positive perception.
Further, it shows that 54% of respondents are agreeable, of which 17% strongly
agree, resulting in a moderate-high sustainability perception of their rural household
water access service for the FTI sustainability component in barangay San Fernando.
17% of respondents lack information to make a decision and 29% disagree with the
current FTI component of their water access service.
49% of respondents in barangay San Fernando are agreeable, with 21% strongly
their rural household water access service. 17% need further information to decide and
34% do not agree.
107
Of the 52% who agree in barangay San Fernando, 25% strongly agree, 17% need
further information to decide, and 29% do not agree, giving a moderate-high
sustainability perception of the E component of their rural household water access
service.
Table 18. San Fernando Sustainability Score

San Fernando
Component
Frequency
Score
Scale
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9
1 14 18 18 17 11 14 11 13 14 130 29
2 40 47 24 30 25 29 36 32 27 290 32
FTI
3 13 11 19 13 25 12 13 14 10 130 0
4 16 15 20 33 15 20 25 24 22 190 -21
5 4 5 2 3 6 6 3 3 5 37 -8
Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18
1 13 12 16 16 16 17 13 14 14 131 29
2 19 21 28 21 20 17 16 22 16 180 20
SP
3 12 9 10 15 12 11 17 8 15 109 0
4 22 22 29 13 17 17 22 22 22 186 -21
5 3 5 4 4 3 7 1 3 2 32 -7
Q19 Q20 Q21 Q22 Q23 Q24
1 18 12 16 21 22 16 105 35
2 20 19 16 19 19 20 113 38
3 12 18 12 7 9 14 72 0
E
4 15 17 21 18 13 17 101 -17
5 4 3 3 4 6 2 22 -7
Tables 20 to 22 provide further insights into the data collected from barangay San
Fernando for sustainability components FTI, SP, and E respectively. Here, the frequency
data for barangay San Fernando is less centered and more dispersed when compared to
the other barangays. These Tables show that households in San Fernando have strong
disagreements as seen from the Low and High columns.
108
Table 19. Frequency Summary FTI - San Fernando
Ease of Use 69 1 5 2.62 1.214 1.474
Water Security 68 1 5 2.56 1.297 1.683
Water Quality 69 1 5 2.54 1.195 1.429
Water Safety 87 1 5 2.72 1.227 1.504
Reliability 69 1 5 2.83 1.188 1.410
Affordability 69 1 5 2.78 1.293 1.673
LGU Responsiveness 69 1 5 2.83 1.200 1.440
WSP Responsiveness 69 1 5 2.75 1.230 1.512
Sufficiency 69 1 5 2.78 1.293 1.673
Source: 3-FSAQ
Table 20. Frequency Summary SP - San Fernando

Transparency 69 1 5 2.75 1.218 1.483
Accessibility 69 1 5 2.81 1.263 1.596
Equitability 87 1 5 2.74 1.234 1.522
Proper Technology 69 1 5 2.54 1.208 1.458
Maintenance 68 1 5 2.57 1.226 1.502
Monitoring 69 1 5 2.71 1.351 1.827
Community Cohesiveness 69 1 5 2.74 1.146 1.313
Cost Equality 69 1 5 2.68 1.243 1.544
Service Equality 69 1 5 2.74 1.196 1.431
Source: 3-FSAQ
Table 21. Frequency Summary E - San Fernando

Water Conservation (Personal) 69 1 5 2.52 1.256 1.577
Water Conservation (Garden) 69 1 5 2.71 1.152 1.327
Water Conservation (Laundry) 68 1 5 2.69 1.261 1.590
Environmental Protection 69 1 5 2.49 1.324 1.754
Risk Reduction (Solid Waste) 69 1 5 2.45 1.345 1.810
Risk Reduction (Biodegradable) 69 1 5 2.55 1.182 1.398
Source: 3-FSAQ
109
5.1.3 Santa Barbara SS
From Table 23, barangay Santa Barbara’s sustainability perception of their
household water access service is high for all sustainability components FTI, SP and E.
Further, it shows that 98% of respondents agree, of which 43% strongly agree,
resulting in a moderate-high sustainability perception of their rural household water
access service for the FTI sustainability component in barangay Santa Barbara. 1% of
respondents lack information to make a decision and those who disagree being negligible.
99% of respondents in barangay Santa Barbara are agreeable, with 40% strongly
their rural household water access service. 1% need further information to decide and
those who disagree are negligible.
Of the 97% who agree in barangay Santa Barbara, 41% strongly agree, 2% need
further information to decide, and those who disagree being negligible, giving a
moderate-high sustainability perception of the E component of their rural household
110
Table 22. Santa Barbara Sustainability Score
Component
Frequency
Score
Scale
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9
7
1 39 42 39 42 37 36 33 31 35 334 4
4
FTI
2 48 43 47 41 48 51 51 54 49 432 8
3 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 13 0
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18
6
1 32 36 35 33 32 36 34 31 34 303 7
5
2 53 49 49 49 47 47 51 54 51 450 0
SP
3 1 1 2 1 1 0 1 1 1 9 0
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Q19 Q20 Q21 Q22 Q23 Q24
6
1 37 28 28 35 36 42 206 9
9
2 46 52 52 48 43 42 283 4
E
3 0 2 3 0 4 3 12 0
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Source: 3-FSAQ
Tables 24 to 26 provide further insights into the data collected from barangay
Santa Barbara for sustainability components FTI, SP, and E respectively. Here, the
frequency data for barangay Santa Barbara is more centered and less dispersed when
compared to barangay San Fernando. These Tables show that households in Santa
Barbara have no disagreements but have more Neither Agree nor Disagree (selection
“3”) as seen from the Low and High columns.
111
Table 23. Frequency Summary FTI – Santa Barbara
Ease of Use 88 1 3 1.57 .521 .271
Water Security 87 1 3 1.54 .546 .298
Water Quality 87 1 3 1.56 .522 .272
Water Safety 84 1 3 1.51 .526 .277
Reliability 86 1 3 1.58 .519 .270
Affordability 88 1 3 1.60 .515 .265
Sufficiency 86 1 3 1.62 .535 .286
Source: 3-FSAQ
Table 24. Frequency Summary SP – Santa Barbara

Transparency 86 1 3 1.64 .507 .257
Accessibility 86 1 3 1.59 .517 .268
Equitability 86 1 3 1.62 .535 .286
Maintenance 80 1 3 1.61 .515 .266
Monitoring 83 1 2 1.57 .499 .249
Cost Equality 86 1 3 1.65 .503 .253
Source: 3-FSAQ
Table 25. Frequency Summary E – Santa Barbara

Source: 3-FSAQ
112
5.1.4 Balayang SS
From Table 27, barangay Balayang’s sustainability perception of their household
water access service is moderate for all sustainability components FTI, SP and E. A
moderate score indicates a positive perception.
access service for the FTI sustainability component in barangay Balayang. 7% of
respondents lack information to make a decision and only 3% disagree with the current
FTI component of their water access service.
90% of respondents in barangay Balayang are agreeable, with 36% strongly
their rural household water access service. 6% need further information to decide and 4%
do not agree.
Of the 95% who agree in barangay Balayang, 42% strongly agree, 2% need
further information to decide, and 2% do not agree, giving a moderate-high sustainability
perception of the E component of their rural household water access service.
113
Table 26. Balayang Sustainability Score
Balayang
Component
Frequency
Score
Scale
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9
1 28 28 36 37 31 32 34 25 51 302 67
2 51 44 35 43 43 39 40 40 34 369 41
FTI
3 6 9 9 1 9 6 2 8 1 51 0
4 0 3 4 2 1 4 0 1 0 15 -2
5 1 2 2 2 0 1 1 2 0 11 -2
Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18
1 21 38 43 29 29 31 32 26 21 270 60
2 50 43 39 39 49 48 43 39 51 401 45
SP
3 9 4 1 3 1 4 6 11 6 45 0
4 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 3 4 19 -2
5 0 0 1 3 2 1 0 0 1 8 -2
Q19 Q20 Q21 Q22 Q23 Q24
1 31 32 34 38 39 39 213 71
2 43 42 45 44 45 47 266 89
3 3 6 0 1 0 1 11 0
E
4 2 5 4 0 0 0 11 -2
5 0 0 1 1 1 0 3 -1
Tables 28 to 30 provide further insights into the data collected from barangay
Balayang for sustainability components FTI, SP, and E respectively. Here, the frequency
data for barangay Balayang is more centered and less dispersed when compared to
barangay San Fernando with the opposite being true with barangay San Jacinto and Santa
Barbara. These Tables show that households in Santa Barbara have strong disagreements
as seen from the Low and High columns.
114
Table 27. Frequency Summary FTI - Balayang
Ease of Use 86 1 5 1.78 .676 .456
Water Security 86 1 5 1.92 .884 .782
Water Quality 86 1 5 1.85 .952 .906
Water Safety 85 1 5 1.69 .817 .667
Reliability 84 1 4 1.76 .688 .473
Affordability 82 1 5 1.82 .862 .744
Sufficiency 86 1 3 1.42 .519 .270
Source: 3-FSAQ
Table 28. Frequency Summary SP - Balayang

Transparency 82 1 4 1.90 .678 .460
Accessibility 87 1 4 1.66 .679 .461
Equitability 86 1 5 1.59 .742 .550
Maintenance 83 1 5 1.78 .797 .635
Monitoring 84 1 5 1.71 .669 .448
Cost Equality 79 1 4 1.89 .784 .615
Source: 3-FSAQ
Table 29. Frequency Summary E - Balayang

Source: 3-FSAQ
115
5.1.5 Level I/II Service SS
From Table 31, water access service level I/II barangay’s (i.e., barangays San
Jacinto and Balayang) sustainability perception of their household water access service is
high for all sustainability components FTI, SP and E. A high score indicates a positive
perception.
93% of respondents agree, of which 61% strongly agree, resulting in a moderate-
high sustainability perception of their rural household water access service for the FTI
sustainability component with level I/II water access service level. 4% of respondents
lack information to make a decision and 3% disagree with the current FTI component of
their level I/II water access service.
96% of respondents in barangay with level I/II water access service level are
agreeable, with 81% strongly agreeing and giving a moderate-high sustainability
perception of the SP component of their rural household water access service. 3% need
further information to decide and .6% do not agree.
Of the 97% who agree in barangay with level I/II water access service level, 80%
strongly agree, 2% need further information to decide, and .6% do not agree, giving a
moderate-high sustainability perception of the E component of their rural household
116
Table 30. Level I/II Sustainability Score
Level I/II
Component
Frequency
Score
Scale
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9
1 96 81 109 111 105 105 101 86 123 917 204
2 69 72 43 47 52 50 56 52 42 483 54
FTI
3 6 9 11 3 12 6 4 12 2 65 0
4 0 3 8 5 2 5 1 2 0 26 -3
5 1 2 2 2 0 1 1 2 0 11 -2
Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18
1 132 77 132 135 134 127 144 132 155 1168 260
2 30 6 33 25 18 39 21 29 19 220 24
SP
3 10 4 3 6 10 0 3 6 1 43 0
4 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 5 0 8 -1
5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0
Q19 Q20 Q21 Q22 Q23 Q24
1 104 156 68 53 73 62 516 172
2 37 13 6 30 7 20 113 19
E
3 3 2 6 0 2 2 15 0
4 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0
5 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 -1
Source: 3-FAQ
Tables 32 to 34 provide further insights into the data collected from water access
service level I/II barangays (San Jacinto and Balayang) for sustainability components
FTI, SP, and E respectively. Here, the frequency data for water access service level I/II
barangays (San Jacinto and Balayang) is less centered and more dispersed. These Tables
show that households from water access service level I/II barangays (San Jacinto and
Balayang) have strong disagreements as seen from the Low and High columns.
117
Table 31. Frequency Summary FTI - Level I/II
Ease of Use 172 1 5 1.49 .626 .392
Water Security 167 1 5 1.64 .770 .593
Water Quality 173 1 5 1.56 .891 .794
Water Safety 168 1 5 1.45 .780 .608
Reliability 171 1 4 1.48 .680 .463
Affordability 167 1 5 1.49 .759 .577
Sufficiency 167 1 3 1.28 .474 .225
Source: 3-FSAQ
Table 32. Frequency Summary SP - Level I/II

Transparency 167 1 4 1.62 .726 .527
Accessibility 174 1 4 1.41 .636 .405
Equitability 173 1 5 1.45 .702 .493
Maintenance 165 1 5 1.52 .729 .532
Monitoring 167 1 5 1.41 .604 .364
Cost Equality 166 1 4 1.60 .824 .679
Source: 3-FSAQ
Table 33. Frequency Summary E - Level I/II

Source: 3-FSAQ
118
5.1.6 Level III Service SS
From Table 35, water access service level III barangays (i.e., barangays San
Fernando and Santa Barbara) sustainability perception of their household water access
service is high for all sustainability components FTI, SP and E. A high score indicates a
positive perception.
access service for the FTI sustainability component in barangay with level III water
access service. 9% of respondents lack information to make a decision and 16% disagree
with the current FTI component of their level III water access service.
76% of respondents in barangays with level III water access service are agreeable,
with 31% strongly agreeing and giving a moderate-high sustainability perception of the
SP component of their rural household water access service. 3.7% need further
information to decide and .1% do not agree.
Of the 97% who agree in barangays with level III water access service, 78%
strongly agree, 8% need further information to decide, and 15% do not agree, giving a
moderate-high sustainability perception of the E component of their level III water access
service.
Overall, across the 3 sustainability components of FTI, SP, and E, barangays with
level III water access service appears to have a moderate to high sustainability perception
of their current rural household water access service and no moves toward or away from
improving the service they currently receive can be observed.
119
Table 34. Level III Service Sustainability Score
Level III
Component
Frequency
Score
Scale
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9
1 53 60 57 59 48 50 44 44 49 464 103
2 70 62 63 67 64 69 71 74 68 608 68
FTI
3 14 13 18 12 23 13 13 12 11 129 0
4 16 15 16 30 14 19 25 23 22 180 -20
5 4 5 2 3 6 6 3 3 5 37 -8
Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18
1 45 48 51 49 48 53 47 45 48 434 96
2 72 70 77 70 67 64 67 76 67 630 70
SP
3 13 10 12 16 13 11 18 9 16 118 0
4 22 22 29 13 17 17 22 22 22 186 -21
5 3 5 4 4 3 7 1 3 2 32 -7
Q19 Q20 Q21 Q22 Q23 Q24
1 55 40 44 56 58 58 311 104
2 66 71 68 67 62 62 396 66
3 12 20 15 7 13 17 84 0
E
4 15 17 21 18 13 17 101 -17
5 4 3 3 4 6 2 22 -7
Source: 3-FSAQ
Tables 36 to 38 provide further insights into the data collected from water access
service level III barangays (Santa Barbara and San Fernando) for sustainability
components FTI, SP, and E respectively. Here, the frequency data for water access
service level III barangays are less centered and more dispersed. These Tables show that
households from water access service level III barangays have strong disagreements as
seen from the Low and High columns.
120
Table 35. Frequency Summary FTI - Level III
Ease of Use 157 1 5 2.03 1.034 1.069
Water Security 155 1 5 1.99 1.075 1.156
Water Quality 156 1 5 1.99 1.006 1.013
Water Safety 171 1 5 2.13 1.125 1.266
Reliability 155 1 5 2.14 1.076 1.157
Affordability 157 1 5 2.12 1.106 1.222
LGU Responsiveness 156 1 5 2.18 1.075 1.155
WSP Responsiveness 156 1 5 2.15 1.052 1.107
Sufficiency 155 1 5 2.14 1.111 1.235
Source: 3-FSAQ
Table 36. Frequency Summary SP - Level III

Transparency 155 1 5 2.14 1.051 1.105
Accessibility 155 1 5 2.14 1.105 1.222
Equitability 173 1 5 2.18 1.103 1.218
Proper Technology 152 1 5 2.03 1.006 1.012
Maintenance 148 1 5 2.05 1.029 1.058
Monitoring 152 1 5 2.09 1.133 1.284
Community Cohesiveness 155 1 5 2.12 1.019 1.038
Cost Equality 155 1 5 2.11 1.042 1.085
Service Equality 155 1 5 2.12 1.044 1.090
Source: 3-FSAQ
Table 37. Frequency Summary E - Level III

Water Conservation (Personal) 152 1 5 1.99 1.039 1.079
Water Conservation (Garden) 151 1 5 2.15 1.005 1.010
Water Conservation (Laundry) 151 1 5 2.15 1.054 1.112
Environmental Protection 152 1 5 1.99 1.064 1.132
Risk Reduction (Solid Waste) 152 1 5 1.99 1.083 1.172
Risk Reduction (Biodegradable) 156 1 5 1.99 1.019 1.039
Source: 3-FSAQ
121
5.2 Profile Associations with Sustainability Perception
In exploring statistical associations between Socio-demographic profile
characteristics of Length of Residence in Community, Livelihood Sources, and
Household Size and community water use practices, that conveys their sustainability
perception of their household water access service, such as Primary Household Water
Access Service, Length of Use of Primary Water Access, Primary Water Access Suitable
for Cooking/Drinking, Availability of Alternative Water Access, Alternative Water Access
Suitable for Cooking/Drinking, Household Water Consumption (Hygiene & Sanitation),
and Household Water Consumption (General Daily Use), the indicators within the
sustainability components of FTI, SP, and E, the study applied the Spearman rho test to
identify statistically significant connections. This section presents only those profiles
found to have such relationships. Complete correlation tables can also be seen in
Appendix 18 (Spearman rho Correlation Tables).
5.2.1 Correlations in Barangay San Jacinto
From information shown in Figure 17, Barangay San Jacinto is described as an
agricultural community where 64.8% of the barangay populace earn their main living
from agriculture, and 75% of whom have been residents of the barangay community for
at least five years,
Barangay San Jacinto is classified by the municipality as a level I/II water access
service level community. This implies that basic infrastructures for a level III water
access service level have yet to be realized or become operational. Not surprisingly,
72.7% of households in San Jacinto access their household water needs using hand
122
pumps, 35.2% of which are communal and either free or with minimal fees that are used
for monitoring and maintenance expenses incurred by the barangay unit. 70.5% of the
rural households in this barangay have been using these pumps as their main water access
service for at least the last seven years.
On the quality of water from this access service level, about 94.3% signified their
confidence in its quality that they use it for cooking and drinking. With some 63.7% of
households indicating to having an alternative rural water access service as a second
source back-up for their primary water access service level, these were still delivered
using hand pumps, often from other locations within the municipality. 84.1% of
households trust and are confident of the water quality from these alternative water
access service levels and use it for cooking and drinking as well.
On average daily rural household water consumption, 44.3% reported using the
bathroom 3 to 5 times a day and 36.4% noted their bathroom visits to be from 10 to 15
times a day. 42% of households noted consuming an average of six (6) to 10 liters of
water for general household use such as washing to clean the car or house, gardening,
taking a shower to cool off, and for purposes other than that for sanitation and hygiene
(such as flushing the toilet, taking daily bath, brushing teeth, etc.).
123
Figure 17. Profile Frequency Histograms for San Jacinto
Figure 17.A. Length of Residence in Community15
Figure 17.B. Livelihood Sources
15
Measured in years. Where the difference is more than 6 months, it is considered as a
year.
124
Figure 17.C. Household Size
Figure 17.D. Primary Household Water Access Service
125
Figure 17.E. Length of Use of Primary Water Access
Figure 17.F. Primary Water Access Suitable for Cooking/ Drinking
126
Figure 17.G. Availability of Alternative Water Access
Figure 17.H. Alternative Water Access Suitable for Cooking/ Drinking
127
Figure 17.I. Household Water Consumption (Hygiene & Sanitation)
Figure 17.J. Household Water Consumption (General Daily Use)
5.2.2 Correlations in Barangay San Fernando
From Figure 18, in barangay San Fernando, 85% of households have lived in the
same community for more than five years, with 21.8% deriving their income from
agriculture. While 51.7% of respondents reported themselves as self-employed, these
128
were still agriculture based.
With regard to their rural household water access service, barangay San Fernando
falls in the level III category. Despite this, 65.5% report obtaining their daily water
requirement from hand pumps, and of which 32.2% are communal. This indicates that
even with the availability of a level III water access service, 81.6% of respondents have
been using these level I/II hand pumps as their primary rural household water access
service for at least seven years and leads the study to believe that rural water access
services that the cost incurred by the household is an important factor in determining a
household’s choice of their rural water access service and implies a strong influence on
their sustainability perception of it.
On the quality of their water from this primary water access service, 66.7%
confidently use this water for cooking and drinking. Surprisingly, 39.1% of the
households indicated the availability of an alternative water access service, these were
level I/II services rather than, as one would expect, level III service. Like barangay San
Jacinto, these alternative water access service hail from other locations within the
municipality and with only 47.1% having the confidence and trust of its water quality to
use it for cooking and drinking.
Regarding their rural household water consumption, 41.4% use the bathroom
three to five times a day, with an additional 23% household members using it more often,
from six to nine times a day. On average, 42.5% of the respondent’s report consuming
from six to ten liters of water for their daily general water use.
129
Figure 18. Profile Frequency Histograms for San Fernando
Figure 18.A. Length of Residence in Community
130
131
Figure 18.F. Primary Water Access Suitable for Cooking/ Drinking
132
133
134
5.2.3 Correlations in Barangay Santa Barbara
Figure 19 show that half of the respondents have lived in the community more
than five years, and 56.8% earn their main living from agriculture.
With regard to their household rural water access, 71.6% obtain their household
water requirement from pumps, and 17% get rural water access through their water
service provider. 35.2% have been using these water access as their main source for at
least seven years. Regarding the quality of their water from this source, 87.5% are
confident of its quality that they use it for cooking and drinking. 63.6% indicated their
secondary source of water was from communal pumps from other locations, within the
municipality. 79.5% trust the water quality from this secondary source to use it for
cooking and drinking. On their household water consumption, 46.6% use the bathroom
six to nine times a day, while 26.1% use it three to five times a day. 47.7% consume six
to ten liters for general water use, which includes hand washing, brushing teeth, taking a
bath, and other hygienic purposes.
135
Figure 19. Profile Frequency Histograms for Santa Barbara
136
137
Figure 19.F. Primary Water Access Suitable for Cooking/Drinking
138
139
140
5.2.4 Correlations in Barangay Balayang
Figure 20 shows that around eighty six percent of the respondents have lived in
the community more than five years, and 47.1% earn their main living from agriculture,
with another 24.1% as self-employed contract for service.
With regard to their household rural water access, 65.5% obtain their household
water requirement from communal pumps and 34.5% are private. 81.6% have been using
these pumps as their main source for at least seven years. On the quality of their water
from this source, 71.3% are confident of its quality that they use it for cooking and
drinking. While 79.3% indicated a second source of water, these were still from pumps
but from other locations, within the municipality. 70.1% trust the water quality from
these secondary sources and use it for cooking and drinking.
Regarding their household water consumption, 29.9% use the bathroom six to
nine times a day, while 24.1% use it three to five times a day. 34.5% consume six to ten
liters a day for general water use, which includes hand washing, brushing teeth, taking a
bath, and other hygienic purposes.
141
Figure 20. Profile Frequency Histograms for Balayang
142
143
Figure 20.F. Primary Water Access Suitable for Cooking/Drinking
144
145
146
5.3 Sustainability Perception Score and Correlation Analysis
The closer an individual’s perception of something desired to an expectation of it,
the more positive the perception becomes. This would often result in beneficial behaviors
that prolongs the benefits enjoyed from the thing desired (Fan, Tang, & Park, 2019).
Armed with the SS results as well as a list of associations identified, through the
Spearman rho test, as having statistically significant relationship to certain socio-
demographic characteristics and local water use practices, the study brought these results
together to determine if any further information can be derived that the LGU can use in
evaluating projects that affect their barangay’s household water access.
5.3.1 Barangay San Jacinto
Barangay San Jacinto is classified by the municipality of Victoria as a community
with level I/II water access service. This implies that the community lacks the
infrastructure and support for indoor plumbing that normally accompanies a level III
water access service. Users of level I/II water access service share in the maintenance and
repair of the water delivery equipment such as pipes, pumps, faucets, and the like. The
barangay leadership takes the lead in the collection of such expenses and any other
applicable fees for such service. The amounts involved in availing the level I/II service
are not as expensive as those with level III services and are very affordable. This is not
surprising since level III service requires substantial capital investments and requires a
certain level of population density to properly operate at a reasonable cost, which is not
readily accessible or present at the LGU level.
147
Table 38 summarizes the correlations revealed by the Spearman rho test between
socio-demographic and the local water use practices data with the household
sustainability perception of sustainability elements in component FTI. A weak magnitude
implies a weak correlation, and the direction indicates the effect of the correlation, where
a negative value indicates that a change in one factor causes an opposite change in the
other and a positive value indicates that a change in one factor causes the same change in
the other.
All Socio-demographic characteristics and local water use practices have weak
relationships that are both negative and positive with their FTI elements.
148
Table 38. Profile - FTI Correlation San Jacinto
Magnitude
Profile FTI r p-value Size
Direction
Livelihood Sources Water Quality 0.024 0.253 80 Weak Positive
Affordability 0.000 0.390 77 Weak Positive
LGU
0.024 0.255 78 Weak Positive
Responsiveness
WSP
Responsiveness
Sufficiency 0.001 0.386 77 Weak Positive
Household Size Water Security 0.004 -0.337 72 Weak Negative
Primary Household
Ease of Use 0.038 0.237 77 Weak Positive
Water Access Service
Length of use of Primary
Water Security 0.009 0.297 76 Weak Positive
Water Access
Water Quality 0.014 -0.273 81 Weak Negative
Water Safety 0.003 -0.334 77 Weak Negative
LGU
0.032 -0.242 79 Weak Negative
Responsiveness
WSP
Responsiveness
Availability of
Alternative Water Access
Household Water
Consumption (Hygiene Ease of Use 0.000 0.396 85 Weak Positive
and Sanitation)
WSP
Responsiveness
Household Water
Consumption (General Ease of Use 0.011 0.278 84 Weak Positive
Daily Use)
Source: 3-FSAQ
Table 39 summarizes the correlations revealed by the Spearman rho test between
sustainability perception of sustainability elements in component SP.
Of note are the moderate relationships between socio-demographic characteristic
Length of Residence in the Community and SP element Monitoring (negative),
characteristic Livelihood Sources and SP element Community Cohesiveness (positive),
149
and water use practice Length of Use of Primary Water Access and SP element
Transparency (negative). All other relationships have a weak effect on their SP elements.
Table 39.Profile - SP Correlation San Jacinto

Magnitude
Profile - San Jacinto SP r p-value Size
Direction
Length of Residence in Moderate
Monitoring 0.000 -0.423 79
Community Negative
Livelihood Source Equitability 0.030 0.242 80 Weak Positive
Maintenance 0.005 0.320 76 Weak Positive
Community
0.000 0.474 80 Moderate Positive
Cohesiveness
Primary Household Proper
Water Access Service Technology
Length of use of Moderate
Transparency 0.000 -0.459 79
Primary Water Access Negative
Equitability 0.000 -0.385 81 Weak Negative
Proper
Technology
Maintenance 0.007 -0.305 76 Weak Negative
Monitoring 0.013 -0.282 77 Weak Negative
Cost Equality 0.007 -0.296 81 Weak Negative
Service Equality 0.012 -0.279 81 Weak Negative
Availability of
Proper
Alternative Water 0.018 -0.264 80 Weak Negative
Technology
Access
Household Water
Consumption (Hygiene Transparency 0.044 -0.221 84 Weak Negative
and Sanitation)
Equitability 0.005 0.302 86 Weak Positive
Household Water
Consumption (General Equitability 0.005 -0.304 85 Weak Negative
Daily Use)
Source: 3-FSAQ
Table 40 shows the correlations revealed by the Spearman rho test between socio-
demographic and the local water use practices data with the household sustainability
perception of sustainability elements in component E.
150
The Socio-demographic characteristic Length of Residence in Community has a
moderate but negative effect on E element Risk Reduction (Biodegradable). Water use
practice Household Water Consumption (Hygiene and Sanitation) has a moderate and
positive effect on E element Risk Reduction (Biodegradable). The rest of the
relationships have weak with both positive and negative effects.
Table 40. Profile - E Correlation San Jacinto

Magnitude
Profile - San Jacinto E r p-value Size
Direction
Length of Residence Water Conservation
in Community (Personal)
Risk Reduction (Solid
Waste)
Risk Reduction
0 -0.407 82 Moderate Negative
(Biodegradables)
Water Conservation
Livelihood Source 0.034 0.243 76 Weak Positive
(Personal)
Risk Reduction
Household Size 0.007 0.313 74 Weak Positive
(Biodegradables)
Primary Household Water Conservation
Water Access Service (Laundry)
Length of use of
Water Conservation
Primary Water 0.004 -0.324 77 Weak Negative
(Personal)
Access
Water Conservation
(Garden)
Availability of
Water Conservation
Alternative Water 0.005 -0.318 77 Weak Negative
(Laundry)
Access
Household Water
Consumption Water Conservation
(Hygiene and (Garden)
Sanitation)
Risk Reduction
0 0.444 85 Moderate Positive
(Biodegradables)
Household Water
Water Conservation
Consumption 0.015 -0.269 81 Weak Negative
(Garden)
(General Daily Use)
Environmental
Protection
Risk Reduction
(Biodegradables)
Source: 3-FSAQ
151
5.3.2 Barangay San Fernando
perception of sustainability elements in component FTI.
The Socio-demographic characteristic Household Size has a weak and negative
effect on FTI element Water Safety. Characteristic Livelihood Source has weak but
positive effect with FTI elements Ease of Use Water Quality Water Safety Reliability
Affordability WSP Responsiveness and Sufficiency, but a moderate and positive effect
with FTI Element LGU Responsiveness.
Except for local water use practice Primary Household Water Access Suitable for
Cooking/Drinking and FTI element Water Safety, practice Availability of Alternative
Household Water Access and FTI element Water Safety, practice Household Water
Consumption (General Daily Use) and FTI elements Water Safety and Affordability,
which has moderate and negative effect, other water uses practices have weak and
negative effects.
152
Table 41. Profile - FTI Correlation San Fernando
Profile - San Magnitude
FTI r p-value Size
Fernando Direction
Livelihood Source Ease of Use 0.001 0.400 69 Weak Positive
Water Quality 0.007 0.322 69 Weak Positive
Water Safety 0.004 0.305 87 Weak Positive
Reliability 0.005 0.332 69 Weak Positive
LGU Responsiveness 0.000 0.477 69 Moderate Positive
WSP Responsiveness 0.001 0.396 69 Weak Positive
Household Size Water Safety 0.000 -0.389 86 Weak Negative
Primary Household
Primary Household
Water Access Suitable Water Safety 0.000 -0.450 82 Moderate Negative
for Cooking/Drinking
Availability of
Alternative Water Water Quality 0.018 -0.284 69 Weak Negative
Access
Water Safety 0.000 -0.492 87 Moderate Negative
Alternative
Household Water
Access Suitable for
Cooking/Drinking
Household Water
Consumption
(Hygiene &
Sanitation)
Household Water
Consumption Water Security 0.004 -0.345 68 Weak Negative
(General Daily Use)
Water Quality 0.004 -0.344 69 Weak Negative
Water Safety 0.000 -0.524 86 Moderate Negative
Reliability 0.006 -0.326 69 Weak Negative
Affordability 0.000 -0.429 69 Moderate Negative
LGU Responsiveness 0.035 -0.255 69 Weak Negative
WSP Responsiveness 0.015 -0.292 69 Weak Negative
Source: 3-FSAQ
Table 42 shows the correlations identified by the Spearman rho test between
sustainability perception of sustainability elements in component SP.
The Socio-demographic characteristic Livelihood Source has a moderate and
153
positive effect with SP elements Accessibility, Monitoring, Community Cohesiveness,
Cost Equality, and Service Equality. Water use practice Availability of Alternative Water
Access also has a moderate but negative effect on SP element Equitability, as with
Household Water Consumption (General Use) and SP element Equitability.
154
Table 42. Profile - SP Correlation San Fernando
Magnitude
Profile - San Fernando SP r p-value Size
Direction
Livelihood Source Transparency 0.001 0.393 69 Weak Positive
Accessibility 0.000 0.441 69 Moderate Positive
Proper
Technology
Monitoring 0.000 0.429 69 Moderate Positive
Community
Cohesiveness
Cost Equality 0.000 0.472 69 Moderate Positive
Service Equality 0.000 0.483 69 Moderate Positive
Household Size Equitability 0.001 -0.346 86 Weak Negative
Primary Household
Primary Household
Water Access Suitable Equitability 0.001 -0.370 82 Weak Negative
Availability of
Alternative Water Equitability 0.000 -0.436 87 Moderate Negative
Access
Alternative Household
Water Access Suitable Equitability 0.025 -0.307 53 Weak Negative
Household Water
Consumption
(Hygiene and
Sanitation)
Proper
Technology
Household Water
Consumption (General Transparency 0.010 -0.309 69 Weak Negative
Daily Use)
Equitability 0.000 -0.423 86 Moderate Negative
Proper
Technology
Community
Cohesiveness
Source: 3-FSAQ
155
perception of sustainability elements in component E.
The Socio-demographic characteristic Livelihood Source has a moderate and
positive effect with E element Environmental Protection. All others have weak
relationships.
Table 43. Profile - E Correlation San Fernando

Magnitude
Profile - San Fernando E r p-value Size
Direction
Water Conservation
(Personal)
Water Conservation (Garden) 0.005 0.337 69 Weak Positive
Water Conservation
(Laundry)
Moderate
Environmental Protection 0.000 0.444 69
Positive
Risk Reduction (Solid Waste) 0.022 0.275 69 Weak Positive
Risk Reduction
(Biodegradables)
Household Size Water Conservation (Garden) 0.035 -0.254 69 Weak Negative
Water Conservation
(Laundry)
Primary Household Water
Access Suitable for Water Conservation (Garden) 0.032 -0.264 66 Weak Negative
Cooking/Drinking
Risk Reduction
(Biodegradables)
Availability of
Water Conservation (Garden) 0.040 -0.248 69 Weak Negative
Household Water
Water Conservation
Consumption (Hygiene 0.035 -0.256 68 Weak Negative
(Laundry)
and Sanitation)
Household Water
Water Conservation
Consumption (General 0.016 -0.289 69 Weak Negative
(Personal)
Daily Use)
Water Conservation (Garden) 0.001 -0.383 69 Weak Negative
Water Conservation
(Laundry)
Risk Reduction (Solid Waste) 0.016 -0.289 69 Weak Negative
Risk Reduction
(Biodegradables)
Source: 3-FSAQ
156
5.3.3 Barangay Santa Barbara
Barangay Santa Barbara is classified by the municipality of Victoria as a level III
water access service level. It is the second closest barangay to the Municipal Hall, after
barangay San Fernando, which is just some meters away.
demographic and the local water use practices with the household sustainability
perception of sustainability elements in component FTI are all seen as weak with both
positive and negative effects.
Table 44. Profile – FTI Correlation Santa Barbara

Magnitude
Profile - Santa Barbara FTI r p-value Size
Direction
Livelihood Source Affordability 0.036 0.224 88 Weak Positive
Availability of
Alternative Water Affordability 0.005 0.296 88 Weak Positive
Access
Household Water
Consumption Weak
Water Safety 0.032 -0.236 83
(Hygiene & Negative
Sanitation)
Weak
Reliability 0.023 -0.246 85
Negative
Source: 3-FSAQ
Table 45 shows correlations revealed by the Spearman rho test between socio-
perception of sustainability elements in component SP are all seen as weak with both
positive and negative effects.
157
Table 45. Profile - SP Correlation Santa Barbara
Siz Magnitude
Profile - Santa Barbara SP r p-value
e Direction
Length of Residence in the
Accessibility 0.041 -0.228 81 Weak Negative
Community
Proper Technology 0.032 -0.243 78 Weak Negative
Length of Use of Primary
Water Access
Availability of Alternative
Water Access
Household Water
Consumption (Hygiene and Proper Technology 0.004 -0.313 82 Weak Negative
Sanitation)
Community
Cohesiveness
Source: 3-FSAQ
perception of sustainability elements in component E are all seen as weak with negative
effects.
Table 46. Profile - E Correlation Santa Barbara

Magnitude
Profile - Santa Barbara E r p-value Size
Direction
Water
Length of Residence in the
Conservation 0.009 -0.293 78 Weak Negative
Community
(Personal)
Risk Reduction
(Biodegradables)
Length of Use of Primary Risk Reduction
Water Access (Biodegradables)
Household Water Water
Consumption (Hygiene & Conservation 0.002 -0.340 82 Weak Negative
Sanitation) (Personal)
Environmental
Protection
Source: 3-FSAQ
158
5.3.4 Barangay Balayang
perception of sustainability elements in component FTI. are all seen as weak with
positive effects. Barangay Balayang is classified as a level I/II water access service level
by the municipality of Victoria.
Table 47. Profile - FTI Correlation Balayang

Magnitude
Profile - Balayang FTI r p-value Size
Direction
Length of Residence
in the Community
WSP
Responsiveness
Household Size Reliability 0.029 0.238 84 Weak Positive
Primary Household
Water Access Suitable Ease of Use 0.043 0.225 81 Weak Positive
LGU
Responsiveness
WSP
Responsiveness
Water Access Suitable Water Quality 0.026 0.248 81 Weak Positive
Source: 3-FSAQ
Table 48 shows the results of the Spearman rho test between profile and the
sustainability perception components of SP as reported by the respondent’s perception.
Barangay Balayang is classified as a level I/II water access service level, as categorized
by the municipality.
159
Table 48. Profile - SP Correlation Balayang
Magnitude
Profile - Balayang SP r p-value Size
Direction
Length of Residence
Accessibility 0.000 0.375 84 Weak Positive
in the Community
Community
Cohesiveness
Service Equality 0.021 0.257 80 Weak Positive
Primary Household
Water Access Suitable Maintenance 0.011 0.287 78 Weak Positive
Cost Equality 0.002 0.358 74 Weak Positive
Water Access Suitable Monitoring 0.036 0.236 79 Weak Positive
Source: 3-FSAQ
Table 49 shows correlations revealed by the Spearman rho test between socio-
perception of sustainability elements in component E. are all seen as weak with positive
effects.
Table 49. Profile - E Correlation Balayang

Siz Magnitude
Profile - Balayang E r p-value
e Direction
Length of Residence in Water Conservation
the Community (Garden)
Water Conservation
Water Access Suitable 0.047 0.223 80 Weak Positive
(Garden)
Source: 3-FSAQ
160
5.3.5 Level I/II Water Service Barangays
Table 50 show the results of the Spearman rho test conducted between respondent
profile and the sustainability perception components of FTI as reported by the
respondent’s perception from Level I/II Water Service Barangays, as categorized by the
municipality. Statistically significant associations have been highlighted for easier
identification.
Table 50. Profile - FTI Correlation Level I/II

Magnitude
Profile - Level I-II FTI r p-value Size
Direction
Length of Residence in
Community
Water Quality 0.013 0.192 165 Very Weak Positive
WSP Responsiveness 0.024 0.183 150 Very Weak Positive
Sufficiency 0.011 0.200 162 Very Weak Positive
Reliability 0.039 -0.161 163 Very Weak Negative
Access Service
WSP Responsiveness 0.048 -0.162 159 Very Weak Negative
Length of use of Primary
Water Security 0.011 0.199 162 Very Weak Positive
Water Access
Access Suitable for Ease of Use 0.000 0.319 162 Weak Positive
Cooking/Drinking
LGU Responsiveness 0.000 0.308 153 Weak Positive
Suitable for Ease of Use 0.015 0.196 153 Very Weak Positive
Cooking/Drinking
161
Magnitude
Profile - Level I-II FTI r p-value Size
Direction
Affordability 0.043 0.167 148 Very Weak Positive
LGU Responsiveness 0.036 0.175 144 Very Weak Positive
Household Water
Consumption (Hygiene Ease of Use 0.000 0.312 171 Weak Positive
and Sanitation)
Household Water
Consumption (General Ease of Use 0.024 0.174 169 Very Weak Positive
Daily Use)
Source: 3-FSAQ
Table 51 shows the results of the Spearman rho test between respondent profile
and the sustainability perception components of SP as reported by the respondent’s
perception from Level I/II Water Service Barangays, as categorized by the municipality.
Statistically significant associations have been highlighted for easier identification.
Table 51. Profile - SP Correlation Level I/II

p- Magnitude
Profile - Level I-II SP r Size
value Direction
Length of Residence in
Accessibility 0.013 0.193 167 Very Weak Positive
Community
Equitability 0.014 0.190 166 Very Weak Positive
Community
0.019 0.183 163 Very Weak Positive
Cohesiveness
Proper Technology 0.013 0.202 151 Weak Positive
Maintenance 0.013 0.198 158 Very Weak Positive
Monitoring 0.024 0.179 159 Very Weak Positive
Community
Cohesiveness
Primary Household
Transparency 0.007 -0.214 159 Weak Negative
Accessibility 0.030 -0.168 166 Very Weak Negative
Proper Technology 0.001 -0.272 151 Weak Negative
Cost Equality 0.039 -0.164 158 Very Weak Negative
Length of use of
Transparency 0.005 -0.220 161 Weak Negative
Primary Water Access
Equitability 0.015 -0.188 167 Very Weak Negative
162
p- Magnitude
Profile - Level I-II SP r Size
value Direction
Proper Technology 0.049 -0.159 153 Very Weak Negative
Primary Household
Water Access Suitable Transparency 0.000 0.282 157 Weak Positive
Proper Technology 0.006 0.224 149 Weak Positive
Monitoring 0.000 0.310 157 Weak Positive
Community
Cohesiveness
Alternative Water
Access Suitable for Transparency 0.002 0.255 148 Weak Positive
Cooking/Drinking
Proper Technology 0.032 0.182 140 Very Weak Positive
Community
Cohesiveness
Household Water
Consumption (Hygiene Monitoring 0.008 0.205 166 Weak Positive
and Sanitation)
Source: 3-FSAQ
and the sustainability perception components of E as reported by the respondent’s
perception from Level I/II Water Service Barangays, as categorized by the municipality.
163
Table 52. Profile - E Correlation Level I/II
Magnitude
Profile - Level I-II E r p-value Size
Direction
Length of Residence Water Conservation
in Community (General)
Water Conservation
(Personal)
Water Conservation
(Garden)
Risk Reduction
(Solid Waste)
Risk Reduction
Household Size 0.009 0.206 161 Weak Positive
(Biodegradables)
Primary Household Water Conservation
Water Access Service (Laundry)
Primary Household
Water Conservation
Water Access Suitable 0.000 0.316 152 Weak Positive
(Personal)
Water Conservation
(Garden)
Water Conservation
(Laundry)
Environmental
Protection
Risk Reduction
(Solid Waste)
Risk Reduction
(Biodegradables)
Availability of
Environmental
Alternative Water 0.009 0.203 163 Weak Positive
Protection
Access
Alternative Water
Water Conservation
Access Suitable for 0.003 0.245 143 Weak Positive
(Personal)
Cooking/Drinking
Water Conservation
(Garden)
Environmental
Protection
Risk Reduction
(Solid Waste)
Risk Reduction
(Biodegradables)
Household Water
Consumption Risk Reduction
(Hygiene and (Solid Waste)
Sanitation)
Risk Reduction
(Biodegradables)
Source: 3-FSAQ
164
and the sustainability perception components of FTI as reported by the respondent’s
perception from Level III Water Service Barangays, as categorized by the municipality.
Table 53. FTI Profile Perception - Level III

Magnitude
Profile - Level III FTI r p-value Size
Direction
Length of Residence
in Community
WSP
Responsiveness
Affordability 0.000 0.406 157 Moderate Positive
LGU
Responsiveness
WSP
Responsiveness
Primary Household
Ease of Use 0.013 0.199 157 Very Weak Positive
LGU
Responsiveness
WSP
Responsiveness
Sufficiency 0.037 0.168 155 Very Weak Positive
Length of use of
Primary Water Ease of Use 0.001 0.260 154 Weak Positive
Access
Water Safety 0.016 0.186 168 Very Weak Positive
LGU
Responsiveness
165
Magnitude
Profile - Level III FTI r p-value Size
Direction
WSP
Responsiveness
Primary Household
Water Access
Ease of Use 0.042 0.170 143 Very Weak Positive
Suitable for
Cooking/Drinking
LGU
Responsiveness
Availability of
Alternative Water Water Safety 0.001 -0.241 171 Weak Negative
Access
Alternative Water
Access Suitable for Ease of Use 0.037 0.201 107 Weak Positive
Cooking/Drinking
Household Water
Consumption
(Hygiene and
Sanitation)
Household Water
Consumption Water Safety 0.008 -0.203 169 Weak Negative
(General Daily Use)
Source: 3-FSAQ
and the sustainability perception components of SP as reported by the respondent’s
perception from Level III Water Service Barangays, as categorized by the municipality.
Statistically significant associations have been highlighted for easier identification.
Table 54. SP Profile Perception – Level III

Profile - Level III SP r p-value Size Magnitude Direction
Length of Residence
Transparency 0.034 0.174 149 Very Weak Positive
in Community
Community
Cohesiveness
Cost Equality 0.036 0.172 149 Very Weak Positive
166
Service Equality 0.035 0.173 149 Very Weak Positive
Proper
Technology
Maintenance 0.000 0.403 148 Moderate Positive
Monitoring 0.000 0.409 152 Moderate Positive
Community
Cohesiveness
Cost Equality 0.000 0.424 155 Moderate Positive
Service Equality 0.000 0.408 155 Moderate Positive
Primary Household
Transparency 0.022 0.184 155 Very Weak Positive
Community
Cohesiveness
Length of use of
Primary Water Transparency 0.007 0.217 152 Weak Positive
Access
Community
Cohesiveness
Cost Equality 0.039 0.168 152 Very Weak Positive
Primary Household
Water Access
Accessibility 0.043 0.171 141 Very Weak Positive
Suitable for
Cooking/Drinking
Community
Cohesiveness
Availability of
Alternative Water Equitability 0.039 -0.157 173 Very Weak Negative
Access
Alternative Water
Access Suitable for Accessibility 0.001 0.326 105 Weak Positive
Cooking/Drinking
Proper
Technology
167
Household Water
Consumption
Equitability 0.018 -0.180 172 Very Weak Negative
(Hygiene and
Sanitation)
Proper
0.016 -0.195 151 Very Weak Negative
Technology
Household Water
Consumption Equitability 0.026 -0.170 171 Very Weak Negative
(General Daily Use)
Source: 3-FSAQ
Table 55 show the results of the Spearman rho test between socio-demographic
characteristic Length of Residence in the Community, and Livelihood Sources as well as
water use practices Primary Water Access Service, Length of Use of Primary Water
Access, and Alternative Water Access Suitable for Cooking/Drinking.
168
Table 55. profile - E correlation for Level III
Siz Magnitude
Profile - Level III E r p-value
e Direction
Length of
Water Conservation
Residence in 0.018 0.196 145 Very Weak Positive
(Garden)
Community
Water Conservation
(Laundry)
Water Conservation
(Personal)
Water Conservation
(Garden)
Water Conservation
(Laundry)
Environmental
Protection
Risk Reduction (Solid
Waste)
Risk Reduction
(Biodegradables)
Primary
Water Conservation
Household Water 0.040 0.167 152 Very Weak Positive
(Personal)
Access Service
Water Conservation
(Garden)
Water Conservation
(Laundry)
Environmental
Protection
Risk Reduction
(Biodegradables)
Length of use of
Water Conservation
Primary Water 0.032 0.175 150 Very Weak Positive
(Personal)
Access
Water Conservation
(Laundry)
Risk Reduction
(Biodegradables)
Alternative Water
Access Suitable Water Conservation
for (Garden)
Cooking/Drinking
Risk Reduction
(Biodegradables)
Source: 3-FSAQ
169
5.4 Implications of The Sustainability Perception Score (SS) And Correlations
How do households from select barangays in the municipality of Victoria in
Tarlac, perceive the sustainability of their household water access service? Specifically,
what is the community’s self-assessment of the sustainability of water service in terms of
the following dimensions: financial, technical and institutional; socio-political; and
environmental?
Table 56 shows the common profiles among the barangays. From this, except for
livelihood sources, we can see no common profile shared among all the four (4)
barangays.
Table 56. Common Profiles - By Barangay

San Jacinto San Fernando Santa Barbara Balayang
Household Water
Livelihood Consumption Length of Residence in
Livelihood Sources
Sources (Hygiene & Community
Profiles with Significant Statistical Correlation
Sanitation)
Primary Alternative Water
Household Water Household Size NA Access Suitable for
Access Service Cooking/Drinking
Length of Use of Primary Water Access
Primary Water Suitable for NA NA
Access Cooking/Drinking
Availability of Availability of
Alternative Water Alternative Water NA NA
Access Access
Household Water
Household Water
Consumption
Consumption (Hygiene NA NA
(Hygiene &
& Sanitation)
Sanitation)
Household Water
Household Water
Consumption
Consumption (General NA NA
(General Daily
Daily Use)
Use)
Source: 3-FSAQ
170
Each barangay community’s self-assessment of the sustainability of water access
service in rural areas and in terms of components FTI, SP and E ranges from a High (-) to
moderate (+), implying that either rural barangays are confident of their water access
service or regards it as smaller problem to making ends meet.
Table 57 shows the common profiles by water access service level I/II and III.
There are three commonalities found, namely the socio-demographic characteristics
Length of Residence in the Community, Livelihood Source, and Primary Household
Water Access Service.
Table 57. Common Profiles by Water Access Service Level

Water Access Service Level I/II Water Access Service Level III
Common Profiles with Significant
Length of Residence in Community Length of Residence in Community

Statistical Correlation
Livelihood Sources Livelihood Sources
Primary Household Water Access Primary Household Water Access

Service Service
Primary Water Access Suitable for Length of Use of Primary Water

Cooking/Drinking Access
Alternative Water Access Suitable for

NA
Cooking/Drinking
Source: 3-FSAQ
Is there any relationship between the household’s water access service level and
its perceived sustainability? From the data collected, we can say that a rural household’s
water access service level can affect its perceived sustainability. Concretely, the obvious
influence in the living standards and the presence of economies of scale between urban
and rural life in the country strongly influence sustainability perception. While the
171
findings support the intuition, it is not just due to the same reasons. Livelihood
opportunities are needed to improve local perceptions.
Is a higher rural water access service level less sustainable in the eyes of the
community? For rural households, improved water access does not mean a higher service
level. It can also mean an upgrade to their level I/II service such as additional communal
pumps or providing closer access.
Table 58 gives us a summary of the average frequency totals from the data
collected. The sustainability component FTI received the highest sustainability perception
score by the four (4) barangay communities. Component E follows closely while
component SP has the lowest sustainability perception. This may be an indication that
rural barangays regard being self-sufficient as more reliable than getting government
assistance. Self-sufficiency is a common traditional value, especially in rural areas that
have agriculture-based communities, where growing food and raising animals for
household consumption is practiced.
From the data collected, important information was derived, such as, in particular
the level of sustainability using the SS matrix, where we see that rural households from
the selected barangays in the municipality of Victoria, Tarlac, generally have Moderate
(+) to High (-) perception of their rural households’ water access service level.
Table 58. Summary Average Frequency Totals

San Jacinto San Fernando Santa Barbara Balayang Ave
FTI 148.8 31.77 121.12 104.11 101.45
SP 143.3 21.34 117.32 100.62 95.65
E 140.6 29.67 115.83 92.5 94.65
Ave 144.23 25.59 118.09 99.08
High - Moderate + Moderate + Moderate +
Source: 3-FSAQ
172
Turning our focus to the strongest relationship uncovered, Table 59 outlines the
strongest relationships which are those found with moderate magnitude. Here we see a
common socio-demographic character namely, Livelihood Source, which is seen as
another important factor that influences the household’s sustainability perception.
Barangays Santa Barbara and Balayang did not have any moderate relationships,
which indicates limited livelihood sources and job opportunities in the barangay. In such
instances, Job fairs as well as local skill development may be used as intervention at the
barangay level.
Table 59. Moderate Correlations

Profile Component Element
Length of Residence in Community SP- Monitoring -
San Jacinto
Livelihood Source SP - Community Cohesiveness +

Length of use of Primary Water Access SP - Transparency -
Length of Residence in Community E - Risk Reduction (Biodegradables) -
Household Water Consumption
E - Risk Reduction (Biodegradables) +
(Hygiene and Sanitation)
Livelihood Source FTI - LGU Responsiveness +

Primary Household Water Access
FTI - Water Safety -
Suitable for Cooking/Drinking
Availability of Alternative Water
Access
(General Daily Use)
San Fernando
FTI - Affordability -
(General Daily Use)
Livelihood Source SP - Accessibility +
Livelihood Source SP - Monitoring +
Livelihood Source SP - Community Cohesiveness +
Livelihood Source SP - Cost Equality +
Livelihood Source SP - Service Equality +
Availability of Alternative Water
SP - Equitability -
Access
SP - Equitability -
(General Daily Use)
Livelihood Source E - Environmental Protection +
173
Profile Component Element
Livelihood Source FTI - Affordability +
Livelihood Source FTI - LGU Responsiveness +
Level III Livelihood Source FTI - WSP Responsiveness +
Livelihood Source SP - Maintenance +
Livelihood Source SP - Monitoring +
Livelihood Source SP - Cost Equality +
Livelihood Source SP - Service Equality +
Livelihood Source E - Water Conservation (Garden) +
Source: 3-FSAQ
Are there any patterns in terms of how the household perceives the sustainability
of their household water access service? The pattern that is observed revolves around the
presence of livelihood opportunities, especially in rural and agricultural areas, where such
opportunities are limited. The more sources available, the higher the sustainability
perception and a level III rural water access service is the service of choice. Absent this
factor, the rural water access service selection of choice is Level I/II, where such access
is more financially viable for a barangay with an agriculture-based economy.
Do socio-demographic characteristics such as length of residence in the
community, livelihood sources, and household size play a role? Socio-demographic
characteristics do play a role in determining the household’s sustainability level of their
rural water access service based on their sustainability perception. Of these
characteristics, livelihood sources appear to have the biggest influence on their
sustainability perception of their household water access. As well, length of residence in
the community and household size also plays a part but is observed to be in combination
with livelihood sources to have an effect on the level of their rural water access service.
Do water use practices—primary household water access, length of use of
primary household water sources, primary water access suitable for cooking and
174
drinking, availability of alternative household water access, alternative water access
sanitation, and household water consumption for daily use—influence the households’
assessment of sustainability? Based on the information obtained from the data collected,
these practices play a role in influencing how the rural household perceives the
sustainability of their water access. However, while it is not clear if a combination with
other factors is needed to obtain the maximum influence, the presence of these water
consumption practices presents a positive sustainable perception. This implies that the
longer a household uses a particular rural water access service, the more sustainable it is
perceived to be. The quality of water obtained from a certain rural water access service
also determines whether or not such access is sustainably perceived by the community’s
households. And finally, the sustainability perception of a rural water access service
becomes higher when there are more choices on rural water access service are available
to the community.
In addition, a pattern is further observed when taking into account a barangay’s
proximity to the municipal hall where the mayor and administrative support services hold
office, where it appears that the farther a barangay is from the municipal town hall, the
less it depends on the LGU for their rural water access service, more self-reliant, and
observes conservative water use practices increases the community’s sustainability
perception which in turn help prolong its current water access service. Rural households
located far from the seat of government regard rural water access not as a commodity but
more of an entitlement, which need not require government assistance and can be done
by either themselves or the community.
175
6.0. CONCLUSIONS, FURTHER STUDY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This final chapter discuss the study’s findings, talks about further studies, and
offer recommendations. It is organized into three (3) parts. The first, section 6.1, makes a
discussion of the findings and provides a conclusion. Section 6.2 puts forward next steps
and further studies that make use of perception in strengthening sustainability efforts as
an effective tool for imparting good water governance, especially in the area of providing
rural household water access. The third part, Section 6.3, offers recommendations based
on the study’s findings and conclusion.
6.1 Conclusion
A community’s sustainability perception can be utilized to determine the
sustainability likelihood of the community’s rural water access service. While existing
literature has demonstrated that any one-size-fits-all solution cannot be universally
applied and thus does not guarantee success, the community’s active support, in the form
of monitoring and maintenance, of a rural water access service is a common element in
the rural water access service’s sustainability (World Bank, 1995); (World Bank, 2017);
(Wiek & Larson, 2012).
Barangays were formed as a political mechanism to take the place of the
referendum requirement before any amendments to the constitution are made. In addition,
the Barangay also performs as the primary planning and implementing unit of the
national government’s water resource policies, plans, programs, projects, and activities in
the community. As a forum where the collective sentiment of the people is expressed, the
barangay acts as mediator in community disputes which can be amicably settled. As a
176
result, the barangay became institutionalized as a political unit whose elected leadership
performed and acted as the local chief executive and became gatekeepers to rent seekers
(Kendall, 1976); (Dohner & Intal, 1989). Taking this into consideration, good water
governance is necessary to check and balance the authority and performance of the
barangay leadership.
The study’s findings support the notion espoused by good water governance
literature for an empowered citizenry and, as water right users, able to take ownership of
its water resources if it is to be sustainably supported by the community (Berkes & Folke,
1994); (Bhandari & Grant, 2007); (Ferguson & Bargh, 2004).
In assessing the sustainability of a household rural water access in select
barangays of Victoria, Tarlac, there appears a direct relationship between a household’s
sustainability perception of their rural household water access service with the socio-
demographic characteristic livelihood sources.
One of the problems facing rural communities in the Philippines is the large
income disparities in the rural countryside. The implication here is that across barangays,
as more livelihood sources are available, with weak to moderate associations, the
following impacts to the three (3) sustainability dimensions are discussed:
As the country races to meet its obligations under the UN SDG 2030, specifically
goal number 6, calling for universal and improved water access, the tendency toward
achieving a level III water access service has been the national government’s push in
meeting this end. Although, admittedly the most convenient water access service, it
should not be forced upon rural communities since rural environments may only have
limited ability and only able to support an upgrade to its current water access service
177
delivery designs instead of committing to large water infrastructure projects that pave the
way for a level III service contracting out rural household water access service to
privately held water service providers (WSP) without any community consultation.
Thus, the findings lead the study to conclude that through a rural household’s
sustainability perception, together with certain socio-demographic characteristics, as well
as local water use practices, does have an impact/effect on the likelihood that the rural
water access service is sustainable.
The study successfully argued, in support of existing sustainability literature, that
a preponderance of established sustainability indicators, even if measured through the
community’s perception, increases and strengthens its level of sustainability (Beder,
2006). Although difficult to get an accurate measure of sustainability, household
perception of sustainability is shown to have an effect on the likelihood that the public
service provided by the LGU is sustainable. (Binder, 2008; Bohm, Essenburg, & Fox,
1993).
To the extent that level I/II service is more sustainable, through the proper use and
maintenance, by the people directly using and benefitting from such a system.
Community involvement, through feedback and response to any problems that may cause
disruptions to the service, also enhances its sustainability, through proactive community
actions and activities.
On the other hand, level III service can be said to be more sustainable in
communities with higher length of residence in the community, more livelihood sources,
and higher household densities. Additionally, the presence of alternative rural water
access services can be another plus factor that contributes to the sustainability of the
178
barangay’s constituent household rural water access service, as it lessens the reliance to
only one service and increases the household’s self-sufficiency in obtaining water access.
As a pilot mechanism for assessing the sustainability level of a rural household
water access, with timely and frequent use, the 3-FSAQ can be further improved to
provide more relevant feedback from local factors that was previously not considered by
the study.
Households, in select barangays in Victoria, have a weak to moderate perception
of the sustainability of their rural water access service. This is especially evident in
communities where agriculture is the main source of livelihood and where the
infrastructure for a piped network system, such as those required in level III water access,
has yet to be completed or implemented. These communities have also been observed to
consume water for irrigating land, which at times also serves as an alternative water
source for their households, with the same water quality used for household consumption.
When compared across water service levels, the relationship between a
household’s sustainability perception of their rural household water access service with
the socio-demographic factor of livelihood sources becomes moderate or stronger in level
III water access barangays. This may be due to the availability of alternative water
sources as these barangay households have various water access such as private deep
wells with water pumps which are not readily available to their level I/II counterparts.
Outside of the socio-demographic characteristics and local water use practices, a
barangay’s proximity to the municipality has an observable effect on a community’s
sustainability perception of their household rural water access service, in that the farther
the community, the higher their perception of sustainability of their household water
179
access service becomes. This reveals the community’s preference for a low-cost rural
access service and are willing to sacrifice time and convenience rather than entail
additional expense.
The study established that a negative relationship between a rural household’s
water access service level and its sustainability perception, households with level III
water access service are less sustainable than ones with a level I/II water access service
level. This is no surprise considering these barangays depend heavily on agriculture and
their ability to pay for a level III rural water access service is diminished.
The 3-FSAQ has been proven to be a very useful and less intrusive data collection
tool for barangays to use, that provides them with an idea of the degree of sustainability
of their rural household water access service. Moreover, the 3-FSAQ can be customized
to their own localized specifics to further enhance their household’s water access service
sustainability perception.
Across barangays, there is also a negative relationship that was observed with
regard to certain socio-demographic characteristics and local water use practices with a
rural household’s water access service level. This suggests that barangay households with
level I/II water service is seen to be more sustainable than those with a level III service.
Between water access service levels, there was a stronger but still negative
relationship. This supports our previous report that level I/II water access service is
perceived to be more sustainable than those rural households with level III water access
service.
180
Finally, between the household’s water access service level and its perceived
sustainability, there is evidence of stronger perception of the sustainability of their rural
water access in level I/II service than level III water service.
Unlike in urban and highly commercialized districts, water concessions have been
given the monopoly over large areas, where the only water access alternative would be
from retail and commercial outlets or through LGU intervention (i.e., firetrucks, and
water rationing).
Considering these, and outside of large urban areas, instead of a policy of seeking
improved rural water access services throughout the country, maybe the push should be
toward sustainable rural water access services, which is far more economical and
sustainable in a rural environment.
The 3-FSAQ shows a lot of promise as a mechanism that provides the barangays
with information obtained from local data. And with such information, the community is
better informed about their rural water access service and provide quality feedback for
the LGU to consider.
It does not come as a surprise that a level III rural water access service is, at least
on the short term, unsustainable because of the absence of the economies of scale in a
rural setting, where agriculture is the main source of economic activity.
The select barangays in Victoria, Tarlac, namely San Jacinto, San Fernando,
Santa Barbara and Balayang, generally has a strong perception of the sustainability of
their household’s water access service. Changes in the magnitude is apparent among
barangays as well as through their rural water access service levels. It can also be
implied, from the data collected, that the 3-FSAQ provide a snapshot assessment that will
181
be useful to the barangay leadership can use to provide them with an idea of the
sustainability level that their household rural water access has, based on how the
community perceives it.
Moderate relationship patterns were found, in terms of how the household assess
the sustainability of the water access service vis-à-vis certain socio-demographic
characteristics and living conditions, namely, role in the household length of residence in
the community, livelihood sources, household size, educational attainment, household
water sources (e.g. main and alternative source available to the household), length of use
of current water source, and daily water consumption (e.g. bathroom use and household
water consumption) across rural water service levels, while a weak to very weak
relationships are observed across barangays.
The likelihood that a barangay’s rural water access service is sustainable lies on
the community’s perception of its sustainability. The study has shown that community
perception can be used as a source of data that approximates the level of sustainability of
a given locality’s rural water access service. and which can easily be obtained in real time
using today’s technology such as the smartphone, laptop, or tablet. And through the 3-
FSAQ, the barangay can obtain a quick measure of their current rural water access
service situation and provide targeted interventions to strengthen their weak points and
further improve their capacities.
More than the statistically significant relationships were those whose relationship
were missing and not statistically established. It was observed by this researcher that
households in those barangays that were farthest from the municipal seat (i.e., the
población) had a higher perception of the sustainability of their household rural water
182
access service than those closer to it. It appears that barangays with close proximity to the
local seat of political authority and power have a tendency to be dependent on the
municipality instead of being self-reliant enough as to be confident of their own
sustainability in rural water access. And although there were patterns that can be
established in terms of socio-demographic characteristics and living conditions vis-à-vis
their perception of sustainability of their water access service, the barangay’s geography,
household density and local economy are observed to have a bigger impact on the level
of perceived sustainability to their household water access service. This holds true when
the available water service level comes into play, where it is clear that a higher service
level is not sustainable in far flung barangays with less household density.
6.2 Further Studies
With additional resources for further study, the following have been identified as
topics for further study:
Because sustainability involves certain points in time to serve as a benchmark for
additional assessments. There is there a need to conduct more longitudinal studies on how
a rural barangay’s perception of their household water access service is further influenced
and how such can be affected by other factors such as climate change, the increased role
of women and children in household water access sustainability as well as other factors
that may not have been previously considered.
At the municipality level, barangay water programs and activities that promote a
sustainability mindset in the context of household rural water access should be
undertaken to enhance local knowledge and increase sustainability perception. There
183
should be close collaboration and cooperation between the barangay, as the basic delivery
arm of the national government, and the municipal and provincial LGU level.
Recognizing the benefit that the 3-FSAQ brings to the LGU at the barangay level,
additional studies should look into the use of household perception as a feedback source
for the community-based monitoring system (CBMS) as outlined in RA No. 11315 of
2019. By doing so, it furthers our understanding of perception-based feedback in bringing
about an improved and sustainable rural water access service for current users as well as
for those rural communities unable to financially meet obligations required of level III
water access service and complements government initiatives outlined in the Philippine
Water Supply and Sanitation Master Plan (PWSSMP) which currently guides our
country’s water policy until the year 2030.
There is also a need to further improve the interaction of both government and
non-governmental organizations when it comes to the practical and relevant
implementation of the integrated water resources management (IWRM), especially at the
barangay level.
Current regulatory set up for rural water access which has become complicated
over the years and should be reviewed in favor of the local community. Overlaps in
responsibilities within the government should be properly addressed at the national level
with focus on the barangay level.
As a community feedback mechanism, the 3-FSAQ is proven to be an effective
tool that the barangay can easily and economically utilize to effect social equitability in
its mandate to deliver basic public services. Such tool should be considered dynamic and
further research is suggested to continually improve this mechanism and make it
184
customizable to be more locally relevant. A cross examination of data among barangays
from different municipalities in the same or similar provinces can also shed valuable
insights for provincial, and even national issues and concerns. Additional factors such as
gender equitability, water supply sources and climate change are worth the investigation.
Local knowledge and practices should be aligned with sustainability efforts in the
delivery of basic public service, such as providing sustainable household rural water
access. At the barangay level, more studies should be encouraged to inculcate equitable
and responsible general management and administrative support services to constituent
households. This can be further achieved by additional research that result in inexpensive
ways and methods that can be easily implemented at the community level. Practical
approaches using good governance concepts can result in better community engagement
at the barangay level, fostering social equity. These studies should aim to invigorate a
more humanized, and therefore sustainable, program in the delivery of basic public
services to households.
In addition, creating awareness in household sustainability perception of climate
change issues should be looked into as it affects their attitude toward sustainable rural
water access service sustainability and prepare the barangay in improving their
performance to better serve the general community.
The advent of new and the development of information technology such as the
use of smart phones should also be mentioned for further researchers as ready tools to
position the barangay into the future and possibly pave the way for the use of artificial
intelligence in the delivery of public service.
185
6.3 Recommendations
Further studies are needed to enhance our understanding not only of the local
rural level dynamics that influences the local water access sustainability perception but
also into identifying common factors among respondents within a barangay that can quite
possibly have policy implications on sustainable rural household water access at both the
national and global levels of governance. An example, nationally, is to assess if a
barangay’s proximity to the municipal and provincial seats of power affects their water
access sustainability perception and thus their attitude toward a higher rural water access
service level. Globally includes climate change, and other factors that result in inverse
positive relationships. Longitudinal studies at the local level should also be pursued.
The following recommendations are provided:
1. Barangay Skills Training Programs: The municipality can organize community
training seminars for their barangays on skills needed by the barangay not only to
increase their awareness on the importance of sustainable water usage and
conservation, but also provide for more income opportunities in the barangay.
2. Encourage and Promote Water Conservation Practices: The barangays can hold
periodic environmental protection campaigns to encourage its households to conserve
water through the adoption of water-saving measures such as using low-flow
showerheads, reporting and repairing leaks, and reducing water wastage.
3. Utilizing technologies that are appropriate to the locality: Barangays can identify and
adopt simple but appropriate water treatment and purification technologies to ensure
that their water supply always remains clean, safe, and free from contaminants.
186
4. Encourage and develop community partnerships: Barangays should endeavor and
develop partnerships with local as well as neighboring community organizations,
private businesses, other barangays, and government field agencies to expand their
knowledge and better manage their water resources as well as improve the
community’s talent pool.
5. Monitor and evaluate their community’s household consumption: The barangays
should be aware of their rural household water consumption and ensure that the state
of their water supply remains consistent with local demand. Through timely rural
water use surveys, the barangay gains more knowledge about their community’s water
demands and implement appropriate interventions that factor in the quantity and
quality of water consumed by households.
Promoting community awareness to water conservation together with the use of
water delivery technologies that is suitable for them, rural barangays improve the
sustainability perception of their rural water access delivery service which in turn
increases the likelihood of attaining a sustainable rural water delivery service.
Finally, transparency, accountability and responsibility especially in rural water
access service projects should be promoted and encouraged to further improve
community perception of the sustainability of their rural water access service. As we
scramble to meet the UN-SDG No. 6 deadline in 2030, the spirit of these UN goals
should not be lost amidst the greed that often accompanies large infrastructure water
projects. The sustainability problem of household rural water access service lies not in the
amount of money thrown at it, but in the commitment and dedication of the barangay and
187
its community to ensure that this basic public service remain non-exclusive and non-
rivalrous to all water rights holders.
188
Bibliography
Abulencia, J. P., Gallardo, S., Abraham, N., Caraccio, A., Ruffini, N., McDonnell, K., &
Tañala, F. (2010). Sustainability of Water Resources for the Poor. Consilience:
The journal of sustainable development, 4, 155-166.
Adam, H. (2017). Steps to sustainability: A road map for WASH. Waterlines, 185-203.
doi:10.3362/1756-3488.17-00002
Araral, E., & Wang, Y. (2013). Water governance 2.0: A review and second generation
research agenda. Water Resources Management, 27(11), 3945-3957.
Araral, E., & Yu, D. (2009). Asia Water Governance Index. Public Policy Institute.
Asian Development Bank. (2013). Philippines: Water Supply and Sanitation Sector
Assessment, Strategy and Roadmap. Mandaluyong City: ADB. doi:ISBN 978-92-
9092-941-3 (Print), 978-92-9092-942-0 (PDF)
Asian Development Bank. (2022, 4 25). Retrieved from Pacificwater.org: chrome-

extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/http://www.pacificwater.org/userf
iles/file/iwrm/philippines.pdf
Bamberger, M. (1991). The Importance of Community Participation. Public

Adminisration and Development, II(3), 281-284.
Basiago, A. D. (1999). Economic, Social, and Environmental Sustainability in

Development Theory and Urban Planning Practice. The Environmentalist, 19,
145-161.
Beder, S. (2006). The Sustainability Principle. In UNSW, Environmental Principles and

Policies.
Beder, S. (2006). The Sustainability Principle. In Environmental Principles and Policies.

London: UNSW Press.
Behrens, J. T. (1997). Principles and Procedures of Exploratory Data Analysis. APA

Psyc, 2(2), 131-160.
Bell, P., Green, T., Fisher, J., & Baum, A. (2001). Environmental Psychology, 5th ed.
Belmont CA: Wadsworth/Thompson Learning.
Benedict, S., & Hussein, H. (2019). An Analysis of Water Awareness Campaign

Messaging in the case of Jordan. Water, 11(6). Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/w11061156
189
Berkes, F., & Folke, C. (1994). Linking Socio-ecological systems for resilience and
sustainability. Stockholm: The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.
Berner, E., & Phillips, B. (2005). Left to their Own Devices? Community Self-Help
between Alternative Development and Neo-Liberalism. Community Development
Journal, 17.
Bhandari, B., & Grant, M. (2007). User Satisfaction and Sustainability of Drinking Water
Schemes in Rural Communities in Nepal. Science, Practice and Policy, 3(1).
doi:10.1080/15487733.2007.11907988
Bhandari, P. (2022, 3 22). Correlational Research: When and How to use. Retrieved
from Scribbr: https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/correlational-research/
Bhatia, V. K., & Jaggi, S. (2022, 12 17). icar-iasri. Retrieved from Exploratory Data
Analysis: chrome-
extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/http://bioinformatics.iasri.res.in/e
Publication/book/module1/VKBhatia-Exploratory_data_analysis.pdf
Binder, D. (2008). Sustainability of Water Service Delivery in Rural Environment: Past

Approaches and the Way Forward. Emerging Markets Group-Water Sector.
Black, M. (1998). Learning What Works. Washington DC: UNDP.
Bohm, R. A., Essenburg, T. J., & Fox, W. F. (1993). Sustainability of potable water
services in the Philippines. Water Resources Research Journal, 29(7), 1955-1963.
Botes, L. (2013). Participatory Development as an Alternative Development Approach. .

South Africa: University of Free State.
British and Irish Ombudsman Association (BIOA), 2. (2009). Guide to principles of good
governance.
Brown, B. C. (2011). Conscious Leadership for Sustainability: A study of how leaders

and change agents with postconventional consciousness design and engage in
complex change initiatives. Ashridge International Research.
Brundtland, G. (1987). Our common future. World Commission on Environment.
Buclet, N., & Lazarevic, D. (2015). Principles for Sustainability.
Burton, C. G., Cutter, S. L., & Emrich, C. T. (2010, January). Disaster Resilience
Indicators for Benchmarking Baseline Conditions. Journal of Homeland Security
and Emergency Management, 7(1), 1-18. doi:10.2202/1547-7355 1732
190
Carter, R., Tyrell, S., & Howsam, P. (1999). The Impact and Sustainability of
Community Water Supply and Sanitation Program in Developing Countries.
Water and Environment Journal, 13(4), 292-296.
Cavagnaro, E., & Curiel, G. (2012). The three levels of sustainability. Sheffield:
Greenleaf Publishing Ltd.
Columbia Water Center. (2012). Designing Sustainable and Scalable Rural Water Supply
Systems: Evidence and Lessons from Northeast Brazil. Columbia University.
Constitution. (1987). The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Pilippines. Retrieved
from Official Gazette of the Philippine Government:
https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/constitutions/1987-constitution/
Cox, C. K. (2005). Organic leadership: The co-creation of good business, global

prosperity, and a greener future. Benedictine University.
Creswell, J. (2013). Steps in conducting a scholary mixed method study. DBER

speakerseries.
Daemane, M. (2015). The AnalyticConceptual Framework for Comprehending Factors

Essential to Realize Sustainability in Rural Communites' Water Supply Systems.
Global Journal of Guman Social Science, 15(5).
David, C. (2015). Vision 2040: Discussions with the Filipino Youth. NEDA.
David, C. C., & Inocencio, A. B. (1996). Understanding Household Demand and Supply
of Water: The Metro Manila Case. Philippine Institute for Development Studies,
1-11.
Davies, A., & Lemma, T. (2009). Capacity Development: A UNDP Primer.
Dayrit, H. (2001). Review of the National Experience in the Formulation of a National

Water Vision. In L. Ti, & T. Facon (Eds.), From Vision to Action: A synthesis of
Experiences in Southeast Asia. Bankgkok: FAO/ESCAP. doi:974-88406-3-8
de Oliveira, C. M. (2017). Sustainable access to safe drinking water: fundamental human

right in the international and national scene. Ambiente & Agua - An
InterdisciplinaryJournal of Applied Science.
Demuth, A. (2013). Perception Theories. Towarzystwo Słowaków w Polsce. doi:978-83-

7490-606-7
Dhaoui, I. (2019). Good Governance for Sustainable Development. Munich

PersonalRePEe Archive.
191
Dhaoui, I. (2019). Good Governance for Sustainable Development. Munich Personal
RePEc Archive. Retrieved from https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/92544
Dijksterhuis, A., & van Knippenberg, A. (1998). The Relation Between Perception and
Behavior, or How to Win a Game of Trivial Pursuit. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 74(4), 865-877.
Diola, F. (2009). Social capital formation through peace and development initiatives in
selected conflict areas in Mindanao and implications for local governance. UP
NCPAG, 1-34;418-434.
Dohner, R. S., & Intal, P. J. (1989). Government Interventions and Rent Seeking. In J. D.
Sachs, & S. M. Collins (Eds.), Developing Country Debt and Economic
Performance, Vol 3: Country Studies - Indonesia, Korea, Philippines, Turkey
(Vol. 3). University of Chicago Press. doi:ISBN: 0-226-30455-8
DROP. (2013). Water governance assessment tool. Retrieved November 28, 2015, from
DROP: http://doc.utwente.nl/86879/1/Governance-Assessment-Tool-DROP-final-
for-online.pdf
Dungumaro, E., & Madulu, N. (2003). Public participation in integrated water Resources
Management:the case of Tanzania. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 1009-
1014.
Ekins, P., Deutsch, L. M., Simon, S., & Folke, C. (2003). A Framework for the practical
application of the concepts of critical natural capital and strong sustainability.
Ecological Economics, 44(2-3), 165-185.
Falkenmark, M., Berntell, A., Jagerskog, A., Lundqvist, J., Matz, M., & Tropp, H.
(2007). On the verge of a new water scarcity: A call for good governance and
human ingenuity. SIWI. Retrieved August 11, 2016, from
http://www.unwater.org/downloads/SIWI_PB_Water_Scarcity.pdf
Fan, Y., Tang, Z., & Park, S. C. (2019). Effects of Community Perceptions and
Institutional Capacity on Smallholder Farmers’ Responses to Water Scarcity:
Evidence from Arid Northwestern China. Sustainability, 11(483).
FAO. (2016). How can women control water?, Social Policies and Rural Institutions
Division (ESP). AGL.
Farsari, Y., & Prastacos, P. (2002). Sustainable Development Indicators : An overview.
192
Ferguson, M., & Bargh, J. (2004). How social perception can automatically influence
behavior. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 8(1). doi:10.1016
Fleurbaey, M., Kartha, S., Bolwig, S., Chee, Y. L., Chen, Y., Corbera, E., . . . Sagar, A.
D. (2014). Sustainable Development and Equity. In O. R.-M. Edenhofer, J.
Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel, & J. C. Minx (Eds.),
Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working
Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Chapin, T., & Rockström, J. (2010).
Resilience Thinking: Integrating Resilience, Adaptability and Transformability.
Ecology ans Society, 15(4).
Gleick, P. (1996, June). Basic Water Requirements for Human Activities: Meeting Basic
Needs. Water International, 21, 83-92. doi:10.1080/02508069608686494.
Global Water Partnership. (2002). Dialogue on Effective Water Governance. Sweden:

Elanders Novum AB.
Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research.

Science and Education, 597-607.
Gosling, L., & Edwards, M. (1995). Toolkits: A practical Guide to Assessment,

Monitoring, Review and Evaluation. London: Save the Children.
Graham, J., Amos, B., & Plumptre, T. (2003). Principles for Good Governance in the
21st Century. Institute on Governance. Otawa: Institute on Governance. Retrieved
August 11, 2016, from
http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/UNPAN/UNPAN011842.
pdf
Grinnell, R., & Williams, M. (1990). Grinnell, R;& Williams, M 1990. Research in social
work: a primer. Itasca: FE Peacock Publishers. Itasca: FE Peacock Publishers.
Hall, R. A., Abansi, C. L., & Lizada, J. C. (2018). Laws, Institutional Arrangements, and
Policy Instruments. In A. C. Rola, J. M. Pulhin, & R. A. Hall (Eds.), Water Policy
in the Philippines (pp. 41-64). Springer Nature.
Hall, R., Lizada, J., Dayo, H., Abansi, C., David, M., & Rola, A. (2015). To the last drop:
the political economy of Philippine water policy. Water Policy, 17, 946-962.
Retrieved AUGUST 11, 2016, from https://ovpaa.up.edu.ph/wp-
content/uploads/2015/10/WPOL-D-14-00150-2.pdf
193
Hardin, G. (1968). The Tragedy of the Commons. Science. Vol 162 (3859). Pp 1243-
1248. DOI: 10.1126/science.162.3859.1243, 162(3859), 1243-1248. doi:DOI:
10.1126/science.162.3859.1243
Harris, J. M. (2000). Basic Principles of Sustainable Development. Global Development

and Environment Institute. Medford: Tuft University.
Harrison, L. (2016). From Abrasive to Impressive Leadership.
Havekes, H., Hofstra, M., van der Kerk, A., Teeuwen, B., van Cleef, R., & Oosterloo, K.
(2016). Building Blocks for good governance. Hague: Water Governance Centre
(WGC). Retrieved August 26, 2016, from
http://watergovernance.s3.amazonaws.com/files/P085-01-16-006-eindpubBB.pdf
Hiwasaki, L., Luna, E., Syamsidik, & Shaw, R. (2014). Local & indigenous knowledge
for community resilience: Hydro-meteorological disaster risk reduction and
climate change adaptation in coastal and small island communities. Jakarta:
UNESCO. doi:ISBN 978-602-9416-11-4 (UNESCO)
Hodgkin, J. (1994). Sustainability of donor-assisted rural water supply projects.

Washington: WASH technical report, 94.
Horbulyk, T., & Price, J. P. (2018). Pricing reforms for sustainable water use and
management in the Philippines. UNEP.
IFAD. (2009). Sustainability of rural development projects: Best practices and Lessons
learned bt IFAD in Asia. Kegan: Tango International.
Inocencio, A. B., Padilla, J. E., & Javier, E. P. (1999). How Much Water Do Households
Require. Philippine Institute for Developmental Studies, 1-8.
Inocencio, A., Padilla, J., & Javier, E. (1999). Determination of Basic Household
Requirements. Philippine Institute for Development Studies.
Israel, D. (2009). Local Service Delivery of Potable Water in the Philippines: National
Review and Case Analysis. Makati: Philippine Institute for Development Studies.
Jenkins, W. (2013). The Future of Ethics: Sustainability, Social Justice, and Religious
Creativity. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.
Jimenez, A., Saikia, P., Gine, R., Avello, P., Leten.J, Lymer, B., . . . Ward, R. (2020).
Unpacking Water Governance: A Framework for Practicioners. Water, 2(827).
doi:10.3390/w12030827
194
Juwana, I., Muttil, I. J., & OPerera, B. J. (2012). Indicator-based Water Sustainability
Assessment – A Review. Science of the Total Environment,, 438, 357-371.
Kakabadse, A. P., & Kakabadse, N. K. (2007). CSR in practice: Delving deep. New
York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Kemper, E. A., Stringfield, S., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Mixed Methods Sampling Strategies
in Social Research. .
Kendall, S. H. (1976). The Barangays as Community in the Philippines. Meeting World

Housing Needs, 41(242), 15-19.
Kothari, C. (1990). Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques. New Delhi:

Wishwa.
Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining Sample Size for Research
Activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 607-610.
Kumar, S. (2002). Methods for community participation: A complete guide for

practitioners. London: ITDG .
Lee, T. H. (2013). Influence Analysis of Community Resident Support for Sustainable

Tourism Development. Tourism Management, 37-46.
Lee, T. H., & Jan, F. H. (2019). Can Community Based Tourism Contribute to
Sustainable Development? Tourism Management, 368-380.
Lin, H., Lee, H., & Wang, K. (2021). Influence Analysis of Sustainability Perceptions on
Sense of Community and Support for Sustainable Community Development.
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.
Livingstone, A., & McPherson, H. (1993). Management strategies for rural water
development: A Case From Sudan. United Nations Sustainable Development
Journal, 7(4), 294-301. doi:doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-8947.1993.tb00189.x
Llanto, G. M. (2013). Water Financing Programs in the Philippines:Are we making

Progress? PIDS.
LWUA. (2017). Water Districts in the Philippines. Quezon City. Retrieved from
http://lwua.gov.ph
195
Macharia, E. W., Mbassana, M., & Oduor, J. (2015). Assessing Sustainability of Rural
Water Projects in Naivasha, Kenya, Case Study: Maraigushu Water Project.
European Journal of Business and Social Sciences, 52-83.
Malayang, B. I. (2004). A Model of Water Governance in the Philippines. In A. Rola, H.

Francisco, & J. Liguton (Eds.), Winning the Water Wars: watersheds, water
policies and water institutions (pp. 59-84). PCARRD. doi:ISBN 971-564-075-3
Masduqi, A., Soedjono, E. S., Endah, N., & Hadi, W. (2009). Prediction of Rural Water
Supply Systems Sustainability Using a Mathematical Model.
McCommon, C., Warner, D., & Yohalem, D. (1990). Community Management of Rural
Water Supply and Sanitation Services. Washington: WASH Technical Report No.
67.
Mesch, G., & Manor, O. (1998). Social Ties, Environmental Perception and Local
Attachment. Environmental Behavior, 504-519.
Messakh, J., Fanggidae, R. E., & Moy, D. L. (2020). Perceptions of Rural Communities
Towards Sustainable Water Supply in Arid Tropical Regions in Indonesia. Earth
and Environmental Science, 426(2020).
Miranda, L., Hordijk, M., & Molina, R. (2011). Water Governance Key Approaches: An
Analytical framework, A Literary Review. Amsterdam.
Mukherjee, N., & van Wijk, C. (2003). Sustainability Planning and Monitoring in
Community Water Supply and Sanitaion. The World Bank.
Municipality of Victoria, Tarlac. (2019).
Narayan, D. (1994). The Contribution of People's Participation: Evidence from 121 rural
water supply projects. New York: World Bank.
NEDA. (2019). Philippine Water Supply and Sanitation Master Plan (PWSSMP).
Manila: NEDA. Retrieved 11 23, 2022, from https://neda.gov.ph/wp-
content/uploads/2021/09/120921_PWSSMP_Main-Report.pdf
Nikkhah, H. A., & Redzuan, M. (2009). Participation as a Medium of Empowerment in

Community Development. European Journal of Social Sciences, 11(1), 170-176.
Njie, N., & T. Ndiaye, T. (n.d.). Women and Agricultural Water Resource Management.
Retrieved from https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/women-and-agricultural-
water-resource-management
196
OECD. (2015). Governance challenges and suggested tools for the implementation of the
water-related Sustainable Development Goals. UN-Water.
OECD. (2015). Inventory of water governance indicators and measurement frameworks.

OECD Water governance initiative.
OECD. (2015). OECD.org. Retrieved from oecd.org/governance/oecd-principles-on-

water-governance.htm
OECD. (2018). OECD.org. Retrieved April 5, 2021, from

http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264292659-en
OECD. (2018). Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development and Gender Equality:
Fostering an Integrated Policy Agenda. OECD.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A conceptual model of service.
Journal of Marketing, 49, 41-50.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item

scale for measuring consumer perceptionsof service quality. Journal of Retailing,
6(1), 12-40.
Pascual, C. M., Abadilla, C. P., & Acedebo, F. A. (2007). People-Centered Approaches

in Sustaining Water, Food and Environmental Sanitation in the Philippines: A
Review.
Pasimio, H. J. (2011). Turning the Tide: Improving water resource management in the
Philippines. Manila: Senate Economic Planning Office. Retrieved August 11,
2016, from https://www.senate.gov.ph/publications/PB%202011-08%20-
%20Turning%20the%20Tide.pdf
Paul, S. (1987). Community Participation in Development Projects: The World Bank

Experience. Washington: World Bank.
Peltz, C. (2008). Community water supply: project effectiveness and sustainability. Peltz,
C. (2008). Community water supply: project effectiveness and sustainability.
Masters Degree. Fort Collins: Colorado State University. [retrieved online on 23
January 2019] http://digitool.library.
colostate.edu///exlibris/dtl/d3_1/apache_media/L2V4. Retrieved February 6,
2019, from http://digitool.library.
colostate.edu///exlibris/dtl/d3_1/apache_media/L2V4
PhilAtlas. (2019, April 22). PhilAtlas. Retrieved from PhilAtlas:

https://www.philatlas.com/philippines.html
197
Pommells, M. (n.d.). Gender Violence as a Water, Sanitation, and Hygene Risk:
Uncovering Violence Against Women and Girls as it Pertains to Poor WaSH
Access. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801218754410
PSA & ICF. (2018). Philippines National Demographic and Health Survey 2017: Key
Indicators Report. Rockville: USAID.
PSA. (2015). Philippine Census.
PSA. (2019). Most Filipino Families Have Access to Improved Source of Drinking
Water. Quezon City: PSA. Retrieved 12 13, 2022
PwC. (2012). Key trends in Human Capital 2012: A global perspective.
Qiong, O. (2017). A brief Introduction to Perception. Studies in Literature and Language,

15(4), 18-28. doi:10.3968/10055
RA 7160. (1991, October 10). Local Government Code of the Philippines. Local
Government Code of the Philippines. Manila: Philippine Official Gazette.
Retrieved November 21, 2015, from RP Official Gazette:
http://www.gov.ph/1991/10/10/republic-act-no-7160/
Roberto, E. L. (2002). How to Make Local Governance Work. Makati: The Asian
Institute of Management.
Rogers, P., & Hall, A. (2003). Effective Water Governance. Sweden: Global Water
Partnership Technical Committee (TEC).
Rola, A., Lizada, J., Pulhin, J., Dayo, H., & Tabios III, G. (2015). Challenges of Water
Governance in the Philippines. Philippine Journal of Science, 144(2), 197-208.
Sadoff, C. E., Borgomeo, E., & De Waal, D. (2017). Turbulent Waters. Pursuing Water
Security in Fragile Contexts. Washinton, DC. Retrieved from
http://www.worldbank.org/water.
Sanchez-Hernndez, M., Maldonado-Briegas, J., Sanguino, R., Barroso, A., & Barriuso,
M. (2021). Users’ Perceptions of Local Public Water and Waste Services: A Case
Study for Sustainable Development. Energies, 14(3120). doi:10.3390
Sandys, E. (2005). Women 2000 and Beyond.
Sarker, A., Baldwin, C., & Ross, H. (2009). Managing groundwater as a common-pool
resource: an Australian case study. . Sarker, A., Baldwin, C. & Ross, H. 2009.
Managing groundwater as a common-pool resource: an Australian case study.
198
Research Article|October 01 2009. Water Policy (2009) 11 (5): 598-614.
https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2009.076. doi:doi.org/10.2166/wp.2009.076
Saunders, W., & Becker, J. (2015). A discussion of resilience and sustainability: Land
use planning recovery from the Canterbury earthquake sequence, New Zealand.
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 14, 73-81.
Scoones, I. (2016). The Politics of Sustainabiity and Development. The Annual Review of
Environment and Resources, 293-311.
Senge, P., Smith, B., Kruschwitz, N., Laur, J., & Schleyn, J. (2008). The Necessary
Revolution. Nicholas Brealey Publishing.
Sherry, J. (2017). Perceptions of water services and innovations to improve water

services in Tanzania.
Shynu, R. V., Santhosh Kumar, K. G., & D., S. (2021). Factors Influencing Environment
Perception: A systematic Review. Journal of Physics: Conference Services.
Smets, S. (2015). Water supply and sanitation in the Philippines : turning finance into
services for the future. In Water and Sanitation Program Washington, D.C. :
World Bank Group. Wash. DC: World Bank Group.
Smets, S. (n.d.). Water supply and sanitation in the Philippines : turning finance into
services for the future (English). In Water and Sanitation Program Washington,
D.C. : World Bank Group.
doi:http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/469111467986375600/Water-
supply-and-sanitation-in-the-Philippines-turning-finance-into-services-for-the-
future
Smith, J. W. (2010). Drinking Water Issues and Management in the Republic of the
Philippines.
Stojanovic, I., Ateljevic, J., & Stevic, R. S. (2016). Good Governance as a Tool of
Sustainable Development. European Journal of Sustainable Development, 5(4),
558-573. doi:10.14207/ejsd2016.v5n4p558
Tabios, G. Q. (2020). Physical Features and State of Water Resources and Status of
Water Governance in the Philippines. In W. W. Resources, Water Resources
Systems of the Philippines: Modeling Studies (Vol. 4). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-
3-030-25401-8
The Urban Partnerships Foundation. (2012). Water Supply and Sanitation. Retrieved
from Ombudsman.gov.ph: https://www.ombudsman.gov.ph/UNDP4/wp-
199
content/uploads/2012/12/Chap-08.-Water-Supply-and-Sanitation-30Nov06-
UPF.pdf
Toke, L. K., Gupta, R. C., & Dandekar, M. (2012). An empirical study of green supply
chain management in Indian perspective. Research Gate.
Torbert, W. R., Cook-Greuter, S. R., Fisher, D., & Foldy, E. G. (2004). Action inquiry:
The secret of timely and transformational leadership. San Francisco: Berrett-
Koehler.
Tropp, H. 2. (2007). Water governance: trends and needs for new capacity development.
Water Policy, 919(30). doi:10.2166/wp.2007.137
Turton, A., Hattingh, H., Maree, G., Roux, D., Claasen, M., & Strydom, W. (2007).
Governance as a Trialogue: Government-Society-Science in Transition. (A.
Turton, H. Hattingh, G. Maree, D. Roux, M. Claasen, & W. Strydom, Eds.) pp.
29-37.
UN. (2015). Water for a sustainable world. Paris: UNESCO.
UNDP. (1997). Human Development Report 1997. New York: Oxford University Press.
doi:ISBN 0-19-511996-7 (cloth) ISBN 0-19-511997-5 (paper)
UNDP. (2006). Mainstreaming Gender in Water Management. UNDP.
UNDP. (2013). Use's guide on assessing water governance.
UNESCO. (2006). Gender, Water and Sanitation: A policy Brief. Retrieved from
http://www.wsscc.org
UNISDR. (2009). Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction. Geneva: United Nations

International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR).
UNMDG. (2013). Enhancing Access to and Provision of Water Services with the Active
participation of the poor. Final Narrative Report.
van Velsor, E. (2009). Introduction: Leadership and corporate social responsibility.

Corporate Governance, 9(9), 3-6.
van Wijk-Sijbesma, C. (1995). Participation of Women in Water Supply and Sanitation:

Roles and Realities. The Hague: International Reference Center for Community
Water Supply and Sanitation.
Velasco, L. (2018). An Assessment of the Financial Sustainability and Performance of

Philippine Water Districts. Philippine Journal of Development, 45(2), 49-70.
200
Velasco, L. G., Diokno-Sicat, C. J., Castillo, A. F., & Maddawin, R. B. (2020). The
Philippine Local Government Water Sector. Quezon City: Philippine Institute for
Development Studies.
Wakeman, W. (1995). Gender Issues Source book for Water and Sanitation Projects.
Washington: UNDP/World Bank Water and Sanitation for Health Program.
Wanjiru, M. M. (2014). DETERMINANTS OF SUSTAINABILITY OF COMMUNITY

WATER PROJECTS IN KIENI EAST DISTRICT, NYERI COUNTY. University of
Nairobi.
WHO. (2012). Health Indicators of sustainable water in the Context of the Rio+20 UN
Conference on Sustainable Development. New York: WHOI/UNICEF.
WHO-UNICEF. (2017). Progress on drinking water, sanitation and hygiene: 2017

update and SDG baselines. New York: WHO/UNICEF.
Wiek, A., & Larson, K. (2012). Water, People and Sustainability-A Systems Framework
for Analyzing Water Governance Regimes.
World Bank. (1995). The Contribution of Peoples Paticipation Evidenced from 1212
Rural Water Supply Projects. Washington, DC: World Bank.
World Bank. (2015). Water Supply and Sanitation in the Philippiines: Turning Finance
into services for the future.
World Bank. (2017). Sustainability Assessment of Rural Water Service Delivery Models:
Findings of a Multi-Country Review. Washington DC: World Bank.
World Bank. (2017). Sustainability Assessment of Rural Water Service Delivery Models:
Findings of a Multi-Country Review. Washington DC: Worl Bank.
Yacoob, M., & Walker, J. (1991). Community Management in Water Supply and
Sanitation Projects: Costs and Implications. 40(1), 30-34.
Yttredal, E., & Homlong, N. (2020). Perception of Sustainable Development in a Local

World Heritage Perspective. Sustainability, 12(8825). doi:10.3390
201
Appendix 1. 3-FSAQ
202
203
204
205
206
207
Appendix 2. Location Maps
MAP A
SOURCE: Mapcarta, 2019 & Municipality of Victoria, 2019 Site Level I/II Level III
208
MAP B
Cabuluan
Batang Batang
SOURCE: Mapcarta, 2019 & Municipality of Victoria, 2019 Site Level I/II Level III
209
Appendix 3. Frequency Tables - Respondent Profile by Barangay
Respondent Profile by Barangay

BARANGAY Total
San San Sta.
Jacinto Fernando Barbara Balayang
Length of Less than 1 year 3 1 1 0 5
residency in the 1 - 3 years 2 2 21 6 31
community 3 - 5 years 13 9 17 3 42
More than 5 years 66 74 44 75 259
Main livelihood Agriculture 57 19 50 41 167
source Business 4 7 20 6 37
Self-employed 7 45 5 21 78
Government employee 7 8 6 4 25
Others 5 8 7 14 34
Household Size 1–5 49 41 49 42 181
6-9 11 21 27 41 100
10 or more 16 24 6 4 50
Primary Deep well 5 8 2 0 15
household water Barangay pump/faucet 31 28 63 57 179
access Our own pump 33 29 7 30 89
Water service provider 6 15 15 0 36
Buy retail 4 4 1 0 9
Others 0 3 0 0 3
Length of use of 1 year or less 1 1 3 1 6
the primary 1 - 3 years 6 5 30 6 47
household water 4 - 6 years 12 8 22 9 51
access 7+ years 62 71 31 71 235
Primary water Yes 83 58 77 62 280
access suitable No
for cooking and 0 24 0 20 60
drinking
Availability of Deep well 3 14 4 1 22
alternative Barangay pump/faucet 43 34 56 44 177
household water Our own pump 34 15 11 25 85
access Water service provider 0 8 15 23 26
Buy retail 4 7 2 12 25
Others 0 9 0 1 10
Alternative water Yes 74 41 70 61 246
access suitable
for cooking and No 0 12 0 21 33
drinking
Household water 3 -5 x per day 39 36 23 21 119
consumption for 6-9 x per day 15 20 41 26 102
hygiene and 10 -15 x per day 32 7 16 11 66
sanitation 16 x + per day 1 24 7 29 61
6-10 liters 37 37 42 30 147
210
Respondent Profile by Barangay
BARANGAY Total
San San Sta.
Jacinto Fernando Barbara Balayang
Household water 11-15 liters 15 18 26 23 82
consumption for 16-20 liters 32 9 14 14 69
daily use 20+ liters 2 22 5 18 47
Source: 3-FSAQ
211
Appendix 4. Frequency Table - Response by Barangay
Financial, Technical, Institutional (FTI)

Barangay
Indicator Perception Response Tot
SJ SF SB B
Our household water service is Strongly agree 68 14 39 28 149
easy to use and maintain. Agree 18 22 48 51 139
(Ease of Use) Neither Agree or 0 13 1 6 20
Disagree
Disagree 0 16 0 0 16
Strongly Disagree 0 4 0 1 5
Total 86 69 88 86 329
Our household stores water for Strongly agree 53 19 42 28 142
emergency use. (Water Security) Agree 28 19 43 44 134
Neither Agree or 0 11 2 9 22
Disagree
Total 81 68 87 86 322
The water we get for our Strongly agree 73 18 39 36 166
household is good for cooking Agree 8 16 47 35 106
and drinking. Neither Agree or 2 17 1 9 29
(Water Quality) Disagree
Total 87 69 87 86 329
Our household stores water in Strongly agree 74 17 42 37 170
properly sealed containers. Agree 4 26 41 43 114
(Water Safety) Neither Agree or 2 11 1 1 15
Disagree
Total 83 87 84 85 339
We can always expect the same Strongly agree 74 11 37 31 153
quality of water service at any Agree 9 16 48 43 116
time. Neither Agree or 3 22 1 9 35
(Reliability) Disagree
Total 87 69 86 84 326
The cost for our household Strongly agree 73 14 36 32 155
water access service is Agree 11 18 51 39 119
affordable. Neither Agree or 0 12 1 6 19
(Affordability) Disagree
Total 85 69 88 82 324
Strongly agree 67 11 33 34 145
212
Financial, Technical, Institutional (FTI)
Barangay
SJ SF SB B
We can expect our local Agree 16 20 51 40 127
government to take immediate Neither Agree or 2 11 2 2 17
action when our household Disagree
water access is interrupted. Disagree 1 24 1 0 26
(LGU Responsiveness) Strongly Disagree 0 3 0 1 4
Total 86 69 87 77 319
Our water service provider Strongly agree 61 13 31 25 130
listens to what our household Agree 12 20 54 40 126
needs in order to give better Neither Agree or 4 10 2 8 24
water service. Disagree
(WSP Responsiveness) Disagree 1 23 0 1 25
Total 78 69 87 76 310
Our water access service meets Strongly agree 72 14 35 51 172
our daily household water Agree 8 19 49 34 110
needs. (Sufficiency) Neither Agree or 1 9 2 1 13
Disagree
Total 81 69 86 86 322
Source: 3-FSAQ
Social – Political (SP)

Barangay
SJ SF SB B
Our household is always informed Strongly agree 65 13 32 21 131
by the local government on Agree 11 19 53 50 133
situations that may affect our water Neither Agree or 9 12 1 9 31
access service. Disagree
(Transparency) Disagree 0 22 0 2 24
Total 85 69 86 82 322
Our household water access is Strongly agree 77 12 36 38 163
convenient and easily accessible. Agree 6 21 49 43 119
(Accessibility) Neither Agree or 4 9 1 4 18
Disagree
Total 87 69 86 87 329
Our household can get drinking Strongly agree 67 16 35 43 161
water from other available water Agree 16 28 49 39 132
sources. Neither Agree or 2 10 2 1 15
(Equitability) Disagree
Total 87 87 86 87 347
213
Social – Political (SP)
Barangay
SJ SF SB B
Our household immediately reports Strongly agree 67 16 33 29 145

or fixes any water leaks we detect. Agree 12 21 49 39 121
(Proper Technology) Neither Agree or 4 15 1 3 23
Disagree
Total 83 69 83 76 311
Our household participates with the Strongly agree 66 16 32 29 143
community in the decision-making Agree 12 20 47 49 128
process that affects household Neither Agree or 4 12 1 1 18
water access. (Maintenance) Disagree
Total 82 68 80 83 313
Our household takes action when Strongly agree 74 17 36 31 158
our water access is interrupted. Agree 9 17 47 48 121
(Monitoring) Neither Agree or 0 11 0 4 15
Disagree
Total 83 69 83 84 319
Our household helps other Strongly agree 71 13 34 32 150
households with their water needs Agree 14 16 51 43 124
when needed. Neither Agree or 1 17 1 6 25
(Community Cohesiveness) Disagree
Total 87 69 86 83 325
Any additional costs from our Strongly agree 70 14 31 26 141
water access service are evenly Agree 9 22 54 39 124
distributed among other households Neither Agree or 4 8 1 11 24
in the community. (Cost Equality) Disagree
Total 87 69 86 79 321
Our household water service is just Strongly agree 67 14 34 21 136
like what other households have in Agree 19 16 51 51 137
our community. (Service Equality) Neither Agree or 1 15 1 6 23
Disagree
Total 87 69 86 83 325
Source: 3-FSAQ
214
Environmental (E)
Barangay
SJ SF SB B
We turn off running water while Strongly agree 65 18 37 31 151
brushing teeth, shaving and Agree 17 20 46 43 126
hand or face washing. Neither Agree or 1 12 0 3 16
(Water Conservation – Personal) Disagree
Total 83 69 83 79 314
Our household uses native Strongly agree 68 12 28 32 140
plants for our garden. Agree 13 19 52 42 126
(Water Conservation – Garden) Neither Agree or 2 18 2 6 28
Disagree
Total 83 69 82 85 319
Our household schedules when Strongly agree 68 16 28 34 146
we do our laundry. Agree 6 16 52 45 119
(Water Conservation – Laundry) Neither Agree or 6 12 3 0 21
Disagree
Total 80 68 83 84 315
We clean and maintain water Strongly agree 53 21 35 38 147
canals and sewer drains near Agree 30 19 48 44 141
our house. Neither Agree or 0 7 0 1 8
(Environmental Protection) Disagree
Total 83 69 83 84 319
Our household disposes our Strongly agree 73 22 36 39 170
garbage in designated garbage Agree 7 19 43 45 114
collection points. Neither Agree or 2 9 4 0 15
(Risk Reduction – Solid Waste) Disagree
Total 82 69 83 85 319
Our household uses Strongly agree 62 16 42 39 159
environmentally friendly Agree 20 20 42 47 129
products whenever possible. Neither Agree or 2 14 3 1 20
(Risk Reduction- Disagree
Biodegradables) Disagree 1 17 0 0 18
Total 86 69 87 87 329
Source: 3-FSAQ
215
Appendix 5. Codebook
Code Description
Socio-Demographic
D1 How long have you lived in this community?
D2 Main source of livelihood
D3 No. of people in your household
Water Use Practices
D4 Main source of water for your household
D5 How long have you been using this water source?
D6 Is this where you get your water for cooking and drinking?
D7 What other sources of water do you have for your household?
D8 Is this where you get your water for cooking and drinking?
D9 On the average, how many times do members of your household use the bathroom toilet?
D10 How much drinking water does your household consume in a day?
Code Description
FTI Financial, Technical, Institutional
Q1 Ease of Use Our household water service is easy to use and maintain
Q2 Water Security Our household stores water for emergency use .
Q3 Water Quality The water we get is good for both cooking and drinking.
Q4 Water Safety Our household stores water in properly sealed containers.
We can always expect the same quality water access service at
Q5 Reliability
any time.
Q6 Affordability The cost for our household water access service is affordable.
We can expect our local government to take immediate action
Q7 LGU Responsiveness
when our household water access service is interrupted.
Our water provider listens to what our household needs to give
Q8 WSP Responsiveness
better water service.
Our rural water access service meets our households daily
Q9 Sufficiency
water needs.
Code Description
SP Social, Political
Our household is always informed by the local
Q10 Transparency government on situations that may affect our water
access service.
Accessibility Our household rural water is convenient and easily
Q11 accessible.
Our household can get drinking water from other
Q12 Equitability
available water sources.
Our household immediately reports or fixes any
Q13 Proper Technology
water leaks we detect.
Our household participates with the community in
Q14 Maintenance the decision-making process that affects household
water access.
Our household takes action when our water access
Q15 Monitoring
is interrupted.
216
Code Description
SP Social, Political
Our household is always ready to help other
Q16 Community Cohesiveness
households with their water needs when needed.
Any additional costs from our rural water access
Q17 Cost Equality service are evenly distributed among the households
in a community.
Our household rural water access service is just like
Q18 Service Equality
what other households have in our community.
Code Description
E Environmental
Water Conservation We turn off running water while brushing teeth,
Q19 (Personal) shaving and hand or face washing.
Q20 Water Conservation (Garden) Our household uses native plants for our garden.
Water Conservation
Q21 Our household schedules when we do our laundry.
(Laundry)
We clean and maintain water canals and sewer drains
Q22 Environmental Protection
near our house.
Our household disposes our garbage in designated
Q23 Risk Reduction (Solid Waste)
garbage collection points.
Risk Reduction Our household uses environmentally friendly products.
Q24
(Biodegradables) whenever possible.
Likert Scale Description

1 Strongly Agree
2 Agree
3 Neither Agree nor Disagree
4 Disagree
5 Strongly Disagree
Scale Range Description

224 to 373 Very High Sustainability
76 to 225 High Sustainability
(-74) to (-75) Moderate
(-222) to (-73) Low Sustainability
(-372) to (-223) Very Low Sustainability
217
Appendix 6. Respondent Profiles Percentages - All Barangays
Residence N %
less than a year 5 1.4%
1 to 3 years 31 8.9%
3 to 5 years 42 12.0%
more than 5 years 259 74.0%
Missing System 13 3.7%
Total 350 100.0%
Livelihood N %
Agriculture 167 47.7%
Business (Wholesale and Retail) 37 10.6%
Self-Employed (services) 78 22.3%
Government Employee 25 7.1%
Employee (Private) 34 9.7%
Total 350 100.0%
HH Size N % %
1 to 5 people 181 51,7%
6 to 9 people 100 28.6%
10 or more people 50 14.3%
Total 350 100%
Main Source N %
Deep well 15 4.3%
Communal Pump 179 51.1%
Private Pump 99 28.3%
Water Provider 36 10.3%
Retail 9 2.6%
Other 3 0.9%
Total 350 100.0%
Length of Use N %
less than a year 6 1.7%
1 to 3 years 47 13.4%
4 to 6 years 51 14.6%
7 or more years 235 67.1%
Total 350 100.0%
Cooking/Drinking N %
Yes 280 80.0%
No 60 17.1%
Total 350 100.0%
218
Alternative Source N %
Deep well 22 6.3%
Communal Pump 177 50.6%
Private Pump 85 24.3%
Water Provider 26 7.4%
Retail 25 7.1%
Other 10 2.9%
Total 350 100.0%
Alternate Water source Quality N %
Yes 280 80%
No 60 17.1%
Total 350 100%
Bathroom Usage N %
3 to 5 times a day 119 34.0%
6 to 9 times a day 102 29.1%
10 to 15 times a day 66 18.9%
16 or more times a day 61 17.4%
Total 350 100.0%
HH Consumption N %
6 to 10 liters 146 41.7%
11 to 15 liters 82 23.4%
16 to 20 liters 69 19.7%
20 or more liters 47 13.4%
Total 350 100.0%
219
Appendix 7. Respondent Profile Chart – Summary
220
221
222
6
223
224
Appendix 8. Respondent Profiles Summary by Service Level
Length of residence in the community
Level I/II: 82.9% >5 years, 9.5% 3 to 5 years
Level III: 70.8% >5 years, 13.7% 1 to 3 years, 15.5%3 to five years
Livelihood sources
Level I/II: 59.2% for Agriculture, 16.4% for self-employed, and 11.2% private
employee
Level III: 39.9% for Agriculture, 28.5% for self-employed, and 15.6% for Business
Household size
Level I/II: 56.7% with 1 to 5 people, 31.1% with 6 to 9 people, and 12.9% with 10 or
more people
Level III: 53.2% with 1 to 5 people, 28.3% with 6 to 9 people, and 18.1% with more
than 10 people
Primary household water access
Level I/II: 52.4% from communal pumps, 38.1% 17.1% from private pumps, 3.8%
from WSP
Level III: 52.1% from communal pumps, 20.5% from private pumps, 17.1% from
WSP
Length of use of the primary household water access
Level I/II: 80% used the service for >7 years, 12.7% for 4 to 6 years, 7.4% for 1 to 3
years
Level III: 59.1% used the service for >7 years, 17.3% from 4 to 6 years, 20.1% for 1
to 3 years
225
Primary water access suitable for cooking and drinking
Level I/II: 83.3% trust the water from their main rural water access service, 14.4% don’t.
Level III: 79.9% trust the water from their main rural water access service, 20.7% don’t.
Availability of alternative household water access
Level I/II: 50.9% have alternative rural water access service from communal pump,
34.6% from private pumps
Level III: 51.9% have alternative rural water access service (communal pump), 14.9%
(Private Pump), 13.5% (WSP)
alternative water access suitable for cooking and drinking
Level I/II: 77.6% trusts the water from their alternative water access service, 12,1% don’t
Level III: 63.8% trusts the water from their alternative water access service, 6.9% don’t
Household water consumption for hygiene and sanitation
Level I/II: 34.5% use the bathroom 3 to 5 times a day, 23.6% use it 6 to 9 times a day,
24.7%% use the bathroom 10 to 15 times a day, 17.2% use it 6 to 9 times
Level III: 33.9% use the bathroom 3 to 5 times a day, 35.1% use it 6 to 9 times a day,
13.2% use it 10 to 15 times day, 17.8% use it 16 or more times a day
Household water consumption for daily use
Level I/II: 39% consume 6 to 10 liters of water a day, 22.1% consume 11 to 15 liters a
day, 26.7% consume 16 to 20 liters a day, 11 6% consume 20 or more liters a day
Level III: 46% consume 6 to 10 liters of water a day, 25.6% consume 11 to 15 liters a
day, 13.4% consume 16 to 20 liters a day, 15.6% consume more than 20 liters a day
226
Appendix 9. Perception Data – FTI by Barangay
Barangay San Jacinto Statistic Std. Error

Mean 4.77 .051
Ease of Use
95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 4.67

Upper Bound 4.87
Std. Deviation .423
Mean 4.64 .058
Security
Water

Upper Bound 4.76
Std. Deviation .483
Mean 4.69 .078
Quality
Water

Upper Bound 4.84
Std. Deviation .649
Water Safety
Mean 4.73 .064

Upper Bound 4.86
Std. Deviation .536
Mean 4.80 .060
Reliability

Upper Bound 4.92
Std. Deviation .499
Responsiven Affordability
Mean 4.77 .077

Upper Bound 4.92
Std. Deviation .641
Mean 4.77 .071
LGU

ess
Upper Bound 4.91

Std. Deviation .594
Responsiven
Mean 4.89 .043

WSP

ess
Upper Bound 4.97

Std. Deviation .363
Suffic
iency
Mean 4.84 .063

227
Upper Bound 4.97
Std. Deviation .528
Barangay San Fernando Statistic Std. Error

Ease of Use
Mean 3.62 .136

Upper Bound 3.89
Std. Deviation 1.120
Mean 3.44 .157
Security
Water

Upper Bound 3.76
Mean 3.31 .149
Quality
Water

Upper Bound 3.61
Mean 3.18 .147
Safety
Water

Upper Bound 3.47
Mean 3.10 .160
Reliability

Upper Bound 3.42
Affordabilit
Mean 3.49 .144

y
Upper Bound 3.77

Mean 3.18 .145
Responsive
LGU

ness
Upper Bound 3.47

Mean 3.24 .157
Responsive
WSP

ness
Upper Bound 3.55

228
Mean 3.62 .142
Sufficiency
Upper Bound 3.90
Barangay Santa Barbara Statistic Std. Error

Mean 4.41 .058
Ease of Use

Upper Bound 4.53
Std. Deviation .520
Mean 4.46 .061
Security
Water

Upper Bound 4.58
Std. Deviation .550
Mean 4.33 .058
Quality
Water

Upper Bound 4.44
Std. Deviation .522
Water Safety
Mean 4.36 .060

Upper Bound 4.48
Std. Deviation .534
Mean 4.44 .056
Reliability

Upper Bound 4.55
Std. Deviation .499
Mean 4.43 .058

Upper Bound 4.54
Std. Deviation .522
Mean 4.43 .058
LGU

ess
Upper Bound 4.54

Std. Deviation .522
Responsi
Mean 4.40 .061

veness
WSP

Upper Bound 4.52
229
Std. Deviation .542
Mean 4.49 .059
Sufficiency 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 4.37
Upper Bound 4.60
Std. Deviation .528
Barangay Balayang Statistic Std. Error

Mean 4.25 .071
Ease of Use

Upper Bound 4.39
Std. Deviation .599
Mean 4.21 .086
Security
Water

Upper Bound 4.38
Std. Deviation .730
Mean 4.22 .084
Quality
Water

Upper Bound 4.39
Std. Deviation .716
Water Safety
Mean 4.00 .138

Upper Bound 4.28
Mean 4.31 .073
Reliability

Upper Bound 4.45
Std. Deviation .620
Mean 4.19 .116

Upper Bound 4.43
Std. Deviation .988
Mean 4.26 .079
LGU

ess
Upper Bound 4.42

Std. Deviation .671
onsiv
eness
WSP
Resp
Mean 4.60 .061

230
Upper Bound 4.72
Std. Deviation .522
Sufficiency Mean 4.36 .091
Upper Bound 4.54
Std. Deviation .775
231
Appendix 10. Perception Data – SP by Barangay

Accessibility Transparency Mean 4.68 .073
Upper Bound 4.82
Std. Deviation .652
Mean 4.66 .075
Upper Bound 4.81
Std. Deviation .674
Mean 4.64 .089
Equitability

Upper Bound 4.82
Std. Deviation .799
Mean 4.76 .051
Technology
Proper

Upper Bound 4.86
Std. Deviation .457
Maintenance
Mean 4.88 .045

Upper Bound 4.96
Std. Deviation .402
Mean 4.81 .057
Monitoring

Upper Bound 4.92
Std. Deviation .506
Cohesiveness
Mean 4.79 .058

ce Cost Equality Community

Upper Bound 4.90
Std. Deviation .520
Mean 4.75 .060
Upper Bound 4.87
Std. Deviation .540
Equal
Servi
Mean 4.93 .030

ity
232
Upper Bound 4.98
Std. Deviation .265

Accessibility Transparency
Mean 3.59 .144

Upper Bound 3.88
Mean 3.24 .148
Upper Bound 3.53
Mean 3.34 .151
Equitability

Upper Bound 3.64
Mean 3.25 .146
Technology
Proper

Upper Bound 3.54
Maintenance
Mean 3.21 .153

Upper Bound 3.51
Mean 3.25 .140
Monitoring

Upper Bound 3.53
Cohesiveness
Mean 3.41 .147

Community

Upper Bound 3.71
er Cost Equality
Mean 3.43 .149

Upper Bound 3.72
ce
vi
al
E
it
S
q
u
Mean 3.28 .165
233
Upper Bound 3.61

Mean 4.40 .061

Upper Bound 4.52
Std. Deviation .542
Mean 4.38 .057
Upper Bound 4.49
Std. Deviation .513
Mean 4.36 .057
Equitability

Upper Bound 4.48
Std. Deviation .509
Mean 4.40 .058
Technology
Proper

Upper Bound 4.52
Std. Deviation .518
Maintenance
Mean 4.40 .058

Upper Bound 4.52
Std. Deviation .518
Mean 4.38 .057
Monitoring

Upper Bound 4.49
Std. Deviation .513
Cohesiveness
Mean 4.36 .057

Community

Upper Bound 4.48
Std. Deviation .509
Cost Equality
Mean 4.39 .058

Upper Bound 4.50
Std. Deviation .515
234
Mean 4.40 .055
Equality
Service
Upper Bound 4.51
Std. Deviation .493

Mean 4.39 .093

Upper Bound 4.58
Std. Deviation .783
Mean 4.07 .083
Upper Bound 4.24
Std. Deviation .704
Mean 4.11 .095
Equitability

Upper Bound 4.30
Std. Deviation .803
Mean 4.04 .099
Technology
Proper

Upper Bound 4.24
Std. Deviation .836
Maintenance
Mean 4.38 .079

Upper Bound 4.54
Std. Deviation .663
Mean 4.30 .081
Monitoring

Upper Bound 4.46
Std. Deviation .684
Equality Cohesiveness
Mean 4.13 .112

Community

Upper Bound 4.35
Std. Deviation .940
Mean 4.24 .095
Cost

Upper Bound 4.43
235
Std. Deviation .801
Mean 4.31 .082
Equality
Service
Upper Bound 4.47
Std. Deviation .689
236
Appendix 11 Perception Data – E by Barangay

Conservation Conservation Conservation
Personal Mean 4.83 .050
Water

Upper Bound 4.93
Std. Deviation .439
Mean 4.79 .050
Garden
Water

Upper Bound 4.89
Std. Deviation .437
Mean 4.86 .047
Laundry
Water

Upper Bound 4.95
Std. Deviation .418
Environment
al Protection
Mean 4.77 .066

Upper Bound 4.90
Std. Deviation .579
Mean 4.65 .054
Solid Waste
Reduction

Risk
Upper Bound 4.76

Std. Deviation .479
Biodegradabl
Mean 4.60 .082

Reduction

Risk
Upper Bound 4.77

Std. Deviation .727

at Conservation Conservation
Mean 3.29 .141

Personal
Water

Upper Bound 3.57
Mean 3.47 .153
Garden
Water

Upper Bound 3.78
W
ns
dr
io
er
er
at
C
L
o
u
n
y
a
Mean 3.54 .164
237
Upper Bound 3.87
Environment
al Protection
Mean 3.32 .153
Upper Bound 3.63
Mean 3.53 .160
Solid Waste
Reduction

Risk
Upper Bound 3.85

Biodegradabl
Mean 3.46 .144

Reduction

Risk
Upper Bound 3.74


Mean 4.32 .058

Personal
Water

Upper Bound 4.44
Std. Deviation .520
Mean 4.43 .055
Garden
Water

Upper Bound 4.54
Std. Deviation .498
Mean 4.38 .065
Laundry
Water

Upper Bound 4.51
Std. Deviation .582
Environment
al Protection
Mean 4.32 .058

Upper Bound 4.44
Std. Deviation .520
Mean 4.42 .055
Solid Waste
Reduction

Risk
Upper Bound 4.53

Std. Deviation .497
238
Biodegradabl
Mean 4.43 .061
Reduction
Risk 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 4.31
e
Upper Bound 4.55
Std. Deviation .546

Mean 4.15 .097

Personal
Water

Upper Bound 4.35
Std. Deviation .864
Mean 4.25 .085
Garden
Water

Upper Bound 4.42
Std. Deviation .759
Mean 4.49 .057
Laundry
Water

Upper Bound 4.61
Std. Deviation .503
Environment
al Protection
Mean 4.33 .082

Upper Bound 4.49
Std. Deviation .729
Mean 4.39 .073
Solid Waste
Reduction

Risk
Upper Bound 4.54

Std. Deviation .649
Biodegradabl
Mean 4.44 .059

Reduction

Risk
Upper Bound 4.56

Std. Deviation .525
239
Appendix 12. Level I/II Statistics Information Summary
FTI
Affordability
Water Safety
Responsiven
Responsiven
Ease of Use
Sufficiency
Reliability
Security
Quality
Water
Water
LGU
WSP
ess
ess
Mean 4.53 4.37 4.45 4.40 4.59 4.44 4.52 4.72 4.54
Std. Deviation .566 .748 .724 .951 .594 .891 .680 .474 .783
Variance .321 .560 .524 .905 .352 .794 .463 .225 .613
Range 2 4 4 4 3 4 3 2 4
Sum 779 730 686 709 762 768 773 789 754
SP
Cost Equality
Transparency
Cohesiveness
Accessibility
Maintenance
Technology
Community
Equitability
Monitoring
Equality
Service
Proper
Mean 4.55 4.38 4.40 4.41 4.59 4.53 4.48 4.48 4.59
Std. Deviation .702 .726 .824 .735 .636 .663 .802 .729 .604
Variance .493 .527 .679 .540 .405 .440 .643 .532 .364
Range 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 4
Sum 788 732 731 750 799 770 712 740 766
E
Conservation
Conservation
Conservation
Conservation
Conservation
Conservation
Personal
Personal
Personal
Personal
Personal
Personal
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Mean 4.48 4.52 4.64 4.52 4.52 4.54

Std. Deviation .750 .671 .573 .739 .579 .624
Variance .562 .450 .328 .546 .335 .390
Range 3 3 4 4 4 4
Sum 752 732 775 741 755 785
240
Appendix 13. Level III Statistics Information Summary
FTI
Water Quality
Responsivene
Responsivene
Affordability
Water Safety
Ease of Use
Sufficiency
Reliability
Security
Water
LGU
WSP
ss
ss
Mean 4.07 4.01 3.88 3.82 3.83 4.01 3.86 3.86 3.87
Std. Deviation .928 1.075 1.031 1.078 1.145 1.006 1.076 1.111 1.125
Variance .860 1.156 1.062 1.162 1.310 1.013 1.157 1.235 1.266
Range 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Sum 639 622 605 592 601 625 599 599 662
SP
Cost Equality
Transparency
Cohesiveness
Accessibility
Maintenance
Technology
Community
Equitability
Monitoring
Equality
Service
Proper
Mean 3.82 3.86 3.89 3.88 3.86 3.88 3.95 3.95 3.91
Std. Deviation 1.103 1.051 1.042 1.044 1.105 1.019 1.019 1.029 1.130
Variance 1.218 1.105 1.085 1.090 1.222 1.038 1.038 1.058 1.276
Range 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Sum 661 599 603 602 599 602 601 584 594
E
Risk Reduction
Risk Reduction
Environmental
Biodegradable
Conservation
Conservation
Conservation
Solid Waste
Protection
Personal
Laundry
Garden
Water
Water
Water
Mean 3.85 4.00 4.01 3.86 4.01 4.01

Std. Deviation 1.005 1.036 1.083 1.052 1.064 1.019
Variance 1.010 1.073 1.172 1.107 1.132 1.039
Range 4 4 4 4 4 4
Sum 581 608 609 583 609 625
241
Appendix 14. Tarlac Field Notes
Date Notes
7/5/2019 Initial visit (Ocular) to determine actual study site and confirm conditions
– Paniqui, Ramos, Pura, then Victoria
Paniqui Spoke to sari-sari store owners and customers regarding sources of
(8:00 am) drinking water
Was informed that manual pumps have always been the traditional way
they have for household water
In Paniqui, we were able to speak with representatives from Prime Water
who is the consignee to provide water access. We were advised that there
was already a 95% level III water access service availability.
Only a few very far-fetched barangays located along the mountainside at
the western side were not currently connected. They expect to reach
100% level III water access coverage within the next three (3) years.
Ramos Visited coop run water service. Employees were very proud of their
(10:15 am) success in being able to provide affordable level III water
Pura Visited the water district but found the office vacant. Spoke to workers
(11 am to 2 who were around the office and was advised to visit the municipal bldg.
pm)
The municipal planner and the engineer were not around.
Victoria Spoke with Mr. Fernando Galileo – Victoria Municipal Planner and Ms.
(2:30-5 pm) Lani magnon – Victoria Municipal Engineer discussed proposed land use
in Victoria
Stopped and spoke with residents living along the highway (Victoria-
Tarlac highway). Most were farmers who used deep wells.
Communal pumps can be observed. More “affluent” households subsidize
less fortunate neighbors.
Asked if they were concerned about possible conflicts over water, and
respondent (farmer with large land to till) replied: “tubig lang ho yan, di
naman problem”
8/12/2019 Pre-test of the questions
Victoria
8:00 am Interviewed and taped (audio) five (5) households
to 5 pm)
Multi water source: from barangay supplied manual pumps to piped
service. Depending on income level, they may have more than three (3)
water sources for their domestic use
Household members were at first wary of the survey/interview, but upon
further conversation where we explained what the research is about, the
respondent relaxed and not only answered our questions but also provided
anecdotes to further illustrate their experiences.
Income is a major factor in determining the number of alternative water
sources available to the household
Was able to see the interior of a couple of houses in barangay Santa
Barbara, who were level III subscribers of Balibago water, it was
observed to these households would rely more on the barangay communal
pump than their indoor water faucet. This is evidenced by the existence of
two to three (2-3) alternative water sources. In both cases, the household
242
Date Notes
had a private manual pump inside the house, a jet Matic water pump
connected to a communal pump and an indoor faucet.
Locals who have been residents for four or more (4+) years prefer the
fresh and distinct flavor of the water coming from a manual pump than
that from the Balibago water faucet.
It can be observed that the locals are not much concerned about their
household water access for domestic use as compared to their water
access for industrial or agricultural use which directly impacts household
income.
A young housewife that was interviewed said that should there be any
disruption to their current water access, she can always count on her
neighbors to help and allow free access to their private water source.
There is a very notable prevalence of residents coming from the Ilocos
region. Common language is tagalog
Sep 9, 2019 Land use is mostly agricultural, and most lands are planted with palay
Victoria Barangays and households are observed to be scattered and are distanced
(8:30 am to apart.
5:00 pm)
Fire department has indicated that it is able to get water from their water
provider - Balibago Water and can deliver potable water to barangays
when the need arises
Mr. Fernando Galileo – Municipal Planner and Ms. Lani Mago –
Municipal Engineer discussed proposed land use in Victoria
Land titling – with the support and assistance of DENR, DPWH, LGU,
and PENRO, public lands of barangays were titled to the municipality and
handed to the barangay captain.
Wastewater from municipal market utilizes canals for disposal. Gravity
driven and drained into rivulets and onto flood ways and rivers.
Administrative sundries saved for last
Surplus pipes from Balibago Water are stored at the MRF (Materials
Recovery Facility) and can be used as barriers or temporary water
drainage
Livelihood projects are needed to stave unemployment/loss of income due
to the effects of rice tariffication. The primary crop planted is rice. There
is a need to diversify.
Sep 12, 2019 Marriage officiating duties to some 3-4 couples by the mayor
Victoria Steel plant proposal – rolling mill
(8:30 am to
5:00 pm)
Requesting full package – includes smelting with industrial electrical
service
Proposed site is close to residential area
Pollution, waste management, and other environmental concerns were
raised.
Should be further from residential areas. Proposed location in Palacpac.
Need minimum of 6 hectares
Solid waste mgmt. meeting. Contest participation
243
Date Notes
A contest is proposed with prize money as an incentive
Waste segregation at source
Discussion of recycling projects such as plastic exchange for rice, inter
barangay or inter school contest
Accompanied the Mayor to 2 funeral wakes. Observed the interior of
Houses and saw how the household gathers water during certain events
(in this case, a funeral wake)
Common among the houses was the existence of a separate area for
cooking and sanitation. Since the manual pumps were located outside the
house, an outside kitchen that is near these pumps is used as the working
kitchen. The house interior has an area that serves as a formal kitchen for
events.
Sep 16, 2019 Start of 4-day seminar on organic farming aimed at informing farmers and
other farm shareholders on new ways to farming using organic and easy
to make fertilizers, crops, and others
Victoria Homemade enzymes boost growth and production
(8:30 am to
5:00 pm)
Also hastens composting
Farmers were taught how certain crops can provide more income than the
traditional rice and corn crop.
Marketing and sales support can be provided by the municipality by
providing these farmers with spaces in the public market where they can
sell their produce.
Japanese investors have signified interest to enter into a form of contract
growing of certain crops (i.e., beans) where the farmer is guaranteed of a
ready market.
Turn over rites of the Maluid barangay town hall (located along the main
road toward the Victoria ramp of the TPLEX toll entrance) by the
Governor and Mayor
9/20/2019 Survey distribution to Balayan, San Jacinto, San Fernando and Santa
Barbara.
Lechon fest at Tarlac City (Capitolyo) by Gov Yap to dispel Asian Swine
Flu fears from Tarlac pork
Spent ₱240 for macaroon’s, ₱480 for 4 large soft drinks, to be given to
the barangays. ₱500 for labor (to Bagyo for assisting)
244

FINAL Dissertation May 16 2024

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

FINAL Dissertation May 16 2024

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

FINAL Dissertation May 16 2024

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assessing the Sustainability of Household Rural Water Access Service in Select Rural

Barangays in Victoria, Tarlac

Bertrand Alexander Jacob Lesaca

A dissertation submitted to the

Doctor of Public Administration

University of the Philippines Diliman

I hereby grant the University of the Philippines a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free

Specifically, I grant the following rights to the University:

BERTRAND ALEXANDER JACOB LESACA

Associate Professor Kristoffer B. Berse, Ph.D.

This dissertation is recommended for acceptance in partial fulfilment of the requirements

Professor Erwin Gaspar A. Alampay, Ph.D.

Associate Professor Kristoffer B. Berse, Ph.D.

E-mail Address: upncpagcpage@yahoo.com.ph

ENDORSEMENT BY THE ADVISER

E-mail Address: upncpagcpage@yahoo.com.ph

ENDORSEMENT BY THE CRITIC

E-mail Address: upncpagcpage@yahoo.com.ph

Associate Professor Kristoffer B. Berse, PhD

Professor Jocelyn C. Cuaresma, DPA

Professor Maria Faina L. Diola, DPA

Professor Noriel Christopher C. Tiglao, D. Eng

Atty. Analiza R. Teh

E-mail Address: upncpagcpage@yahoo.com.ph

Household water access service delivery is a devolved and delegated service of

well-being. However, in rural Philippines, this remains a formidable challenge, as the

technical know-how and financial assistance to build needed water infrastructure to

investigated community perceptions of the sustainability of their household water access

services from the perspective of select communities in the Municipality of Victoria,

in terms of the following inter-related dimensions of sustainability: financial, technical,

institutional (FTI), socio-political (SP), and environmental (E) to certain socio-

demographic factors and living practices.

Data were collected through a structured questionnaire survey (n=3,448)

related to sustainable water access indicators (Bhandari P. , 2022). A Sustainability Score

generated using Microsoft Excel and SPSS v.27.

sustainability perception of their water access service. Among the sustainability

correlation with certain socio-demographic profiles produces negative associations that

weaken the perception of sustainability.

related to certain socio-demographic and living characteristics, which when correlated

lower ratings for their perceived water access sustainability.

weak associations were established.

Regardless, the results reveal that a community’s sustainability perception of its

Number Title Page

19 Profile Frequency Histograms for Santa Barbara 127

3-FSAQ Three Factor Self-Administered Questionnaire

technical know-how and financial assistance to build water infrastructure to deliver

remain using water from unreliable and unprotected sources.

and can be seen in three (3) conceptual parts.

challenges confronting household water access sustainability in rural Philippine

Philippines and provides a brief overview of the country’s water-access institutions.

1.10 gives a summary of the chapter.

Water quality, determined by smell, taste, and clarity (Philippines Statistics

use it for drinking or cooking (PSA & ICF, 2018).

The national government is aware of the challenges inherent in providing

considered much of a serious concern in the Philippines. The challenge in distribution

water access service projects and make it sustainable.

Using the rural household’s perception of the sustainability of their household

services’ level of sustainability.

commercial business districts where more employment and diverse livelihood