Perceptions of Water Services and Innovations to Improve Water Services in Tanzania

Abstract

This study examines user perceptions of existing water services and proposed prepaid water meter and solar power innovations to improve water services in Tanzania. Based on 14 key informant interviews and six focus group discussions that included 61 participants, data from three rural and three urban study sites reveal that existing water services are generally perceived as poor, and the proposed prepayment and solar innovations offer benefits including increased transparency, accountability, and convenience. However, users also perceived challenges with the proposed innovations, including disenfranchisement of vulnerable populations and technical difficulties. The Government of Tanzania may implement the prepaid water meter and solar power technologies in the near future. Thus, it is critical to incorporate user perceptions on the acceptability, feasibility, and scalability of such technologies prior to large-scale implementation.

Keywords

perceptions technological adoption water service delivery water policy Tanzania

Introduction

This study investigates perceptions of water services and the potential of technological innovations to improve water services in Tanzania. Presently, 29 million (44% of Tanzania’s population) lack access to an improved drinking water source (World Health Organization & United Nations Children’s Fund, 2015). A recent study determined that 38% of water access points in Tanzania are nonfunctional, indicating that efforts to increase water access are often unsustainable over time (Tanzania Ministry of Water, 2015). As the Government of Tanzania (GoT), development organizations, and other institutions invest in the water sector, it is essential that user perceptions are considered and that innovations deployed to improve services are appropriate to ensure long-term success and sustainability.

Previous studies have examined why some water supply interventions provide high-quality service in the long term, whereas others provide low-quality service and/or fail prematurely. These studies identify factors associated with the sustainability, or long-term functionality, of safe drinking water solutions, including water supply management strategies, institutional capacity, and the appropriateness of technical solutions (Jiménez & Pérez-Foguet, 2011; Mandara, Butijn, & Niehof, 2013; Marks & Davis, 2012). Several studies also emphasize that user perceptions of water services and water interventions are linked to intervention acceptance and long-term sustainability (Francis et al., 2015; Herbst, Benedikter, & Koester, 2009; Ramos da Silva, Heller, de Campos Valadares, & Cairncross, 2010). Thus, there is a need to disentangle the complex matrix that influences how perceptions are formed, and to explain how perceptions ultimately manifest in real behaviors that affect the acceptability and sustainability of water interventions. Furthermore, the incorporation of locally held perceptions has potential to facilitate compatibility between water interventions and their beneficiaries.

This article is part of a larger study by GoT, Water Mission–Tanzania (nonprofit based in Dar es Salaam), and the World Bank, who provided funding. The larger study investigated the rehabilitation of water infrastructure and the use of prepaid water meters and solar power for enhanced service delivery. The findings presented here analyze user perceptions before large-scale implementation of the innovations to gauge acceptability, scalability, and likelihood of success across six project sites.

The research questions are, in the case of rural and urban Tanzania, as follows:

Research Question 1: What are user perceptions of existing water services?

Research Question 2: What are perceptions of proposed innovations (i.e., prepaid water meters and solar power for water pumping) to improve water services?

The objectives are to identify opportunities and challenges to integrating prepaid water meters and solar technologies in the water sector in Tanzania. A clear understanding of user perceptions is a prerequisite for facilitating long-term sustainability of water services in Tanzania and similar social, physical, and built environments.

Perceptions of Water Services and Technologies in the Water Sector

Perceptions are variable, subjective, and based on beliefs and lived experiences that cannot be objectively verified or measured. However, perceptions—whether they align with actual or “imagined” realities—must be considered because they ultimately manifest in real behaviors and actions. For example, aesthetics such as taste, color, and odor affect how consumers perceive water quality and associated health risks, which, in turn, affect the choices consumers make regarding water services and sources (Doria, Pidgeon, & Hunter, 2009; Falahee & MacRae, 1995; Kjellen, 2010). Research also indicates that perceptions of water services are influenced by water-related health events, education campaigns, and demographics (Doria, 2010; Francis et al., 2015; Herbst et al., 2009). Ultimately, as users make decisions about where to collect water and how much they are willing to pay, their judgments are, in part, based on perceptions. Users are more likely to use water sources perceived to be acceptable, convenient, and cost effective, and this demand drives the potential for intervention sustainability and cost recovery in water systems.

A recent study by Francis et al. (2015) demonstrates that perceptions of drinking water affect not only users’ short-term choices but also the acceptability and long-term sustainability of water interventions. The study established that perceptions affect users’ ability to recognize health benefits from water interventions, willingness to pay for interventions, and ultimately the acceptance and long-term use of interventions. Francis et al. (2015) also identified several barriers to long-term acceptance and use of water interventions, including a lack of perceived relationship between unsafe water and negative health impacts and resistance to changes in water aesthetics due to water treatment, especially taste and odor. The study argues that users are more likely to adopt and continue to use interventions that produce water perceived as acceptable from both aesthetic and health perspectives. Several studies also emphasize that users feel little incentive to change drinking water sources or invest in treatment technologies if, among other factors, they are not experiencing health problems that they associate with poor water quality (Doria, 2010; Juran & MacDonald, 2014). Furthermore, Marks and Davis (2012) found that a user’s “sense of ownership,” or perceptions that water services belong to and are controlled by the community, are associated with long-term infrastructure sustainability.

The perceived level of trustworthiness of water service providers has also been found to influence water-related behaviors (Ramos da Silva et al., 2010; Wright, Yang, Rivett, & Gundry, 2012). In India, for example, users assumed water was safe simply because it was supplied by the government and came out of a pipe, even though actual analyses indicated widespread bacteriological contamination (Juran & MacDonald, 2014). In contrast, water consumers in Brazil lacked confidence in their provider due to issues of taste, appearance, and the absence of consistent and transparent communication from the water utility (Ramos da Silva et al., 2010). In this case, mistrust of the provider led users to respond with precautionary measures, such as boiling water. These cases illustrate that user perceptions of water service providers can influence actual user behaviors.

Given the need to address long-standing challenges with water accessibility, technologies to provide safe drinking water are continuously proposed. Mandara et al. (2013) emphasize the importance of context when selecting technologies in the water sector, arguing that even “good” technologies can fail if users lack the technical, managerial, or community capacity to manage the system over time. Similarly, Juran et al. (2017) argue that the local context must be considered if one seeks to identify a water-related problem, formulate a culturally relevant solution, and operationalize an appropriate intervention to solve the problem. In Tanzania, Jiménez and Pérez-Foguet (2011) found that the type of technology at water access points leads to different levels of water point functionality over time. They conclude that although technologies themselves affect sustainability outcomes, “many factors other than technology [also] affect sustainability,” including low professionalism in water service management and poor management of funds (p. 953). Thus, as perceptions portend to real behaviors, implementation of innovations should be informed by locally held perceptions before large-scale implementation to facilitate sustainability and success.

This study focuses on perceptions of two innovations to improve water services in Tanzania: prepaid water meters and solar power for water pumping. There are several theoretical models that conceptualize how technologies diffuse and are adopted. Notable examples include spatial models (Hagerstrand, 1968), spatiotemporal models (Blaut, 1977), and hybrid models (Wejnert, 2002). While keeping these models in mind, this study will use diffusion of innovations theory (Katz, 1961; Rogers, 2003) to help gauge appropriateness of the mobile and solar technologies. Diffusion of innovations theory couches technological interventions in terms of relativity, meaning that relative advantage, relative compatibility, relative complexity, and trialability of the technology are paramount.

The prepaid water system seeks to replace the practice of paying for water in cash at public kiosks by linking mobile banking services with smart water meters, thereby creating a system in which users prepay for water services. Individuals can either load a “water card” with funds from a bank account using their mobile phone or pay a mobile agent with cash in exchange for credit on their “water card.” Users then pay for water at public kiosks by setting their “water card” on the smart water meter and selecting the quantity of water to purchase. Mobile phone penetration in Tanzania was 67.6% in 2016, second only to Kenya in East Africa and well above the average rate of 43% for all of Africa (Mibei et al., 2017). Dar es Salaam Water and Sewerage Corporation (DAWASCO), the water service provider for Tanzania’s largest city of Dar es Salaam, has already partnered with Vodacom and Airtel, two mobile service providers, to offer bill payment via mobile funds.

The literature demonstrates that mobile systems exhibit several advantages, including reduced transaction costs, reduced risks associated with paying in cash (e.g., proof of payment), and billing accuracy—although challenges of technical unreliability and accessibility among poor and marginalized communities also exist (Heymans, Eales, & Franceys, 2014; Hope, Foster, Money, & Rouse, 2012). In the water sector, mobile phones exhibit many applications including dissemination and communication of information to water users, data generation from water users, immediate and location-based reporting of water service issues, and enhanced financial transparency and recovery on the part of water providers (Hutchings et al., 2012; Jonoski, Alfonso, et al., 2012; Jonoski, Almoradie, Khan, Popescu, & van Andel, 2012). However, others have cautioned that the ever intertwining relationship among water markets, water technologies, processes of commercialization, and the comingling of public and entities has the potential to result in “network holes” or “technological recesses,” in which many are un(der)served or un(der)represented due to functional and/or economical inaccessibility, particularly in the developing world (Gopakumar, 2004; Graham & Marvin, 2001; Roy, 2014).

This study also focuses on solar power as an alternative to diesel and grid-based power to pump water. The literature identifies opportunities for solar power in the water sector, with monetary savings and advantages stemming from the use of a renewable and less polluting energy source (Bassi, 2017; Kassenga, 2008; World Bank, 2015). However, significant barriers also exist, such as high capital costs, incongruences in supply chains and local availability of spare parts, and lack of skilled technicians for maintenance (Meah, Ula, & Barrett, 2008; Short & Thompson, 2003). Increased use of solar energy in the water sector is likely as solar technology becomes more widespread and affordable, and there are currently small-scale projects in Tanzania using solar energy to pump water, with explicit government interest in expanding these efforts.

There have been examinations of the potential for implementing prepayment and solar innovations in low-income nations, and this study represents the first exploration of these issues in Tanzania using the lens of user perceptions. It is critical, given the likely expansion of the innovations, to analyze and leverage user perceptions to inform their future development. Findings from this research supplement the literature on the benefits and pitfalls of technologies in the water sector, with potential insights for Tanzania and similar low-income nations.

Study Area

Tanzania is located in the Great Lakes region of East Africa (Figure 1). With a population of 51.8 million, Tanzania is ethnically, religiously, and linguistically diverse, including Christians, Muslims, and other religions across more than 100 groups speaking various languages (although Swahili is the most common). Tanzania’s physical geography is similarly diverse. Mountains—including Kilimanjaro, the tallest peak in Africa—and forests are predominant in the northeast, whereas the large central plateau comprises plains and arable land. Tanzania has a long coast on the Indian Ocean and borders Lake Victoria and Lake Tanganyika to the north and west, with Lake Nyasa to the southwest. Climate differs greatly across Tanzania, with precipitation, temperature, and seasonality variable across the physiography of the country.

Figure 1.

Map of rural (top) and urban (bottom) study sites in Tanzania.

Six study sites were specifically selected because they are areas where GoT may deploy the mobile phone and solar technologies (i.e., we sought to assess the acceptability of technologies among populations who may have such technologies imposed upon them in the near future). Three of the sites are in rural Tanzania, and three are located in urban Dar es Salaam. Demographic and cultural differences exist within the rural and urban study settings, but differences between the settings are more significant. Thus, the rural and urban settings capture the breadth of perceptions across Tanzania’s diverse water users and stakeholders.

The three urban sites of Burudani, Mikoroshini, and Ndugumbi are informal settlements located in Tanzania’s largest city of Dar es Salaam, which has a population more than 4 million and functions as the financial capital of the country. Dar es Salaam has antiquated and overstressed water infrastructure that “dates to the colonial era and has seen few improvements or expansions since that time” (Smiley, 2013, p. 132). Much infrastructure is well past its design horizon and, due to rapid and unplanned growth, the systems serve more people than intended. These factors, along with poor maintenance and management, have led to issues of poor water quality, poor access, intermittent supplies, and dissatisfaction in quality of services. As of 2009, only 16% of households in Dar es Salaam had water connections, only 26% of connections were billed, and 73% of water was unaccounted for through exfiltration, theft, unbilled connections, and delinquent payments (Dill, 2010). Many residents inhabit informal settlements, which developed in the absence of formal planning and are often located near rivers, railroad tracks, and arterial roads. As a result, water infrastructure is fragmented and inadequate, and “the reality of everyday life is poor or even nonexistent access to water” (Smiley, 2013, p. 132). The three study sites in Dar es Salaam were selected with input from DAWASCO, the water authority that serves the city. The sites all have access to public water kiosks owned by DAWASCO from which residents can purchase water in set increments by paying cash at the kiosks.

The three rural sites of Chanhumba, Gidewari, and Lulembela are scattered throughout Tanzania. Rural populations confront significant water-related challenges, and these challenges are apparent at the study sites. Water in rural areas is often hazardous to human health, and other challenges include lack of basic transportation infrastructure, inconsistent or nonexistent electricity, and vulnerability to seasonality and drought. The rural study sites, which are primarily populated with farmers, pastoralists, and small business owners, were selected in coordination with the Ministry of Water. Water in rural Tanzania is provided by Community-Owned Water Supply Organizations (COWSOs).

Data Collection and Analysis

Data were collected between May and July 2016 through focus group discussions (FGDs) and key informant interviews (KIIs). Research participants included project beneficiaries (i.e., water consumers) and stakeholders (e.g., government officials, water sector employees) who possess specialized knowledge on water services in Tanzania. Thus, data on perceptions of water services, mobile prepayment, and solar power were deliberately gathered from individuals who reside in the water system service area and/or manage publicly provided water. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Virginia Tech, and all participants gave consent before data collection.

One FGD was organized at each study site (n = 6) totaling 61 participants. Convenience sampling was used to identify eight to 12 water consumers 18 years or older at each site. FGDs probed perceptions of current water services, issues/events that affect user behaviors, perceptions of mobile prepayment for water, and perceptions of solar power for water pumping. In the rural sites, FGD participants were recruited from community mobilization meetings in which residents were informed about the technological interventions. In Dar es Salaam, local leaders assisted in participant identification and recruitment. Participants were purposefully selected so that their sex, age distribution, and socioeconomic status were roughly proportional to the overall population. Participants were briefed prior to data collection to ensure a basic understanding of how the technologies would work, which included showing pictures of the actual systems. We sought to gauge sentiments before the technologies were deployed, which meant that discussions had to be held with people who may have possessed limited information or lived experiences. That being said, participants were personally familiar with the concept and pragmatics of mobile phones, and participants were familiar with the concept of solar power even if they had not interacted with it.

A total of 14 KIIs (one at each site) were conducted with stakeholders. The semistructured KIIs probed perceptions of current water services, perceptions of mobile prepayment for water, and perceptions of solar power for water pumping. At the urban sites, one KII was conducted with each community chairman and two interviews were conducted with representatives from DAWASCO. Three KIIs were conducted at each rural site with COWSO members, village chairpersons, and water technicians and engineers. The informants possess specialized knowledge on water management and all were aware of plans to pilot prepaid water meters and solar power systems in their service area.

All data were gathered in Swahili. Data were recorded, translated, transcribed into English, and examined using Dedoose qualitative analysis software (Dedoose Version 7.0.23) to identify dominant narratives and themes. Results were pooled according to theme, subtheme, and setting (rural or urban). A combination of a priori and emergent coding was used, given that some themes or subthemes were predetermined (e.g., challenges of mobile technology), whereas others revealed themselves during data collection (e.g., changes in water sources; Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014; Saldaña, 2009).

Results

Analysis of FGD and KII data from three rural and three urban study sites in Tanzania revealed dominant user perceptions of existing water services (Table 1) and dominant user perceptions of proposed innovations to improve water services (Table 2). Overall, the data show users perceive that water service providers lack accountability and training, and users rely on multiple water sources to satisfy different end uses. Most users perceive that water and health are related, and most regard their drinking water quality as “unsafe.” Perceptions of mobile prepayment and solar technologies varied but were mostly positive. Interlocutors afforded many benefits to the technologies, but they also identified challenges. These narratives are developed below.

Table 1.

Dominant Narratives on Water Services in Tanzania.

Theme	Subthemes	Perceptions and practices
Water sources	Multiple sources Source characteristics Changes in sources	Rely on multiple sources for different end uses Cost, quality, distance, convenience, seasonality, and availability Increase in private household connections and illicit sources
Water safety	Water and health Water treatment	Acknowledge water–health connections (bacteria, diarrhea, stomachache, cholera) Point-of-use treatment is common, but impact on taste and odor is a barrier
Water service providers	DAWASCO COWSOs	Poor reputation, nonresponsive, and corrupt, but improvements since 2016 Poor reputation, inefficient, not financially transparent, and need training

Note. DAWASCO = Dar es Salaam Water and Sewerage Corporation; COWSO = Community-Owned Water Supply Organization.

Table 2.

Dominant Narratives on Innovations to Improve Water Services in Tanzania.

Theme	Subthemes	Perceptions and practices
Benefits of mobile prepayment	Familiarity Efficacy	Previous experience with utility bills, school fees, money transfers, and DART bus system Better revenue collection, fair and accountable, decreased water theft, and “modern”
Challenges of mobile prepayment	Reliability Demographics Costs Mobile agents	Unreliable mobile network and recent crackdown on counterfeit phones Less access among poor, elderly, female, and rural populations Initial cost of phone, advanced payments for water, and ethics of having to pay for water Scarcity of agents in rural areas and loss of time spent traveling to add credits to account
Benefits of solar power	Costs Convenience	Reduced operational costs and less reliance on relatively expensive diesel More convenient than diesel, no need to travel to purchase diesel, and “modern”
Challenges of solar power	Seasonality Costs	Impact of rainy season and cloudy days on energy production Maintenance costs and parts, guards to deter theft

Note. DART = Dar es Salaam Rapid Transit.

Perceptions of Water Sources

Users rely on multiple water sources in both the rural and urban settings, and data reveal that several considerations influence source preference. When selecting a source, users primarily consider tangible factors such as cost, distance, and source availability, but they also consider subjective factors such as perceptions of quality, safety, and simplicity of use. Intended use also matters. For example, FGD participants generally prefer sources perceived as “clean” and “safe” for drinking, but prefer free and relatively convenient sources, such as surface water and hand-dug wells, for nonconsumptive uses and consumption by livestock.

In rural settings, research participants access water from public taps, shallow hand-dug wells, boreholes, surface water, and cattle troughs. Rural participants generally perceive their sources of water as insufficient in both quantity and quality. Water availability is inconsistent throughout the year due to seasonality; for example, many surface bodies diminish or disappear during the dry season. At a smaller timescale, users also acknowledge inconsistencies in availability on a daily basis, as demand often outstrips the quantity available. Rural areas also exhibit financial barriers to water access. In Lulembela, the Water Technician noted that “only 50% of people here have access to safe and clean water,” owing to what he described as a lack of funds to maintain and extend services. On an individual basis, those who cannot afford to pay for water must rely on free sources, which are frequently of poor quality. During FGDs, participants noted that these sources present both consumptive and ancillary health risks, citing the threat of wild animal attacks while fetching surface water and danger to children who may fall into wells.

In urban Dar es Salaam, most study participants obtain water from DAWASCO, although some gather water from shallow, brackish hand-dug wells. Most reported obtaining water from public kiosks supplied by DAWASCO, though some are able to afford individual household connections or are authorized as private vendors who have an agreement to sell water through DAWASCO. Participants in Dar es Salaam complained that kiosks provide water irregularly, stating that there is no schedule or specific window of water availability. Participants also acknowledged that many in Dar es Salaam rely on illicit sources in which unauthorized vendors tap into DAWASCO pipes or sell water from their household connection without consent from DAWASCO. Participants noted that illicit sources are often more conveniently located than public kiosks and available when kiosks are closed, as shared by an FGD participant in Ndugumbi:

We don’t care if someone is a registered water agent or not. We just want service. When water goes off [at the public kiosk] I have to get service and I’m not interested in whether they [the agents] are authorized or not.

Interlocutors in Dar es Salaam also stressed the growing number of legal household water connections in the city. Although few households currently have a connection, many believe that this is the future. During KIIs, the chairman of Ndugumbi and informants from DAWASCO projected that household connections will eventually take over and that public water kiosks would be phased out over the next decade.

Perceptions of Water Safety

Participants from all study sites described water using subjective terms such as “safe” and “clean.” Many implied that “safe” water is simply water that comes from a pipe, whereas others contended that “safe” means free of bacteria. Key informants and FGD participants articulated connections between water and health, specifically attributing diarrhea, stomachaches, and cholera to poor quality water. The general perception that water quality is poor was consistent across all study sites.

Users argued that water from public sources is poor and that they must often wait for dirt and impurities to settle to the bottom of the bucket before use. This leads many at the rural site of Lulumbela to use a chlorine-based disinfectant to treat their water at the point of use. Meanwhile, some expressed lack of control over water quality, whereas others resigned to valuing access and quantity above quality. These sentiments are best intimated by a participant from rural Gidewari who stated, “It’s not exactly that the water is safe that we decide to use it, but mostly because we have no alternative. What can we do? Let’s just say that we have no choice but to use it.” An FGD participant in urban Mikoroshini similarly exclaimed, “What we need is water. We think of getting water and that’s all.”

Study participants also perceive that poor water quality is, in part, a result of illegal tapping of water pipes, as argued by a DAWASCO system operator: “Contamination is first caused by illegal connections. Those pipes have holes, and the illegal connections go through contaminated surface and groundwater, so this is a source of contamination.” Beyond illegal connections, some water pipes are damaged to begin with, as shared by a DAWASCO manager who readily admits that many pipes are vulnerable to infiltration of waste, sewage, and other external impurities:

Ever since I came here, I have been one step ahead. I have been assisting my District Commissioner in fighting cholera. At least 70% get this disease from water. Many waterlines cross rivers, and most of them are leaking. I try to remove all lines that cross trenches.

Perceptions of Water Service Providers

Participants in both rural and urban settings reported that water service providers must increase accountability, decrease corruption, and complete more training. Increased efficiency and better management were also a priority. These water services are managed by COWSOs in rural Tanzania and DAWASCO in urban Dar es Salaam.

In Dar es Salaam, a recurring theme was the poor but improving reputation of DAWASCO. Corruption, unresponsiveness to service problems, and lack of trustworthiness were common complaints across the urban sites. In fact, a key informant from DAWASCO management even admitted that its image has historically been “very bad.” Urban participants also perceived that DAWASCO lacks receptiveness to the bulk of its clientele while prioritizing services to the minority of consumers who are able to afford private connections, as intimated by the Chairman of Burudani:

Me, I know DAWASCO. I’ve done a lot of work with them and they are often reckless. I don’t know if they will ever change, or change the management. At the moment, you can come across a leak and call them [DAWASCO] and after a week you’ll still see it dripping—they won’t respond. But if someone needs to connect their house to the water supply they can call DAWASCO and they will come, but the leak will keep going for another month.

An FGD participant in Ndugumbi also shared concerns over DAWASCO’s trustworthiness:

There is no clear relationship between what we use and what we pay for. We use little and pay much, and when you tell DAWASCO these complaints they claim that is what the meter says, so there is mistrust with DAWASCO and their services.

Although users are dissatisfied with DAWASCO’s services, the reputation of DAWASCO appears to be improving. Multiple participants noted that DAWASCO has been more responsive to complaints and that service quality has improved. Some credit this to the large-scale push for greater accountability and transparency in the national government under President Magufuli, who was inaugurated in November 2015. Management within DAWASCO has also transitioned recently, and DAWASCO just opened a new water treatment facility to increase the quantity of water available in Dar es Salaam. These reforms were palatable among FGD participants in urban Ndugumbi:

There is a huge improvement and water does not go off like it used to in the past. Since the new government has been in power, we have seen changes in the water sector, and we can say these changes happened right from the beginning of 2016.

In the rural setting, local COWSOs were perceived to be inefficient in water service provision and management. Study participants commented on the financial and operational mismanagement of COWSOs, with many arguing that COWSOs misuse funds and fail to keep track of finances. An FGD participant in rural Lulumbela captures these concerns:

The problem is the current management. They [local COWSO] don’t bring information on how much [revenue] was collected, how much was spent, and on what. Ever since the COWSO started, there have been no renovations. People complain and we never hear information, we just hear rumors. In public meetings, they never talk of water expenditures.

In Gidewari, however, the COWSO is more formal and provides regular reports on its revenue and bank balance. Still, all three rural sites noted that COWSOs require training to manage water services more efficiently and transparently, as shared by a water system operator in Lulumbela: “The COWSO should be given training. The current committee has had no training whatsoever—I’m always the one telling them to do this, to do that.”

Benefits of Mobile Prepayment for Water

Rural and urban participants both identified advantages of the mobile prepayment system. Participants perceive that prepaid water meters would result in a more accountable, “fair,” and “modern” system than paying in cash. Furthermore, participants have already been exposed to mobile banking services and, as expected, participants in Dar es Salaam had more experience compared with their rural counterparts. Participants noted that at least one person in each family generally owns a mobile phone and, if not, they can use a friend or relative’s phone, as shared in rural Chanhumba:

Globalization is everywhere now, so it’s impossible that nobody in a family has a phone. Grandparents may not have phones, but the father or firstborn son will have one, so surely they can get water. It’s not compulsory for everyone to have a phone. Maybe the children won’t have one, the elderly, or anyone who cannot afford one, but one or two people [in every house] has a phone to make it possible to get water.

Participants have previous experience with mobile banking and reported using the system to pay school fees, transfer money to friends and relatives, and pay electricity bills. Furthermore, the Dar es Salaam Rapid Transit bus system implemented a mobile payment system in 2016, so participants in Dar es Salaam regularly use a similar system to pay for transportation throughout the city. Thus, the Chairman of Burudani believes that mobile prepayment for water will be successful:

That’s what we do with electricity. We pay for it with our phone and then use it. So, there is no challenge that I think will come out of it [mobile prepayment for water] that will lead people not to receive it well.

Another benefit is that mobile prepayment is perceived as “modern” and appropriate in today’s digital world. Participants commented on the convenience of being able to pay bills at any time, referring to the system as “easier” and “time saving” compared with the traditional method of paying cash in person. “It’s good to use, it’s convenient, and it saves time because you can do transactions anytime, at any point,” claimed a participant in urban Ndugumbi. In addition, prepaid water meters generate a confirmation of payment and users pay only for what they use. Thus, participants perceive the mobile prepayment system as a user-friendly mechanism that increases transparency and financial accountability while decreasing corruption. The Chairman of Burudani also envisioned these potentials: “It’s a good thing, it’s modern. It will help water from being lost and people will get the amount of water they need and can afford.”

Key informants reiterated the perceptions of FGD participants and generally anticipate even greater benefits from mobile prepayment. A water technician in rural Lulembela, for example, perceived that the system will “improve water service sustainability” and facilitate the extension of services to “reach a larger area and more people.” In Dar es Salaam, key informants contended that DAWASCO will benefit because prepaid water meters will facilitate higher revenue collection, better monitoring, and decreased water theft. A DAWASCO manager argued that mobile prepayment systems “are where the world is headed and where DAWASCO should head,” adding that such systems will eventually “become business as usual.” Water sector employees too perceived prepaid water meters as instruments to curb corruption, as argued by a DAWASCO engineer:

I like mobile prepayment because it will help stop people who are pocketing water money. If someone [kiosk attendant or authorized water vendor] has a sick child and their pockets are empty, then they might take water money and use it without replacing it, so this tampers with money collection. But with the mobile system the money will automatically go to the account. It will do away with people’s greed.

Challenges of Mobile Prepayment for Water

Participants in both settings also identified challenges to incorporating the mobile prepayment system. Network reliability emerged as a salient issue. For example, stories were shared of funds disappearing from mobile accounts and network service disruptions in the midst of transactions. This led a participant in urban Burudani to declare “I don’t think mobile accounts are the safest way to keep money,” and a water technician in rural Gidewari to contend that “people already believe they [mobile payment systems] are unreliable.” Participants also feared losing money if payments are sent incorrectly or the wrong water meter number is entered. Furthermore, apprehensions exist over the disenfranchisement of certain populations (i.e., poor, elderly, female, rural), seizure of “counterfeit phones,” and a shortage of mobile agents. It is important to note that virtually all challenges are perceived greater in the rural setting.

An initial barrier to mobile prepayment is the physical act of paying for water, particularly in rural Tanzania. Rural participants argued that they already struggle to carry enough cash to purchase water through traditional methods, so concerns arose over having enough money to make the minimum deposit into their mobile account or keeping their SIM card active and “topped-up.” In the absence of water that is economically accessible, users may elect to consume water from free but relatively unsafe sources, as stated by a participant in rural Gidewari: “Those who cannot afford water will resolve to open wells. The price is too much for us because we depend on farming.”

Study participants perceived that a full replacement of the cash-based system will disadvantage the poor and elderly, especially in rural Tanzania. Many noted that the poor and elderly are entitled to free water every day under current arrangements, and that such populations are also less likely to own and/or know how to operate mobile phones. Therefore, prepaid water meters may exclude vulnerable sections of society from accessing something that is generally perceived as a human right in Tanzania. The Chairman of Burudani shared these anxieties:

I think mobile prepayment could be a problem for the poor. Water is important, so they [COWSOs] will have to think about how to help poor people. Water is very important for mankind, so I don’t think someone should be prevented from getting water just because of this new system. There are some old people I know who are unable to pay, so we currently give them free water.

Gendered dimensions of the mobile prepayment system also surfaced. Participants expressed concern that women may be further marginalized because phone ownership and financial decisions are typically male dominated. Perceptions of female disenfranchisement by the mobile system were especially apparent in rural Gidewari:

In villages it’s mostly men who have phones and mostly men use them for business and communication. Men also have more exposure. They have gone to other villages and interact with different people, so they may get a better understanding of the service than women who have to stay at home.

Interestingly, participants from all study sites feared another crackdown on “counterfeit phones” by GoT. In 2016, GoT disconnected counterfeit phones, or phones that were imported illegally, in an attempt to rein in the black market. Sources vary, but an estimated 1.2 million mobile phones were disconnected from service (BBC, 2016; Robi, 2016). Many participants were affected as they had unknowingly purchased phones determined to be counterfeit. Although the crackdown is unlikely to hamper mobile phone ownership in the long run, it has fomented unease in the short run and could affect public perceptions of participation and willingness to participate in mobile prepayment for water. An FGD participant in Burudani provided a commonly held stance:

A big challenge is that phones were shut off by the government to get rid of fake phones. This caused a lot of trouble—now some of us are without phones. I have decided not to own a phone until the government declares that all phones in the country are legal.

The availability of mobile agents represents a final concern with mobile prepayment for water. To add credit to their “water card,” one must transfer money from their mobile account or pay cash to a mobile agent who then adds money to their “water card.” Participants in Dar es Salaam perceive this arrangement as convenient, but rural participants think otherwise. First, rural participants have little experience with mobile banking, rendering the option undesirable. Second, there are often only a few mobile agents in rural villages, and the scarce agents are not always available. Furthermore, agents already provide other services, so participants worry that a surge in new customers will make agents even less accessible. A participant in rural Chanhumba expressed these concerns:

There will be higher demand for mobile money services. Agents already provide many services, so if there are even more services to provide by just those two agents [in Chanhumba] then they will be outnumbered. They will have to provide services to many people because nobody will be able to get water without them. We need to increase to four or five agents.

The distance to reach mobile agents was also cited as a potential issue. Given travel time (often to the next village), water users may be incentivized to obtain water from closer but relatively unsafe sources rather than first traveling to a mobile agent (possibly in an adjacent village) and subsequently traveling to a prepaid water meter to collect water. These opportunity costs were not lost on the district engineer of Chanhumba: “There is a long distance to get to agents. This might make people lazy to go to the neighboring village, so they might end up using shallow wells instead.”

Benefits and Challenges of Solar Power for Water Pumping

Perceptions of the introduction of solar power to convey water were overwhelmingly positive, although potential challenges were identified. Rural participants had experience with solar power and welcomed its application to pump water. Although no participants in Dar es Salaam had experience with solar power, they too welcomed its introduction. Participants generally regard solar power as a convenient technology that will reduce costs and increase service reliability. These perceptions are especially strong in the rural setting.

Nearly every rural participant had prior experience using solar energy to charge cell phones and power lights and radios. Rural participants were enthusiastic about incorporating solar in the water sector, in part, due to inconveniences of the current system. COWSOs currently pump water using diesel generators, which requires COWSO employees to ride a bus to a nearby city, purchase diesel, and carry it back on the bus to power the system. This task is completed about 3 times per week, and diesel is not only inconvenient but also expensive. Thus, rural participants perceive solar power as a comparatively inexpensive and less burdensome technology that will free up time for COWSOs to focus on operation and maintenance, as described by a water technician in rural Gidewari:

The solar system will run itself and water will get to consumers. The biggest thing is that solar will reduce operation costs, so we can channel that money to provide water to areas that weren’t initially reached. Diesel won’t be needed anymore, so we’ll just be left with maintenance costs like broken pipelines and to expand to areas that don’t have services.

There were few perceived challenges of introducing solar power to pump water. Isolated concerns included life span of solar panels, cost of batteries to store energy, and whether guards may be needed to deter solar panel theft. In fact, the only challenge vocalized by multiple participants was how well solar power will perform under rainy season cloud cover. However, this concern was tempered by an associated abundance of precipitation that can be substituted for public supplies, as voiced in Gidewari: “During the rainy season solar panels cannot store energy. This is a problem, but not too much of a problem because we can harvest rainwater.”

Discussion and Recommendations

This study investigated perceptions of water sources and safety, water service providers, mobile prepayment for water, and solar power for water pumping. Although perceptions varied across study sites and between the rural and urban contexts in particular, analyses identified dominant narratives that are useful to both the literature and water utilities in Tanzania.

Research participants in both rural and urban Tanzania rely on multiple water sources to satisfy daily needs. Participants commented on competing priorities that govern water source selection—such as cost, convenience, availability, and quality—and these appraisals are regularly based on perceptions. This supports theories on consumption by Røpke (2009) and conclusions drawn by Juran and MacDonald (2014) in India, who argue that perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs influence choice of water source and whether or not to treat water at the point of use. Thus, user perceptions ultimately manifest in distinct behaviors related to water use, with Francis et al. (2015) arguing that user perceptions directly affect the long-term acceptance and sustainability of water interventions. Given the multitude of sources participants choose from on a daily basis, a new water intervention must be perceived as acceptable and advantageous in social, economic, and pragmatic terms compared with current sources. Therefore, this study’s findings have potential to inform the cultural acceptability of ensuing mobile prepayment and solar power interventions in Tanzania’s water sector.

Water safety is a recurring theme. Participants in both settings perceived water quality as poor and all acknowledged a relationship between water and health. Doria et al. (2009) contend that perceptions of water quality and related risks are formed through a “complex interaction of diverse factors” (p. 5455). This study is in keeping with other qualitative studies (Glöckner, Mkanga, & Ndezi, 2004; Kyessi, 2005; Smiley, 2013), in that, perceptions of water quality in Tanzania are influenced by numerous factors, including perceptions of water source, water aesthetics, and trustworthiness of the water provider. This study is also consistent Rojas and Megerle’s (2013) contention that “consumers’ attitude towards their drinking water and towards their drinking water supply entities is strongly affected by the appearance of the delivered water” (p. 113). Participants’ perceptions of water quality relied on physical characteristics and the appearance of land adjacent to water supply points (i.e., if the area surrounding water points looks clean or dirty). In Chanhumba, participants described treated water as bitter and some refuse to consume it even though experts tell them it is safe. This is significant for Tanzanian officials, because physical/aesthetic properties such taste and odor are often the most important factors in perceptions of water safety and water source selection (Ramos da Silva et al., 2010; Wright et al., 2012). Furthermore, the acceptability of water interventions can be hindered by resistance to changes in taste and odor, even when users understand that such changes result in a reduction in health risks (Francis et al., 2015). Experience with waterborne diseases also affects perceptions of water safety in Tanzania, and, in turn, affects perceptions of service providers. Nearly all participants in Lulembela cited a connection between water and health, and many use a chlorine-based product to treat drinking water. There was a cholera outbreak in Lulembela a few years ago, which contributed to the general perception that water provided by the COWSO is unsafe. Observing collective perceptions of water safety, GoT should focus on improving water quality while maintaining or improving water aesthetics.

Participants called for increased transparency, accountability, and communication from water service providers. Ramos da Silva et al. (2010) similarly noted the importance of rapport between providers and consumers in Brazil, specifically citing the criticality of good communication. For users, inadequate communication generates perceptions that the utility is untrustworthy and water quality is poor. Although this study cannot demonstrate a causal relationship between inadequate communication, on one hand, and perceptions of poor management and water quality, on the other, it does demonstrate that the two sides inform each other. For water service providers, inadequate communication may result in misinformation and users unwilling or unable to alert providers of leaks and other problems. Thus, it is contended that “public institutions and the water supply services need to guarantee the quality of water and invest in more efficient methods of information transfer to gain the confidence of the user” (Ramos da Silva et al., 2010, p. 776). This call to action should be taken seriously by DAWASCO and COWSOs as participants frequently voiced their fractious relationship with the providers. However, participants also shared that perceptions of DAWASCO are improving due to recent efforts to improve quality of service and communication. This finding evidences the crucial relationship between service provider communication and user perceptions. If GoT seeks to positively change the water sector, then communication is a key avenue for improvement.

Perceptions of mobile prepayment for water are mixed, although more concerns arose in rural Tanzania than in the urban context. Informants identified many benefits, including increased accountability, reduced corruption, and decreased water theft. Although some perceived the system as more convenient than paying in cash, barriers include costs associated with mobile phone ownership, network reliability, and scarcity of mobile agents in rural areas. Furthermore, some feared the system may disenfranchise poor, elderly, female, and rural populations, who encompass populations in critical need of water services. The literature supports the claim that mobile phone ownership is heterogeneous, with first adopters more likely to be “male, educated, young, wealthy, and urban populations” (Aker & Mbiti, 2010, p. 8). This “digital divide” in terms of gender and demographics (Blumenstock & Eagle, 2012; Bray, 2007; Burrell, 2010) helps to explain grounded perceptions that poor, elderly, female, and rural cohorts may encounter greater barriers in the transition to mobile prepayment for water. Furthermore, a lack of mobile agents combined with expectations of increased customer traffic presents additional challenges in the rural context. As articulated by participants, water users may choose to incentivize alternative sources that are free, but relatively unsafe. Thus, although cost recovery, monitoring, and transparency may be enhanced, these benefits should not come at the cost of exacerbating preexisting vulnerabilities and “technological recesses” among those who already struggle to access water and make ends meet. For example, the commercialization of water services in urban Zambia led to water tariffs that were unaffordable, which, in turn, led to reduced access to water (Dagdeviren, 2008). GoT should consider these critiques to avert such outcomes, with potential action items being to ensure the availability of a minimum number of mobile agents in target villages and offering alternative payment options (i.e., cash) to accommodate households that lack a mobile phone.

Perceptions of solar power to pump water are almost entirely positive. Perhaps this is because users perceive solar power as less controversial, burdensome, and impactful on their daily lives compared with the prepayment innovation. Rural participants, where solar power is more common, view the technology extremely positively, whereas urban participants are less familiar but still enthusiastic. Compared with diesel and grid-based energy, perceptions are that solar power is less expensive, more convenient, and “modern.” However, participants expressed concern that rainy season cloudiness could affect energy production, which may result in users relying on rainwater sources. Thus, data indicate that GoT will confront little resistance implementing solar power, but that water supplies must remain consistent or users may seek alternative and lesser quality water sources.

Finally, GoT could take lessons from behavioral theories in their implementation of mobile, solar, and other technologies in the future. For example, diffusion of innovations theory conceptualizes how innovations are adopted and spread within populations (Katz, 1961; Rogers, 2003). The theory couches technological interventions in terms of relativity, meaning that relative advantage, relative compatibility, relative complexity, and trialability are paramount. In the case of solar power, participants perceive relative advantages over current approaches and it is compatible with the population because it is already understood and has been tested in other applications. Therefore, diffusion of innovations theory suggests that the solar system is likely to be adopted. However, perceptions of the mobile prepayment system were more variable, suggesting possible challenges to adoption. Relative advantages exist (e.g., accountability and “pay for what you get”), mobile services are compatible and understood among the population, and mobile technologies have been tested in other markets. However, water users—especially the poor, elderly, female, and rural—face initial capital costs, regular “top-up” fees, and technological divides that may be incompatible with vulnerable segments of society. In addition, issues surrounding network reliability, mobile money agents, and counterfeit phones further erode the relative advantage of the mobile prepayment system. Although the mobile system will likely succeed, especially in Dar es Salaam and other urban centers, some populations may be disenfranchised from public water supplies and, consequently, seek unauthorized and lesser quality sources.

Perceptions are critical for determining the efficacy, scalability, and sustainability of innovations in the water sector. Furthermore, GoT needs to plan for how the deployment of technologies will affect their institutional structures as well as how technologies may help build (or hinder) trust between water users and water institutions. As argued by Pacey (1977), technologies alone are not enough; institutions also need to change (e.g., transparency, responsiveness, training) while still remaining nimble enough to accommodate the technologies. Thus, before mobile prepayment, solar power, and other innovations are scaled up, GoT would be wise to conduct pilot projects and additional research on user perceptions. Perceptions are valuable for gauging the acceptance and ultimately the impact of innovations. Simply put, if you want to help people, then you must listen to the people. The case of water is no exception.

Conclusion

Access to safe drinking water and innovations to improve water services are critical issues in Tanzania and other low-income countries. Few studies have investigated the use of solar power and prepaid water meters in the water sector in Tanzania, and this study is the first effort to examine these innovations through the lens of user perceptions. This study examined (a) perceptions of existing water services and (b) perceptions of proposed innovations to improve water services. Qualitative methods identified perceptions of current water service delivery and perceptions of prepayment and solar power innovations. In doing so, this study informs how GoT can better incorporate user perceptions in the water sector. A clearer understanding of perceptions is essential to facilitate water service sustainability and the deployment of innovations to improve water services.

In terms of findings, study participants draw upon multiple sources of water based on perceptions of cost, convenience, and quality. Participants also acknowledge a relationship between water and health while generally perceiving their water quality as poor. Water service providers (DAWASCO and COWSOs) are perceived as unaccountable, unresponsive, lacking transparency, and in need of additional training. However, perceptions of DAWASCO have improved in recent years. Study participants perceived mobile prepayment for water as accountable, “fair,” and “modern,” but identified the disenfranchisement of vulnerable populations and network reliability as potential challenges. Finally, solar power for water pumping was perceived very positively as cost effective and convenient. The main concern surrounding solar power was energy production during the rainy season.

Satisfaction with existing water providers is low. Although data suggest that mobile and solar technologies have potential to enhance water services in Tanzania, neither system is without challenges. These perceptions have potential to affect the long-term sustainability of capital investments in Tanzania’s water sector, because perceptions—whether true, debatable, or flat-out wrong—ultimately manifest in real decisions and behaviors. Timely research must be conducted before innovations are scaled up, and postintervention monitoring must follow to foster a feedback loop of lessons learned. This study represents an important first step in the assessment of proposed water service innovations in Tanzania. Methods employed here could be extended to additional regions to determine the generalizability of themes identified in the study communities. More extensive research and pilot testing should be conducted before the prepayment and solar innovations are formally introduced.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

Water Mission–Tanzania designed and implemented logistical aspects of the project. The research team was led by Kristen Check (Water Mission), and included Krissy Hudgins (Doozer Consulting) and Jeffrey Rozelle (independent contractor). Focus groups and key informant interviews were led by Olivia Luusah-Mushi, a qualitative researcher from Tanzania, and Prosper Mulokozi also assisted in research activities. Julia Sherry is now affiliated as Program Evaluation Specialist with Water Mission, Charleston, SC.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was supported by the Sidman P. Poole Endowment Fund of the Department of Geography at Virginia Tech, the Georgia Pacific Scholarship Fund of the Department of Geography at Virginia Tech, and the World Bank (contract no. 7176865 between the World Bank and Water Mission–Tanzania for the project “Testing the Rationale for Smart Water Dispensers in Tanzania”).

Author Biographies

Julia Sherry completed graduate studies at Virginia Tech and now works at Water Mission in Charleston, South Carolina, with a focus on evaluating the impacts of safe water and sanitation interventions.

Luke Juran is faculty in the Department of Geography and Virginia Water Resources Research Center at Virginia Tech. His research, which focuses primarily on South Asia, explores water and sanitation aspects of disasters.

Korine N. Kolivras is an associate professor of geography with expertise in medical geography, links between health and variability in human and physical environments, and spatial patterns of emerging infectious diseases.

Leigh-Anne H. Krometis is an associate professor in the Department of Biological Systems Engineering at Virginia Tech. Her research focuses on engineering public health, particularly drinking water access and sanitation in the Appalachian Coalfields

Erin J. Ling, is a senior extension associate in Biological Systems Engineering at Virginia Tech. She coordinates the Virginia Household Water Quality Program, which provides water testing and education to the one in five Virginians who rely on wells and springs for their household water.

References

Aker

J. C.

Mbiti

I. M.

(2010). Mobile phones and economic development in Africa. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 24, 207-232.

Bassi

(2017). Solarizing groundwater irrigation in India: A growing debate. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 34, 132-145.

BBC. (2016, June 17). Tanzania “cuts off 630,000” fake phones. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-36558056

Blaut

J. M.

(1977). Two views of diffusion. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 67, 343-349.

Blumenstock

J. E.

Eagle

(2012). Divided we call: Disparities in access and use of mobile phones in Rwanda. Information Technologies & International Development, 8(2), 1-16.

Bray

(2007). Gender and technology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 36, 37-53.

Burrell

(2010). Evaluating shared access: Social equality and the circulation of mobile phones in rural Uganda. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 15, 230-250.

Dagdeviren

(2008). Waiting for miracles: The commercialization of urban water services in Zambia. Development & Change, 39, 101-121.

Dill

(2010). Public-public partnerships in urban water provision: The case of Dar es Salaam. Journal of International Development, 22, 611-624.

10.

Doria

M. d. F.

(2010). Factors influencing public perception of drinking water quality. Water Policy, 12, 1-19.

11.

Doria

M. d. F.

Pidgeon

Hunter

P. R.

(2009). Perceptions of drinking water quality and risk and its effect on behaviour: A cross-national study. Science of the Total Environment, 407, 5455-5464.

12.

Falahee

MacRae

(1995). Consumer appraisal of drinking water: Multidimensional scaling analysis. Food Quality & Preference, 6, 4327-4332.

13.

Francis

Nagarajan

Sarkar

Mohan

Kang

Balraj

(2015). Perception of drinking water safety and factors influencing acceptance and sustainability of a water quality intervention in rural southern India. BMC Public Health, 15(1), Article 731.

14.

Glöckner

Mkanga

Ndezi

(2004). Local empowerment through community mapping for water and sanitation in Dar es Salaam. Environment & Urbanization, 16, 185-197.

15.

Gopakumar

(2004, July 11-17). Lived technical systems: Conceptualizing technologies and technology policies for the recesses of networked urban spaces in the third world. 6th International Summer Academy on Technology Studies, Deutschlandsberg, Austria.

16.

Graham

Marvin

(2001). Splintering urbanism: Networked infrastructures, technological mobilities and the urban condition. London, England: Routledge.

17.

Hagerstrand

(1968). Innovation diffusion as a spatial process. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

18.

Herbst

Benedikter

Koester

(2009). Perceptions of water, sanitation and health: A case study from the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Water Science & Technology, 60, 699-707.

19.

Heymans

Eales

Franceys

(2014). The limits and possibilities of prepaid water in urban Africa: Lessons from the field. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

20.

Hope

Foster

Money

Rouse

(2012). Harnessing mobile communications innovations for water security. Global Policy, 3, 433-442.

21.

Hutchings

Dev

Palaniappan

Srinivasan

Ramanathan

Taylor

(2012). mWASH: Mobile phone applications for the water, sanitation, and hygiene sector. Oakland, CA: Pacific Institute.

22.

Jiménez

Pérez-Foguet

(2011). The relationship between technology and functionality of rural water points: Evidence from Tanzania. Water Science & Technology, 63, 948-955.

23.

Jonoski

Alfonso

Almoradie

Popescu

van Andel

S. J.

Vojinovic

(2012). Mobile phone applications in the water domain. Environmental Engineering & Management Journal, 11, 919-930.

24.

Jonoski

Almoradie

Khan

Popescu

van Andel

S. J.

(2012). Google android mobile phone applications for water quality information management. Journal of Hydroinformatics, 15, 1137-1149.

25.

Juran

MacDonald

M. C.

(2014). An assessment of boiling as a method of household water treatment in South India. Journal of Water & Health, 12, 791-802.

26.

Juran

MacDonald

M. C.

Basu

N. B.

Hubbard

Rajagopal

Rajagopalan

Philip

(2017). Development and application of multi-scalar, participant-driven Water Poverty Index in post-tsunami India. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 33, 955-975.

27.

Kassenga

(2008). The status and constraints of solar photovoltaic energy development in Tanzania. Journal Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning, and Policy, 3, 420-432.

28.

Katz

(1961). The social itinerary of technical change: Two studies on the diffusion of innovation. Human Organization, 20, 70-82.

29.

Kjellen

(2010). Complementary water systems in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: The case of water vending. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 16, 143-154.

30.

Kyessi

A. G.

(2005). Community-based urban water management in fringe neighbourhoods: The case of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Habitat International, 29, 1-25.

31.

Mandara

C. G.

Butijn

Niehof

(2013). Community management and sustainability of rural water facilities in Tanzania. Water Policy, 15, 79-100.

32.

Marks

S. J.

Davis

(2012). Does user participation lead to sense of ownership for rural water systems? Evidence from Kenya. World Development, 40, 1569-1576.

33.

Meah

Ula

Barrett

(2008). Solar photovoltaic water pumping—Opportunities and challenges. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 12, 1162-1175.

34.

Mibei

Karanja

Gakuo

Romney

Karanja

Sones

(2017, December). Mobile landscape analysis: Tanzania (CABI Working Paper 10). Nairobi, Kenya: Centre for Agriculture and Biosciences International.

35.

Miles

M. B.

Huberman

A. M.

Saldaña

(2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

36.

Pacey

(1977). Technology is not enough: The provision and maintenance of appropriate water supplies. Aqua, 1, 1-58.

37.

Røpke

(2009). Theories of practice—New inspiration for ecological economic studies on consumption. Ecological Economics, 68, 2490-2497.

38.

Ramos da Silva

Heller

de Campos Valadares

Cairncross

(2010). Relationship (or its lack) between population and a water and sanitation service: A study of users’ perception in Vitoria (ES) Brazil. Journal of Water & Health, 8, 764-778.

39.

Robi

(2016, 18 June). Tanzania: Thousands of mobile phones shut down. Tanzania Daily News. Retrieved from http://allafrica.com/stories/201606180012.html

40.

Rogers

E. M.

(2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.

41.

Rojas

L. F. R.

Megerle

(2013). Perception of water quality and health risks in the rural area of Medellín. American Journal of Rural Development, 1, 106-115.

42.

Roy

(2014). Understanding the Delhi urban waterscape through Actor Network Theory. Public Works Management & Policy, 20, 322-336.

43.

Saldaña

(2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. London, England: SAGE.

44.

Short

T. D.

Thompson

(2003). Breaking the mould: Solar water pumping—The challenges and the reality. Solar Energy, 75, 1-9.

45.

Smiley

S. L.

(2013). Complexities of water access in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Applied Geography, 41, 132-138.

46.

Tanzania Ministry of Water. (2015). Water point mapping Tanzania. Government of Tanzania. Available from http://wpm.maji.go.tz/

47.

Wejnert

(2002). Integrating models of diffusion of innovations: A conceptual framework. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 297-326.

48.

World Bank. (2015, December 7). Using solar energy to power water supply in Tanzania. Retrieved from http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2015/12/07/using-solar-energy-to-power-water-supply-in-tanzania

49.

World Health Organization & United Nations Children’s Fund. (2015). Progress on sanitation and drinking water—2015 update and MDG assessment. Retrieved from https://www.unicef.org/publications/index_82419.html

50.

Wright

J. A.

Yang

Rivett

Gundry

S. W.

(2012). Public perception of drinking water safety in South Africa 2002-2009: A repeated cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health, 12(1), Article 556.