Societal Impact Analysis of Community-managed Potable Water Supply System in Rural India

Abstract

Lack of accessibility and affordability to safe and affordable drinking water remains a major challenge in fulfilling sustainable development goals. Community-based water management emerged as a policy response to address the issues. However, the impact of producing community-based water supply institutions on the community is hardly noticed in this context. This paper tries to fill the gap through the relational understanding between the provision of safe water and communities’ socioeconomic upliftment, which remains the main reason behind the establishment of the potable water facility in Porapara village located in West Midnapur district of the state of West Bengal, India. The study findings revealed that community participation through the process of empowerment results in good governance of the potable water project and the socioeconomic well-being of the community in Porapara village. This kind of intervention study may help policymakers in evaluating the societal impact to achieve socioeconomic well-being.

Keywords

drinking water rural development community participation health livelihoods

Introduction

The provision of safe and adequate drinking water is taken as an enduring strategy to achieve Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) which not only targets on improving access and efficiency of safe and good quality drinking water but also addresses “universal access” by removing inequalities (UNICEF 2015). Rural regions of developing and underdeveloped countries face extreme water scarcity where eight out of 10 people lack of access to safe drinking water supply, which puts constraints on resource development and productivity. In these regions, improved access to adequate quantities of drinking water supply is taken as an effective strategy to lower the risk of contracting waterborne infections (Alhassan and Kwakwa 2014; Zhang 2012). Past literature already proved that community participation is one of the criteria for successful natural resource management (Ananga et al. 2020; Murphy-Mills et al. 2019; Waithaka, Kisovi, and Obando 2016). However, the impact of community-based water management on society is not much examined.

Community-based water management is defined as the management of water resources by, of, and for the people where common people come together to resolve their local concerns on a daily basis. It emphasizes decentralized and multi-actor ways to enable optimal and effective public service delivery, which involves connections or collaborations across governmental and non-governmental (for-profit and non-profit) actors, as well as service recipients (Mugumya 2013). The transformation in the power structure and natural resource governance under decentralized mechanisms encourage and empower local people and their participation in the identification of problems including in the formulation and implementation of solutions. In the rural water supply sector, community-based governance is seen as a long-term approach for putting widespread participatory development into practice (Whaley and Cleaver 2017). This way, delegation results in the transfer of accountability and expenses to the most vulnerable people (Kesby 2005). Community-based initiatives, as per this logic, yield better long-lasting outcomes since stakeholders believe with policies they advocate, approve, or execute (Thomas and Koontz 2011). For this reason, in the water sector, the participatory paradigm has been mainstreamed into a succession of international policy pronouncements that make up the global water consensus (Cleaver and Toner 2006; Franks et al. 2004). Community participation in water resource management promotes progressive social change by empowering women and poor people and ensuring greater effectiveness toward service provision (Cleaver and Toner 2006). Thus, community participation helps to create good governance on one hand, and, on the other hand, better water supply aids in the achievement of a number of societal development objectives (UNMDP 2005).

Considering the importance and significance of concepts like successful water governance, improved water management, more capacity, and stronger poor community empowerment, it is necessary to understand its impact on the community. There is a lack of studies from the perspective of the impact of community-based water management on communities both in the social and economic contexts. This paper attempts to understand the relationship between communities’ managed potable water supply and society’s development from peoples’ perspective through decentralized mechanisms. The following elements make up the paper’s configuration: an introduction, followed by understanding involvement, community-based water management, and effect analysis. The third section discusses the research locations and data collection procedures. In the fourth section, the findings are discussed. The final section includes concluding observations on the relevance of this study on participatory planning strategies in the rural water sector.

Theoretical Underpinnings

The term “participation” has been widely used and considered in various ways through its meaning, concepts, and so on. In the context of development plans and programs, participation can be defined in the context of development plans and programs as the procedure by which participants affect and engage in decision making in the design, implementation, supervision, and evaluation of programs and projects (Kaosa-ard et al. 1998). It is a method of empowering individuals and communities via the acquisition of skills, information, and experience, resulting in increased self-reliance and self-management (Karl 2000).

During the 1990s, developing countries adopted “demand-driven” approach in rural water supply programs. It constitutes components in project planning like,

(1) involve households in the choice of both technology and institutional and governance arrangements, (2) give women a larger role in decision making than has historically been the norm and (3) require households to pay all of the operation and maintenance costs of providing water services and at least some of the capital costs. (Whittington et al. 2009)

As a result, water policy reform went through a pronounced change from centralized planning to community-centered approaches under decentralization and popular Community-based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) (Ferguson and Mulwafu 2004). Accordingly, various international and national organizations promoted local participation to maintain sustainable livelihoods, ensure decentralized governance, and to tackle poverty (Department for International Development 2002; World Bank 2003). However, it may be mentioned that the community’s participation and empowerment, inclusive activities, depend on stakeholders’ attitudes, interests, and power toward intervention (Singto, Fleskens, and Vos 2018) which ultimately increase acceptability, utilization, and better management of community-based infrastructure (Ambuehl et al. 2022). Therefore, understanding stakeholders’ interests in the planning process, before designing interventions and decision-making processes, through a bottom-up approach from the very initial stage may confirm the possibilities of better governance of natural resources (Furlong et al. 2016; Reed 2008; Roncoli et al. 2016). Understanding participants’ requirements and desires regarding the good and bad implications of water infrastructure, as well as identifying stakeholders’ possible conflicts and responding to their aspirations, is critical as a project initiator of new water resource development projects (Bourne and Walker 2005; Singto et al. 2018). Considering this, Fleskens and Stringer (2014) identified the necessities for a multi-stakeholder assessment of consequences in making a decision on land monitoring and policy reactions to: (1) identify and predict the repercussions of negative issues; (2) evaluate and suggest intervention implications; and (3) create and investigate intervention reactions.

Pieces of literature have already been published which addresses the relevance of community-based water management in sustaining the supply, increasing accessibility, achieving equity, and so on (Braimah, Amponsah, and Asibey 2016; Liddle, Mager, and Nel 2016). Global water partnership shows that Community-based Organizations (CBOs) are covering two critical service gaps that public and commercial water and sanitation providers may be unable to meet properly. First, both governmental and non-governmental water organizations have limited opportunities for constructive participation of local populations, particularly during the post-construction stages of water projects. Second, such organizations have limited ability (financial, technical, etc.) to the point where a large number of locations, particularly distant villages, are out of reach. Cochran and Ray (2009) through their paper tried to conceptualize equity in the context of a community-based rainwater-harvesting program. The result revealed inequity is produced in the name of equitable participation of the community in the form of cash or labor in the projects and inequitable sharing of benefits from the same projects. According to the researchers, power relation, prestige, village unity, and dharm act as driving factors behind the production of inequity. It is believed that the community who is more closely engaged with the management of the resource base should be included in the process of participation of resource governance. This helps in the long term sustaining resource base even in the face of external shock. According to Figueiredo and Perkins (2013), it is critical for women to be included in the governance structure to achieve long-term sustainability of water resources under climate change. Sakisaka et al. (2015) argued that shifting of water sources from surface to groundwater resulted in the reduction of distance, water collection time, and increased water consumption. Whittington et al. (2009) based on randomized controlled experiment to understand functioning of the system prior and afterward the treatment intervention. Here system performance is measured through the questions such as (1) percentage of villages have private connections only/ public taps only/ private connections and public taps/ one project hand pump; (2) the functioning system of the water infrastructure; (3) average days under repair; (4) community participation in the meeting, proceedings; and (5) cost recovery mechanisms (median expenditure, tariff capacity, and repair types). Moreover, to understand factors associated with the system working, and factors influencing homeowner satisfaction regarding Operation and Maintenance repair facilities, the paper used multivariate models. Multivariate regression approaches were used by Marks and Davis (2012) to estimate sense of ownership toward the freshwater infrastructure as a factor of household engagement in design and installation, as well as system and service features, and household social and economic variables. To better understand the sustainability issues in the Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH) sector, Kativhu et al. (2022) used a chi-squared test to see if there were any substantial connections among borehole upkeep and the expected series of breakdowns published by survey participants annually. A correlation is also demonstrated between the age of the water infrastructure and the time it takes to complete a 20-liter container. Thomas and Koontz (2011) figured out that the full explanatory network of community-based management practices, through the inputs sustaining decision-making mechanisms to control outputs including environmental effects, must be examined closely to determine how community-based management has a favorable or destructive consequence. Madrigal, Alpízar, and Schlüter (2011) provide an excellent overview of how a demand-driven approach can lead to improved fiscal viability, improved infrastructure status, and increased user pleasure with a downward accountability mechanism, effective regulations for tariff gathering and infrastructure repair, and the capabilities of water committee members. Along with this, a lot of research work took place under community-based water management to study whether it works effectively under the extreme climatic events such as drought (Daluwatte and Sivakumar 2022; Schnegg and Bollig 2016); what is the role of external support in adaptation to water scarcity (Murtinho et al. 2013); the role of influential factors for community participation to achieve sustainability in community-managed potable water supply systems (Guta et al. 2022); also the influential factors that lead sustainability of water projects in the long term (Koehler, Thomson, and Hope 2015; Osumanu, Zumayelleh, and Kosoe 2022).

Therefore, in brief, it may be stated (also from Table 1) that engagement of various stakeholder groups in the decision procedure aids in the identification of key issues, strengthening legitimation, response to necessitate, the negotiation of interests, the incorporation of local knowledge, the encouragement of social learning, and the establishment of a social license for government schemes ( W. M.Adams and Hulme 2021; Brunner et al. 2008; Smith 2009). Its appeal stems from policies and laws such as constructing institutions including such associations, committees, and cooperatives through society empowerment; formulating regionally approved operational regulations on resource use and user behavior, which include sanctions (frequently embedded in constitutional provisions), and a resource management framework mutually decided upon by relevant stakeholders; decentralization to local organizations of appropriate lawful resource privileges, along with judgment powers and economic incentives (E. A.Adams and Zulu 2015; Agrawal 2001; Moraes and Perkins 2007).

Table 1.

Summary of the Literature on Impact of Community-based Water Management.

Study	Study region	Sample size	Method	Impact on community	Limitations of the work
Cleaver and Toner (2006)	Uchira, Tanzania	128 water users and 42 life-history interviewees	Semi-structured interviews, life-history interviewing, observation of participants, etc.	Existing poverty, inequalities in terms of power and wealth, conflicts regarding water rights affect the effectiveness of community-based water management. Socioeconomic background also contributes in it.	The evolution of water governance and its relation with health outcomes, well-being of the community matter most.
Cochran and Ray (2009)	Rajasthan, India	—	Semi-structured interviews, informal conversations, and observation	Power, relation, prestige, village unity, and dharm are the influential factors behind the production of inequity where poor and elite class disproportionately affected by benefits from the community-managed rainwater harvesting system.	The study poorly captured gender relation in the context of inequity and how inequity resulted across socioeconomic groupings of community.
Whittington et al. (2009)	Bolivia, Peru, and Ghana	400 rural communities and 10,000 individuals in these communities	Group Interview and Focus group discussion	Electricity coverage, capital cost contribution, presence of good post construction support and overall people’s participation determine water system performance middle term.	The impact of water consumption on health and well-being of the community is not properly documented here.
Marks and Davis (2012)	Kenya	1,140 households	Household survey and interview	Community’s participation in planning, implementing of project, awareness, their contribution of labor and money, their perceptions of and attitudes toward the water system determines sense of ownership for the water system.	Beneficiary outcome in terms of adequate quantity, quality, accessibility also determine water governance.
Check (2015)	Uganda	28 female and 11 male	37 semi-structured, ethnographic interviews and household survey	Effectiveness and reputation of personnel are more important factors in the success of community-based water interventions. A household’s ability to access safe water is affected by financial affordability and cultural barriers as well.	The feeling of ownership, empowerment among the community holds key role in success of project.
van den Broek and Brown (2015)	Uganda	195 respondents	Ethnographic fieldwork, questionnaire surveys, and interviews	Dearth of maintenance funds and management failings are solely responsible for non-functionality of hand pumps.	The reason behind the not-payment behavior may arise from intervention in a region where plenty water resource available, with better option of accessibility and affordability.
Tantoh and Simatele (2017)	North-west Cameroon	10 households and six regional officials	Discussion, Interview, Snowball Technique	Radical shift in the structure of power and governance of natural resources and community’s participation through empowerment are the major building blocks to achieve sustainable solutions to the water crisis.	Conditions like distance from water points, payment of tariff for water, collection time, quantity play a critical role to sustain the water point in long term

Source. Produced by the authors.

Impact assessment studies basically judge the significance or lasting impacts of improved water facilities on a community. This particular study takes the view that the perception of the community regarding the impacts are important for the design of future potable water projects and to further understand the reasoning behind this change. In this paper, two important research questions are addressed: (1) how this initiative may address a common problem, that is, accessibility of good quality drinking water on a daily basis, and (2) how this community initiative may bring a positive change in societal well-being. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to understand the social impact of demand-driven community-managed water supply at the micro-level, that is, at village level.

Project Site Selection and Data Collection

Study Area

Porapara, a revenue village (Mauza) consisting of approximately 294 households, is located about 18 km away from Kharagpur Municipal area (sub-divisional headquarter) in West Medinipur district of West Bengal (Figure 1). The Porapara village has a population of 1,233 of which 655 are males while 578 are females as per Population Census 2011. This entire revenue village is divided into four different clusters mostly based on caste structure. Out of four hamlets, two of them are principal ones. These two main hamlets together consist of 137 households and mostly belong to the other backward classes (OBC) where the potable water project intervention (drinking water purification and community distribution system) has taken place (Figure 2).

Figure 1.

Map of the study area.

Figure 2.

Social structure of the study area.

The reasons behind selection of this hamlet for this project intervention are as follows: First, field observation reported that the households in the first hamlet were mainly dependent on personal wells located in their backyard and community tubewell for their drinking water requirement. It was also noticed that among these targeted households, around 20 families were taking water from their own wells and 100 households from community tubewell. This scenario revealed that this village is lacking of facility of purified drinking water from the treated source.

Second, poor socioeconomic groups community dominated in the project village. Most of the household of the project intervening area belong to OBC. Occupationally, the villagers are daily wage earners and associated with agriculture and other wage laboring jobs in the surrounding area of Kharagpur. Their monthly income ranges from Rs. 3,000 to Rs. 30,000.

Last, the survey results revealed that the households suffered from health issues because of consumption of unsafe drinking water. In addition, the community health center and hospitals are located far from (distance more than 11 km) the village, which put extreme drudgery for the community to get better health care facility (as shown in the Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Location of hospital and health centers nearby study area.

Before the researcher’s intervention, it was evident from the field observation that the households in the first hamlet were mainly dependent on personal wells located in their backyard and community tubewell for their drinking water requirement. It was noticed that among these targeted households, around 20 families were taking water from their own wells and 100 households from community tubewell.

The drinking water intervention basically takes place through convincing the villagers regarding the necessity of a water filtration unit and to increase their participation as the success of this intervention basically depended on the active participation of the community. After a series of group discussions (more than 15), they agreed to donate land, where the purification unit was going to be established. It fulfills the primary criteria that villagers themselves should come forward to donate land, containing thick aquifer for the installation of the water purification unit. It also ensures community participation and aids in the development of sense of ownership of villagers about the project. Following the handover of the land, the digging of bore well with the installation of a submersible motor of 1 HP was made at the project site which marked the initiation of this stage. Consequently, a room of 250 square feet was constructed for the setup of the water purification unit including the installation of different types of filters and other equipment according to the raw water quality. Before the installation of filters, water quality was checked at the designated laboratory, which helped to decide filter types and their capacity. After the installation of this purification unit, village committees were formulated and rules and guidelines were defined. In January 2018, the project was ultimately handed over to the community for utilization and management.

The Way Information Were Explored

The study’s sampling frame is based on the Porapara Village community, where people have been actively involved in the operation and maintenance of the potable water system for the last three years. The pilot survey carried out in this study area revealed the fact that the principal supplies of drinking water for the examined homes were unimproved resources such as ponds and open dug wells. The current study tries to incorporate the perception of the community regarding challenges and benefits in drinking water supply. Data collection occurred during the period of 2018–2019. Data were collected from households who basically use the water system. To analyze the impact of the water project, Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) and interview were conducted to collect public opinions.

The PRA is the most appropriate method for translating the objective because it supports establishing and improving communication channels and implementing plans with the help of several tools and techniques like focused group discussion, participatory mapping, timeline mapping, personal interview, and transect walk. According to the definitions, PRA is a set of principles and methods that encourage people of a village to effectively engage in raising and analyzing their knowledge of their living conditions to develop the best feasible action plan. As a consequence, incorporating rural people’s expertise and perspectives improves development project and program planning and management. This action plan and planning approaches act as a guide to solve societal problems (Zaheer et al. 2022). Moreover, the literatures reveled that it is also a useful approach for empowering the community which helps them to solve their own problem through participation in planning, decision-making process, and management of the program in the post-construction phase (Abhinav Reddy et al. 2022; Triatmanto and Natsir 2019).

For the fulfillment of the objective of study, among PRA methods, transect walk and resource mapping are used to understand village resource base, and timeline mapping is used to identify the intervention in drinking water supply. Face-to-face interview and focus group discussion with 15–14 members at different time scale also took place which cover aspects like affordability of the price of drinking water, quantity of water, changes in water quality, health improvement, reducing health care expenses, increasing number of working days for adults and school-going days for children from the period they started consumption of potable drinking water from the purification unit in their preferred language, that is, Bengali. For this purpose, almost all the households (137 households) were taken into consideration for the interview. To understand community perception regarding water quality improvement and the project’s overall benefit, Likert scale is used. Interviewees were requested how much they agreed with each opinion. The five-item response scale recorded answers regarding water quality improvement ranging from “most significant,” “significant,” “average,” “least significant,” and “insignificant.” Similarly, for the project’s overall benefit the 5-point response scale ranges from “highly beneficial,” “beneficial,” “neutral,” “non beneficial,” and “least beneficial.” The collected data were analyzed using quantitative software (Image 1).

Image 1.

(a) Group meeting with the villagers and (b) the water purification unit.

Results and Discussions

The Porapara water purification unit provides potable water at a nominal cost, that is, one rupee per household per day for fifteen liters of drinking water, and households are given the responsibility for the operation and maintenance. The overall findings (Figure 4 and Figure 5) are discussed under the subsection—the first section discusses about the development of cost-sharing behavior, the second section tries to capture the community’s response toward changes in water quality. The third section summarizes the outcome of health care expenses and the number of working days after the intervention. The fourth and fifth sections, respectively, conceptualize the impact of intervention on overall benefit from the project and number of school-going days for children. Finally, the last two sections, the sixth and seventh sections, present willingness to pay behavior and participation, coherence in management in the potable water sector.

Figure 4.

Schematic presentation of socioeconomic features and drinking water related issues of the concerned village community: (a) cost of purified water; (b) income of the community; (c) occupational structure; (d) change in water quality; (e) change in water quality parameters; (f) sufficiency of water quantity, decrease in health care expenses, increase in working days and school-going days for children (No. of households = 100%).

Figure 5.

(a) Overall benefits of the Project; (b) willingness to pay by beneficiaries.

Development of Cost-sharing Behavior

After installing the water purification unit, households in the study area which showed interest in collecting water from this unit were provided with Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) cards. At the payment cost of just one rupee, the household is able to get 15 liters of potable water daily. The RFID card retained by the individual household gets recharged on the first or second day of each calendar month with a mastercard. It is revealed from the surveyed result that in terms of cost (which is affordable to all community members) and the quantity of purified water, around 97 and 89 percent of the households, respectively, agreed and were satisfied with the price they were paying for the amount of water. The reason behind satisfaction of price may be the community’s socioeconomic background. They are basically engaged in farming or unskilled or semiskilled labor whose monthly income ranges from Rs. 3,000 to Rs. 30,000. Besides, the minimal cost of paying has a significant impact on the formation of cost-sharing behavior. This result is in line with the findings of Teodoro (2018) who believed that appropriate depiction of affordability is crucial since utility management aims to assist low-income consumers while simultaneously producing the revenue needed to sustain and promote public health and conservation. Raising or putting more charges for drinking water service delivery than the average income may have substantial impact on water provision, accessibility, and also affordability of water which are closely associated with hygiene, health, well-being, socioeconomic upliftment, gender and social equity, education opportunities in developing and least developed countries, and thus create the situation of water poverty, consumption of unsafe water, and financial hardship by households (Harris 2012; Mahmood and Sharma 2009). To avoid such situations, water pricing policy should consider policies on tariff structure and social income assistance. Low water costing for the required quantity of water for drinking, preparing food, home cleanup, and sanitation is a goal of tariff structure policy. Income support and payment assistance policies, on the other hand, offer a different way to promote social fairness, justice, and cost-effective water pricing. Therefore, setting affordable water prices is the key to a healthy society.

Willingness to Pay

The analysis figured out the fact that 61 percent respondents are happy with the amount right now they are paying, that is, one rupee per day per household for 15 liters of water. We have found that the remaining 39 percent respondents they are ready to pay more than the amount they are currently paying, if it is required. Economic valuations of water resources may play an important role in measuring human well-being. Valuation helps to understand the scarcity nature of natural resources (i.e., drinking water). The study found that the population of adults in a family, the duration it takes to bring water, and the portion willing to pay for a suggested development in water system provider, as well as education, profession, family size, perception water quality, as well as water service durability, all influence household-level willingness to pay for enhanced water supply delivery (Bamimore, Farayola, and Amao 2015; Odwori 2020). The study outcome is also consistent with the findings of Polyzou et al. (2011) who considered social capital and drinking water quality improvement as a significant explanatory parameter of willingness to pay. This also contributes vital data for determining project commercial feasibility, determining affordable tariffs (user fees), analyzing policy options, determining economic health, and developing socially equitable incentives (Lema and Beyene 2012). From the facts derived through household survey, it can be stated that adequate quantity of drinking water at minimal price, significant improvement in water quality, decrease in medical cost, and increase in productivity drive the willingness to pay behavior and attitude among the respondents. This in turn improves the maintenance of drinking water service through fast cost recovery, which means financial resources are sufficient to cover all operation and maintenance costs. Thus sustain the service delivery by minimizing breakdown phase.

Water Quality

Everyone from the concerned village cluster agreed regarding significant changes in water quality after purification. Alongside the collection of overall opinion about changes in water quality, this study also collected the perception of local people regarding changes in different parameters of drinking water quality. Of the four primary parameters (like, taste, color, odor, and smell) that define water quality, most of the households agreed with a change in taste and color (i.e., 84 and 55 percent, respectively), but at the same time, they were less concerned about the changes regarding smell and odor. Here in this project, raw water passes through a sand filter, carbon filter, and two 5-micron filters. Finally, ultraviolet (UV) treatment is used to treat raw water and to produce a better quality of drinking water. UV treatment is a low-cost method of disinfecting drinking water (Choi and Choi 2010), and also includes pathogen killing capabilities, which bodes well for satisfying today’s drinking water regulative standards (Vaezi et al. 2007). Because of the presence of strong germicidal (inactivating) ability, it is a disinfection that kills viruses and bacteria in water, and it is also efficient against protozoans like Giardia lamblia cysts and Cryptosporidium oocysts (Oram, n.d.). Purified water results in significant positive impacts on health. The paper “Experimental Study on Health Effects of Long-term Drinking Purified Water” (Shu et al. 2007) stated that in terms of genotoxicity, drinking purified water was found to be safer than tap water, filtered water, and boiled tap water in a series of experiments conducted by their team since 1998.

Health Care Expenses and the Number of Working Days

From the survey, it is revealed that about 84 percent of the families have accepted the reduction in their health care expenses, whereas in terms of an increase in working days, 51 percent of the families agreed. It is because of the fact that before the intervention, most of the family used unprotected and unsafe water sources for drinking purposes which basically leads to more health care expenses and decrease of working days. After the drinking water intervention, multi-filtered UV-treated water helps in removing heavy metals, chemicals, and microbes and harness raw water from the concerned borewell, keeping the existing natural minerals intact as per WHO guidelines. Consumption of good quality drinking water is the key to sound health. This in turn helps to reduce health care expenditure and increase the number of working days. Reddy, Kullappa, and Rao (2008) in their paper explored that those residing below the poverty line (BPL) suffer significant expenses as a consequence of poor water quality in terms of turbulence and microbial contaminants, as well as lost working days. Our research also supports that expenditures are higher among BPL families and especially among women in the setting of medical expenses, losing of working days and expenditure on improved water. Therefore, maintenance of good health depends on factors like improved water quality, adequate water quantity, accessibility, reliability, cost of the water and above all ease of management (Hunter, MacDonald, and Carter 2010). Otherwise, poor health conditions adversely impact the income level of the household and indirectly impact on the health of women and children who fetch water from distances (Bosch et al. 2001).

Increase in Number of School-going Days for Children

Around 45 percent of respondents believed that accessibility and affordability to improved drinking water supply increase the number of school-going days for children. While around 47 percent of respondents did not reply about the impact of improved water supply on the increased number of school-going days. Our research also supports the kind of research findings that have been done by Lau et al. (2012) in Africa. According to them, waterborne diseases are the main reason for 75 percent of all school absences. School-based WASH intervention plays a prominent role in reduction of diarrhea incidence and days of illness (Freeman et al. 2014). Santiago Ortiz-Correa, Filho, and Dinar (2016) in their paper underline the positive impact of the role of accessibility on schooling. This paper demonstrates how inequality in access force students to invest more time in gathering, carrying, and maintaining water storage than it is spent attending school or doing assignments. This paper provides similar instances of reduction of health care expenditures, and increasing productive time through improved accessibility to drinking water by the households, which in turn also help in avoiding the expenses of a household person’s early demise. Hasan and Gerber (2017) in their paper argued that costly piped water delivery interventions are unable to produce favorable repercussions on water quality and child health, and statistically positive impacts in improved water access, time, and distance reducing have been shown to be practically insufficient in effect size.

Participation, Coherence in Management

After the installation of the water purification plant, the main work was to form committees for the smooth functioning of the project. For this purpose, three committees were setup by the appropriators with the help of the initiator. Among these three committees, the first one was the management committee, basically a kind of “water user group” informal in nature that included one member from each household who was part of this project. Once every month, this committee discusses the overall performance of the project. The second committee was an operational committee that mainly consisted of three young villagers. Members belonging to this operational committee were primarily responsible for the daily operation and maintenance of the unit. For performing these operations, informal training was given to these members, thereby giving them a central role in the operational management of the project. Finally, the third committee consisted of a three-member finance committee. The main function of this committee is to collect money from each household, who have been using drinking water from this unit at the beginning of the month. After collection, they deposit the money in the joint savings bank account opened in the name of these three finance committee members. The amount was used to pay for electricity bills and any other maintenance cost associated with this unit. Moreover, to regulate maintenance costs, everyone agreed to run the unit for just two hours a day in the morning. Apart from these important rules, the registered beneficiaries also agreed not to provide water from this unit for any other large-scale community affairs like marriage ceremonies, and also not to produce for any commercial purpose. At the same time, no household from the concerned community will take any unfair benefit out of this project unit. Thus, smooth functioning of the project is achieved through fast recovery of the system and thereby minimizing the number of the breakdown phase in the study area. The report “Support to Community-managed Rural Water Supply by the Water and Sanitation Management Organization in Kutch District, Gujarat” (Chary Vedala, Uddaraju, and Jasthi 2015) took into account the assistance of water organizations as well as society involvement in the fixation as well as acquisition of water tariffs, such as tariff record keeping, water distribution providers (everyday, frequency, length of time, etc.), controlling the use of various local sources, organizing system function, conducting out slight renovations (either by a villager or by an extraneous paid service), and chlorination at the village and household level, and water quality testing, thus guaranteeing adequate infrastructure usage, cleanliness near sources, and serve an important function in community water supply management. Addis Beyene (2012) also takes into account distances and involvement of women in the decision-making process as key in decreasing the failure rate of newly installed water supply systems. Satisfactory subsidies, enough resources and capabilities, suitable procedures for water system operational activities and upkeep, impactful inter interactions, technical assistance, beneficial supervising, assessment, and feedback mechanisms are all important factors in the prosperity of community-managed water delivery services in developing nations, according to Rondinelli (1991).

Overall Benefit from the Project

Regarding the project’s overall benefit, all the respondents consider it the most significant project in sustaining their livelihoods. The reason behind it is that before installing a water purification unit, the people had to depend on untreated and pollutant water from wells and community tubewell. They were forced to take the impure water, and during the summer season, when the water bodies mostly dried up. Even for better access to drinking water, the women community used to travel long distances. All of these result in extreme drudgery for women, increase health care expenses, and thereby losing working days. Occupationally, the villagers are mostly daily wage earners and are associated with agriculture and other wage laboring jobs in the surrounding area of Kharagpur. Therefore, reducing working days means lessening of earnings. This water purification supply system improves the water quality and reduces physical labor and time for fetching the purified water from this community water facility. This outcome supports the evidence given by Prokopy (2009) who argued that active participation in new water scheme provides multitude benefits to the households and these benefits depends on the certain attributes like presence of large homogeneous groups, greater social cohesion, low economic disparity, low opportunity costs, and potential benefits. Consequently, family could gain satisfaction and water benefits through their financial investment allocation and participation at meetings. Aside from increased water quality (drinkability, transparency, and viscosity) and services (consistency and reaction to objections), the poor benefit from affordability since it reduces their anxiety of political and social upheavals (Zaki and Amin 2009).

One of the major limitation of this project is to keep common villagers motivated in terms of voluntary participation to run, manage, and protect the potable water purification unit for a long period of time.

Conclusion

The overall aim of the study is to access the impact of provision of safe water under community-managed water supply system on the socioeconomic upliftment from different perspectives. Therefore, it tried to address the above-mentioned research questions mentioned in the introduction section, that is, (1) how this initiative may address a common problem, that is, accessibility of good quality drinking water on a daily basis, and (2) how this community initiative may bring a positive change in societal well-being. It is seen that rural communities in Porapara village were increasingly centered to find a suitable solution to the drinking water crisis. Active community participation, from the stage of initiation to the transferring of full responsibility of the project, holds an important place. Even in the post-construction phase, in terms of management, cost recovery in this project has led to a positive outcome toward sustaining the project in the long term.

From the result of second research question perspective, it is also reveal that this community-based water supply project significantly impacts the lives and livelihoods of Porapara village. Community’s response toward the “most significant” changes in water quality (around 60 percent of respondents), “affordable price” (97 percent of the respondents), and “adequate quantity” (89 percent of the households) drives positive impact on societal well-being. This effect can be seen through health improvement, increased number of working days, time savings, and so on. In terms of accessibility to improve water, affordability, sufficient quantity, and improved water quality, this project takes priority among the community. Moreover, the community’s mindset to increase the payment for this water project also highlights their encouragement to maintain this project and handle it for the long run.

The social change (in terms of well-being) is already evident from the outcomes, which incorporate good governance, improved water supply, and thereby societal development. From the findings, it is conceptualized that the active community participation lead to better decision-making approach, better decision-making approach contribute to better management, and better management lead to increased accessibility and affordability, which ultimate lead to the community well-being (Figure 6). Our findings are also beneficial for policymakers, in addition to improving academic knowledge. For example, governmental and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) focusing on water provision and associated socioeconomic well-being of the community in our study area can shift their efforts to the active participation of the community, demand of them and their perception in socioeconomic upliftment in the post-installation phase. We propose that, based on our findings and site inspections, policymakers should look forward to community preferences, their basic demand, choices of appropriate tariff system on the basis of their affordability, capacity building at different levels through resource mobilization and empowerment of local users under community-managed drinking water systems.

Figure 6.

Flowchart of well-being of the community.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur. We also thank villagers for their active participation and cooperation.

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) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethics Approval

This is based on original research work based on empirical study and demonstrated research project in the village. Written consent was taken from all the participants.

Consent to Participate

All the participants are involved and give cooperation in this study.

ORCID iD

Chhanda Ruj

Availability of Data and Material

Data will be provided on reasonable request to the corresponding author.

Author Biographies

Somnath Ghosal is an assistant professor at Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur. He believes that natural resource conservation, natural resource–based livelihood generation, and commons participation are the integral part of sustainable development goals. He has given the research idea, supervised the work, and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Chhanda Ruj is a research scholar, working under the supervision of Professor Somnath Ghosal, at Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur. Her research interest lies in Hydrosocial Transformation Conflicts: Risk, Inequality, and Adaptation. She has designed the manuscript, performed the literature research, data analysis, interpretation of results, and drafted the manuscript.

References

Abhinav Reddy

Reddy

D. Sanjana

Ranjani

Palivela

Sagar

Soumya

2022. “Assessing Appropriate Technologies for Sustainable Irrigation Practices in Muljipura Village, India.” Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems 286: 345–55. doi: 10.1007/978-981-16-4016-2_33.

Adams

Ellis Adjei

Zulu

Leo Charles

. 2015. “Participants or Customers in Water Governance? Community-public Partnerships for Peri-urban Water Supply.” Geoforum 65:112–24. doi:10.1016/J.GEOFORUM.2015.07.017.

Adams

W. M.

Hulme

2021. “If Community Conservation Is the Answer in Africa, What Is the Question?” Oryx 35(3):193–200. doi:10.1046/j.1365-3008.2001.00183.x.

Addis Beyene

Habtamu

. 2012. “Factors Affecting the Sustainability of Rural Water Supply Systems: The Case of Mecha Woreda, Amhara Region, Ethiopia”. Retrieved August 9, 2022 (http://soilandwater.bee.cornell.edu/publications/Hab_Thesistss_formatted.pdf).

Agrawal

Arun

. 2001. “Common Property Institutions and Sustainable Governance of Resources.” World Development 29(10):1649–72. doi:10.1016/S0305-750X(01)00063-8.

Alhassan

Hamdiyah

Kwakwa

Paul Adjei

. 2014. “When Water Is Scarce: The Perception of Water Quality and Effects on the Vulnerable.” Journal of Water Sanitation and Hygiene for Development 4(1):43–50. doi:10.2166/washdev.2013.140.

Ambuehl

Benjamin

Kunwar

Bal Mukund

Schertenleib

Ariane

Marks

Sara J.

Inauen

Jennifer

. 2022. “Can Participation Promote Psychological Ownership of a Shared Resource? An Intervention Study of Community-based Safe Water Infrastructure.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 81:101818. doi:10.1016/J.JENVP.2022.101818.

Ananga

Erick O.

Agong

Stephen G.

Acheampong

’Michael

Njoh

Ambe J.

Hayombe

Patrick

. 2020. “Examining the Effect of Community Participation on Beneficiary Satisfaction with the Work of Water Management Committee in Urban Community-based Operated Water Schemes.” Sustainable Water Resources Management 6(3):1–13. doi:10.1007/S40899-020-00408-5/TABLES/4.

Bamimore

K. M.

Farayola

C. O.

Amao

I. O.

2015. “Evaluation of the Factors Influencing Compliance for Payment of Improved Household Water Supply Service in Akinyele Local Government of Oyo State, Nigeria.” American Journal of Water Resources 3(2):55–60. doi:10.12691/ajwr-3-2-4.

10.

Bosch

Christophe

Hommann

Kirsten

Rubio

Gloria M

Sadoff

Claudia

Travers

Lee

. 2001. In unpad.ac.id. (http://ftp.unpad.ac.id/orari/library/library-ref-ind/ref-ind-1/application/poverty-reduction/prsp/SourceBook/Wat0427.pdf)

11.

Bourne

Lynda

Walker

Derek H. T.

2005. “Visualising and Mapping Stakeholder Influence.” Management Decision 43:649–60. doi:10.1108/00251740510597680.

12.

Braimah

Imoro

Amponsah

Owusu

Asibey

Michael Osei

. 2016. “The Effectiveness of the Local Management Systems of Rural Water Facilities for Sustainable Service Delivery: A Case Study of the Sekyere East District, Ghana.” Sustainable Water Resources Management 2(4):405–18. doi:10.1007/s40899-016-0070-7.

13.

Brunner

R. D.

Colburn

C. H.

Cromley

C. M.

Klein

R. A.

2008. Finding Common Ground: Governance and Natural Resources in the American West. Yale University Press. doi:10.5860/choice.40-4572.

14.

Chary Vedala

Srinivas

Uddaraju

Swapna

Jasthi

Shaili

. 2015. “Community Management of Rural Water Supply: Community Water Plus: Support to Community-managed Rural Water Supply by the Water and Sanitation Management Organization in Kutch District, Gujarat”. Retrieved August 9, 2022 (https://www.ircwash.org/sites/default/files/wasmo_kutch_june_2015_beta_draft.pdf).

15.

Check

Kristen

. 2015. “An Impact Study of Two Models of Community-Based Water Management in Uganda.” Practicing Anthropology 37(2):12–16. doi: 10.17730/praa.37.2.r11m5370t1v57520.

16.

Choi

Yonkyu

Choi

Young june

. 2010. “The Effects of UV Disinfection on Drinking Water Quality in Distribution Systems.” Water Research 44(1):115–22. doi:10.1016/j.watres.2009.09.011.

17.

Cleaver

Frances

Toner

Anna

. 2006. “The Evolution of Community Water Governance in Uchira, Tanzania: The Implications for Equality of Access, Sustainability and Effectiveness.” Natural Resources Forum 30(3):207–18. doi:10.1111/j.1477-8947.2006.00115.x.

18.

Cochran

Jaquelin

Ray

Isha

. 2009. “Equity Reexamined: A Study of Community-based Rainwater Harvesting in Rajasthan, India.” World Development 37(2):435–44. doi:10.1016/J.WORLDDEV.2008.03.002.

19.

Daluwatte

D. D. S.

Sivakumar

2022. “Community-based Water Governance for Adaptation to Water Reduction and Scarcity in Badulla District of Sri Lanka.” Journal of Water and Climate Change 13(2):451–62. doi:10.2166/WCC.2021.382.

20.

Department for International Development. 2002. Making Connections : Infrastructure for Poverty Reduction. London, England: Department for International Development.

21.

Ferguson

Mulwafu

W. O.

2004. “Decentralization, Participation and Access to Water Resources in Malawi”. BASIS CRSP. Retrieved August 9, 2022 (https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNADE758.pdf).

22.

Figueiredo

Patricia

Perkins

Patricia E.

2013. “Women and Water Management in Times of Climate Change: Participatory and Inclusive Processes.” Journal of Cleaner Production 60:188–94. doi:10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2012.02.025.

23.

Fleskens

Stringer

L. C.

2014. “Land Management and Policy Responses to Mitigate Desertification and Land Degradation.” Land Degradation and Development 25:1–4.

24.

Franks

Tom

Toner

Anna

Goldman

Ian

Howlett

David

Kamuzora

Faustin

Muhumuza

Fred

Tamasane

Tsiliso

. 2004. “Goodbye to Projects? The Institutional Impact of Sustainable Livelihoods Approaches on Development Interventions”. Retrieved August 9, 2022 (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/57a08cc6e5274a27b2001407/R7908.pdf).

25.

Freeman

M. C.

Clasen

Dreibelbis

Saboori

Greene

L. E.

Brumback

Muga

Rheingans

2014. “The Impact of a School-based Water Supply and Treatment, Hygiene, and Sanitation Programme on Pupil Diarrhoea: A Cluster-randomized Trial.” Epidemiology and Infection 142(2):340–51. doi:10.1017/S0950268813001118.

26.

Furlong

Casey

Silva

Saman De

Guthrie

Lachlan

Considine

Robert

. 2016. “Developing a Water Infrastructure Planning Framework for the Complex Modern Planning Environment.” Utilities Policy 38:1–10. doi:10.1016/j.jup.2015.11.002.

27.

Guta

Dawit Diriba

Tola

Yitagessu Moreda

Damene

Shimeles

Pai

Sandeep

. 2022. “Examining Factors Influencing Household Participation in Rural Community Based Potable Water Supply Projects in Becho Woreda, Central Ethiopia.” Sustainable Water Resources Management 8(1):1–11. doi:10.1007/S40899-021-00595-9/TABLES/3.

28.

Harris

Paul

. 2012. “Water Poverty—A Crisis in the Making? ” Marchment Hill Consulting. Retrieved July 2, 2021 (http://www.marchmenthill.com/qsi-online/2012-05-01/water-poverty-crisis-making/).

29.

Hasan

Mohammad Monirul

Gerber

Nicolas

. 2017. “Bacterial Contamination of Drinking Water and Food Utensils: Impacts of Piped Water on Child Health in North-Western Bangladesh.” Water Resources and Rural Development 10:33–44. doi:10.1016/j.wrr.2018.10.001.

30.

Hunter

Paul R.

MacDonald

Alan M.

Carter

Richard C.

2010. “Water Supply and Health.” PLoS Medicine 7(11):e1000361. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000361.

31.

Kaosa-ard

Mingsarn

Rayanakorn

Kobkun

Cheong

Gerard

White

Suzanne

Johnson

Craig

Kongsiri

Pinida

1998. Towards Public Participation in Mekong River Basin Development. Bangkok: Thailand Development Research Institute Foundation.

32.

Karl

2000. Monitoring and Evaluating Stakeholder Participation in Agriculture and Rural Development Projects: A literature review. Rome: FAO, SD Dimensions.

33.

Kativhu

Tendai

Madzivanyika

Trevor T.

Nunu

Wilfred N.

Macherera

Margaret

Chinyama

Annatoria

. 2022. “Sustainability of Water Facilities under Community Based Management in Zimbabwe.” Journal of Water Supply: Research and Technology-Aqua 71(1):19–30. doi:10.2166/aqua.2021.089.

34.

Koehler

Johanna

Thomson

Patrick

Hope

Robert

. 2015. “Pump-priming Payments for Sustainable Water Services in Rural Africa.” World Development 74:397–411. doi:10.1016/J.WORLDDEV.2015.05.020.

35.

Lau

Claudia H.

Springston

Elizabeth E.

Sohn

Min Woong

Mason

Iyana

Gadola

Emily

Damitz

Maureen

Gupta

Ruchi S.

2012. “Hand Hygiene Instruction Decreases Illness-related Absenteeism in Elementary Schools: A Prospective Cohort Study.” BMC Pediatrics 12:52. doi:10.1186/1471-2431-12-52.

36.

Lema

Zelalem

Beyene

Fekadu

. 2012. “Willingness to Pay for Improved Rural Water Supply in Goro-Gutu District of Eastern Ethiopia: An Application of Contingent Valuation.” Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development 3:145–59.

37.

Liddle

Elisabeth S.

Mager

Sarah M.

Nel

Etienne L.

2016. “The Importance of Community-based Informal Water Supply Systems in the Developing World and the Need for Formal Sector Support.” Geographical Journal 182(1):85–96. doi:10.1111/geoj.12117.

38.

Madrigal

Róger

Alpízar

Francisco

Schlüter

Achim

. 2011. “Determinants of Performance of Community-based Drinking Water Organizations.” World Development 39(9):1663–75. doi:10.1016/J.WORLDDEV.2011.02.011.

39.

Mahmood

Sharma

2009. “Affordability of Household Water and Wastewater Charges in Manukau City: A Case Study.” WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment 125:313–24. doi:10.2495/WRM090291.

40.

Marks

Sara J.

Davis

Jennifer

. 2012. “Does User Participation Lead to Sense of Ownership for Rural Water Systems? Evidence from Kenya.” World Development 40(8):1569–76. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.03.011.

41.

Kesby

Mike

. 2005. “Retheorizing Empowerment-through-Participation as a Performance in Space: Beyond Tyranny to Transformation.” Signs Journal of Women in Culture and Society 30:2037–65.

42.

Moraes

Andrea

Perkins

Patricia E.

2007. “Women, Equity and Participatory Water Management in Brazil.” International Feminist Journal of Politics 9(4):485–93. doi:10.1080/14616740701607986.

43.

Mugumya

2013. “Enabling Community-based Water Management Systems: Governance and Sustainability of Rural Point-water Facilities in Uganda.” Retrieved August 9, 2022 (https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/18320533.pdf).

44.

Murphy-Mills

Erin

Whitelaw

Graham

Conrad

Cathy

McCarthy

Daniel

. 2019. “Exploring the Current Status of Water Governance and Outcomes of Community-based Monitoring across the Oak Ridges Moraine, Southern Ontario, Canada.” Local Environment 24(9):861–82. doi:10.1080/13549839.2019.1652801.

45.

Murtinho

Felipe

Eakin

Hallie

López-Carr

David

Hayes

Tanya M.

2013. “Does External Funding Help Adaptation? Evidence from Community-based Water Management in the Colombian Andes.” Environmental Management 52(5):1103–14. doi:10.1007/S00267-013-0156-Z/FIGURES/6.

46.

Odwori

Ernest Othieno

. 2020. “Factors Determining Households’ Willingness to Pay for Improved Water Supply Services in Nzoia River Basin, Kenya.” International Journal of Innovative Research and Advanced Studies 7(7):165–76.

47.

Oram

Brian

. n.d. “UV Disinfection.” Water Research Center. Retrieved July 2, 2021 (https://www.water-research.net/index.php/water-treatment/water-disinfection/uv-disinfection).

48.

Osumanu

Issaka Kanton

Zumayelleh

Emmanuel Ankamah

Kosoe

Enoch Akwasi

. 2022. “Sustainability of Community-managed Small Town and Rural Water Systems in Northern Ghana: Lessons from Upper West Region.” Community Development Journal 57(1):93–111. doi:10.1093/CDJ/BSAB015.

49.

Polyzou

Jones

Evangelinos

K. I.

Halvadakis

C. P.

2011. “Willingness to Pay for Drinking Water Quality Improvement and the Influence of Social Capital.” Journal of Socio-Economics 40(1):74–80. doi:10.1016/j.socec.2010.06.010.

50.

Prokopy

Linda Stalker

. 2009. “Determinants and Benefits of Household Level Participation in Rural Drinking Water Projects in India.” Journal of Development Studies 45(4):471–95. doi:10.1080/00220380802265504.

51.

Reddy

Ratna

Kullappa

Rao

Mohan

. 2008. “Social Cost-benefit Analysis of Improved Water Quality in Rural Areas: An Exploratory Study in Coastal AP.” Journal of Social and Economic Development 10:68–97.

52.

Reed

Mark S.

2008. “Stakeholder Participation for Environmental Management: A Literature Review.” Biological Conservation 141:2417–31.

53.

Roncoli

Carla

Dowd-Uribe

Brian

Orlove

Ben

West

Colin Thor

Sanon

Moussa

. 2016. “Who Counts, What Counts: Representation and Accountability in Water Governance in the Upper Comoé Sub-Basin, Burkina Faso.” Natural Resources Forum 40:6–20. doi:10.1111/1477-8947.12095.

54.

Rondinelli

Dennis A.

1991. “Decentralizing Water Supply Services in Developing Countries: Factors Affecting the Success of Community Management.” Public Administration and Development 11(5):415–30. doi:10.1002/pad.4230110502.

55.

Sakisaka

Kayako

Chadeka

Evans Asena

Nagi

Sachiyo

Mwandembo

Dorcas Shambi

Jimba

Masamine

. 2015. “Introduction of a Community Water Supply in Rural Western Kenya: Impact on Community Wellbeing and Child Health.” International Health 7(3):204–11. doi:10.1093/INTHEALTH/IHV015.

56.

Santiago Ortiz-Correa

Javier

Filho

Moises Resende

Dinar

Ariel

. 2016. “Impact of Access to Water and Sanitation Services on Educational Attainment.” Water Resources and Economics 14:31–43. doi:10.1016/j.wre.2015.11.002.

57.

Schnegg

Michael

Bollig

Michael

. 2016. “Institutions Put to the Test: Community-based Water Management in Namibia during a Drought.” Journal of Arid Environments 124:62–71. doi:10.1016/J.JARIDENV.2015.07.009.

58.

Shu

Zhao

Zeng

Qiu

Zhi-qun

. 2007. “Experimental Study on Health Effects of Long-term Drinking Purified Water.” Carcinogenesis, Teratogenesis & Mutagenesis 19(3): 171–173. doi:10.3969/j.issn.1004-616X.2007.03.003.

59.

Singto

Chakaphon

Fleskens

Luuk

Vos

Jeroen

. 2018. “Institutionalizing Participation in Water Resource Development: Bottom-up and Top-down Practices in Southern Thailand.” Water 10:781. doi:10.3390/w10060781.

60.

Smith

Craig R.

2009. “Institutional Determinants of Collaboration: An Empirical Study of County Open-space Protection.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 19(1):1–21. doi:10.1093/jopart/mum037.

61.

Teodoro

Manuel P.

2018. “Measuring Household Affordability for Water and Sewer Utilities.” Journal—American Water Works Association 110(1):13–24.

62.

Thomas

Craig W.

Koontz

Tomas M.

2011. “Research Designs for Evaluating the Impact of Community-based Management on Natural Resource Conservation.” Journal of Natural Resources Policy Research 3:97–111. doi:10.1080/19390459.2011.557877.

63.

Triatmanto

Boge

Natsir

Mokhamad

. 2019. “A Descriptive Analysis of Sustainability Development Goals (SDGs), Community Empowerment, and the Participatory Rural Appraisal Approach.” Pp. 118–21 in Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, edited by Striełkowski

Amsterdam: Atlantis Press.

64.

UNICEF. 2015. Progress for Children beyond Averages: Learning from the MDGs. Vol. 11. eSocialSciences https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:ess:wpaper:id:7035

65.

UNMDP. Task Force on Water, Swedish Water House, & Stockholm International Water Institute. 2005. Health, Dignity and Development: What Will It Take? Swedish Water House.

66.

Vaezi

Nabizadeh

Mesdaghinia

A. R.

Rahimzadeh

2007. “Evaluating of the Disinfection and Water Quality Effects on UV Application in the Primary Stage of Water Treatment.” Iranian Journal of Public Health 36:12–18.

67.

van den Broek

Brown

2015. “Blueprint for Breakdown? Community Based Management of Rural Groundwater in Uganda.” Geoforum 67:51–63. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.10.009.

68.

Waithaka

Kisovi

L. M.

Obando

2016. “The Impact of Community Participation in Rural Water Management in Ndarugu-Thiririka Sub-catchment, Athi Basin, Kenya.” Ethiopian Journal of Environmental Studies and Management 9:245. doi:10.4314/ejesm.v9i2.12.

69.

Whaley

Luke

Cleaver

Frances

. 2017. “Can ‘Functionality’ Save the Community Management Model of Rural Water Supply?” Water Resources and Rural Development 9:56–66. doi:10.1016/J.WRR.2017.04.001.

70.

Whittington

Dale

Davis

Jennifer

Prokopy

Linda

Komives

Kristin

Thorsten

Richard

Lukacs

Heather

Bakalian

Alexander

Wakeman

Wendy

. 2009. “How Well Is the Demand-driven, Community Management Model for Rural Water Supply Systems Doing? Evidence from Bolivia, Peru and Ghana.” Water Policy 11(6):696–718. doi:10.2166/wp.2009.310.

71.

World Bank. 2003. World Development Report 2003: Sustainable Development in a Dynamic World—Transforming Institutions, Growth, and Quality of Life. Washington, DC: World Bank.

72.

Zaheer

Shabik

Ahsan

Shabab

Ahmed

Md. Mostakim

Ahmed

Abraul

. 2022. “An Empirical Analysis to Assess Climate Change and Its Effects on Water Scarcity through Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) Approach in Chirirbandar Upazila, Dinajpur.” Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering 178:13–26. doi:10.1007/978-981-16-5501-2_2.

73.

Zaki

Saeed

Amin

A.T.M. Nurul

. 2009. “Does Basic Services Privatisation Benefit the Urban Poor? Some Evidence from Water Supply Privatisation in Thailand.” Urban Studies 46(11):2301–27. doi:10.1177/0042098009342902.

74.

Zhang

Jing

. 2012. “The Impact of Water Quality on Health: Evidence from the Drinking Water Infrastructure Program in Rural China.” Journal of Health Economics 31(1):12234. doi:10.1016/j.jhealeco.2011.08.008.