Skip to Main Content
Table 3

Literature on rural settings

Author(s), yearObjective(s)Setting, year and sampleMethodsDefinition of reliability/synonymType of supplyEstimates of (un)reliability
Admassu et al. (2003)  Assess utilisation, functionality, community participation and sustainability of water projects Rural Ethiopia, 2001–2002: 11 randomly selected peasant associations, making a total of 768 households and 114 site observations Descriptive cross-sectional study using structured questionnaires, observation and 4 focus group discussions Functioning: proper physical state of water supply projects in relation to their present working condition at the time of the survey Protected spring, hand-dug wells with pumps 52 out of 442 source points not functioning. (11.76%) 
Arnold et al. (2013)  Assess existing water infrastructure, determine the reliability of water sources, assess the water quality available for domestic use, and evaluate community awareness as related to water, sanitation, and hygiene Rural Ghana, 2008–2010: 8 villages selected on basis on participation in previous community development projects and request by villagers Cross-sectional surveys in summers of 2008–2010 using sanitary surveys, conversations with villagers, 1 focus group, key informant interviews and water quality testing None stated Standpipes, boreholes, dug wells and shallow wells One-third of standpipes not functioning at time of survey 
Davis et al. (2008)  Explore the contribution of various types of post-construction support (PCS) to the sustainability of rural water supply systems in Bolivia Rural Bolivia 2005: 99 communities Cross-sectional mixed methods using household survey, system operator survey, focus group with village leaders, focus group with women, focus group with village water committee None stated 94% had house connections or yard taps; 27% had public taps; 8% had wells Breakdowns as reported by operators: mean 2, household members: mean 3, women's focus groups: mean 2.9. Typical duration of breakdowns (dys) operator: mean: 4.2, household members: 9.8, women's focus groups mean 15.8. Systems received prior to 2000, range between 5 and 8 years in age 
Hoko & Hertle (2007)  Evaluate the sustainability of a rural water point rehabilitation project that was carried by a local NGO Rural Zimbabwe: 144 water points; Mwenezi: 37; Gwanda: 41; Bulilima: 38; Mangwe: 28 Cross-sectional quantitative study using structured observation of water points and structured questionnaires None stated Boreholes with handpumps Water points not working in Mwenezi: 4%; Gwanda: 17%; Bulilima: 13%; Mangwe: 25%. Operation of the water points deemed difficult by a minimum of 19% (Mwenezi) to a maximum of 64% (Mangwe) of respondents 
Jiménez & Pérez-Foguet (2011)  Establish relationships between technology, functionality and durability of rural water points Rural Tanzania 2005–2006: 5,921 water points 15 districts covering 15% of rural population Quantitative cross-sectional survey (Water Aid data) None stated Handpumps 2,326 (39.3%); Motorised pumping systems 2,180 (36.8%); Gravity fed 1,263 (21.3%); Other (protected springs, rainwater-harvesting, windmill powered water point): 152 (2.6%) a 
Kleemeier (2000)  Explore the assumption about the link between participation and sustainability by presenting findings from a study of operation and maintenance on rural water supplies that were constructed under a programme widely praised for its exemplary approach to community participation Rural Malawi 1997–1998: Sample includes schemes from all three of Malawi's administrative regions. Sample limited to schemes that originally had less than 120 km of pipeline. 17 schemes visited for 1 day and a follow-up visit to four of the schemes Cross-sectional survey involving discussion with water schemes' monitoring assistant, main committee, tap committees, repair teams and observation of schemes None stated Piped-communal taps Overall, 66% of the taps supplied water a minimum of 50% of the days in the previous 3 months. In 4 of the smallest schemes (13–37 taps), 80% or more of the taps supply water on a regular, if not continuous basis 
Majuru et al. (2012)  Assess the impact of unreliability on water service indicators of distance to source, water quantity and quality Rural South Africa 2007–2008: 3 communities of which one was a control/reference community, 114 households in total Quasi-experimental with repeated cross-sectional surveys of water supplies and daily symptom diaries over 56 weeks None stated Piped-communal taps; Drilled wells with handpumps; Water tanks Handpumps: broke down for about 2 weeks every 3 months; 83%; Tanks: water ran out after 2 weeks: 50% Communal taps Community 1: 2 breakdowns 89%, Community 2: 4 breakdowns: 58% 
Moon (2006)  Assess the role of private sector participation in developing and sustaining rural water schemes Rural Tanzania 2004–2006: 6,812 distribution points in 3 regions and 1 district in another region Quantitative cross-sectional survey (Water Aid data) None stated Four commonly used extraction systems in the study area: pump and engine, Afridev handpumps, Tanira handpumps, and gravity systems Pump and engine schemes have a functionality rate of 48% and the others vary between 60% and 70% 
Musonda (2004)  Identify factors that contribute to the promotion of sustainability of rural water supplies in Zambia Rural Zambia 2001: 16 water points in Mazabuka District Mixed methods cross-sectional survey with structured questionnaires and observations None stated Hand-dug well and boreholes with handpumps 8 functioning out of 16, 3 in disrepair for 2 months, 1 in disrepair for 4 years, 1 very difficult to operate, 3 functioning but had problems. Five years was the average age for functional handpumps, as they had been constructed between 1995 and 2000. All semi-functional handpumps had been constructed between 1980 and 1996 
Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (2008)  Carry out a descriptive based analysis of Norad's previous support to the WSS sectors in partner countries, with emphasis on Kenya and Tanzania during the period 1975–1995 Rural Kenya and Tanzania Archive search and literature study, single and group interviews cross-sectional field work None stated Kenya: piped water supply. Tanzania: handpumps, gravity schemes Rukwa: between 65% and 74% of 2,000 water points still operating and in daily use. Kigoma: between 76% and 78% of 800 water points still working and in daily use. Kenya: 16 towns, 91% of water points still working and in daily use 
Schweitzer (2009)  Evaluate the efficacy of community management in sustainability of rural water supply Rural Dominican Republic 2008–2009: Stratified random sample of 64 water systems built in the DR by initiatives of the National Institute of Potable Water (INAPA, 23) and Peace Corps (41) out of a total cohort of 185 (118 PC and 67 INAPA) Mixed methods using secondary data analysis observation (participant and non-participant) focus group/key informant interviews household surveys formal versus informal interviews None stated INAPA (21): Public or shared taps: 1%; Patio connections: 77%; Household connections: 9%; Multiple connections: 14%; Peace Corps (40): Public or shared taps 6%: Patio connections 68%; Household connections 8%; Multiple connections 18% Systems with major repairs within last month: INAPA: 80%, Peace Corps 45%. Days per week with water INAPA: 5.7, Peace Corps: 6.2. Hours per day with water INAPA: 11.4, Peace Corps: 16.6. Average system age (years) INAPA: 5; Peace Corps: 6.85 
World Bank–Netherlands Water Partnership (2009)  Investigate how the provision of support to communities after the construction of a rural water supply project affected project performance in the medium term Rural Peru and Ghana. Peru mid 2004, Ghana late 2004. Peru: 99 villages, 25 households in each village, 1,360 male and 1,089 female respondents Cross-sectional mixed methods using household survey, system operator survey, focus group with village leaders, focus group with women, focus group with village water committee None stated Handpumps, public taps and house connections b 
Author(s), yearObjective(s)Setting, year and sampleMethodsDefinition of reliability/synonymType of supplyEstimates of (un)reliability
Admassu et al. (2003)  Assess utilisation, functionality, community participation and sustainability of water projects Rural Ethiopia, 2001–2002: 11 randomly selected peasant associations, making a total of 768 households and 114 site observations Descriptive cross-sectional study using structured questionnaires, observation and 4 focus group discussions Functioning: proper physical state of water supply projects in relation to their present working condition at the time of the survey Protected spring, hand-dug wells with pumps 52 out of 442 source points not functioning. (11.76%) 
Arnold et al. (2013)  Assess existing water infrastructure, determine the reliability of water sources, assess the water quality available for domestic use, and evaluate community awareness as related to water, sanitation, and hygiene Rural Ghana, 2008–2010: 8 villages selected on basis on participation in previous community development projects and request by villagers Cross-sectional surveys in summers of 2008–2010 using sanitary surveys, conversations with villagers, 1 focus group, key informant interviews and water quality testing None stated Standpipes, boreholes, dug wells and shallow wells One-third of standpipes not functioning at time of survey 
Davis et al. (2008)  Explore the contribution of various types of post-construction support (PCS) to the sustainability of rural water supply systems in Bolivia Rural Bolivia 2005: 99 communities Cross-sectional mixed methods using household survey, system operator survey, focus group with village leaders, focus group with women, focus group with village water committee None stated 94% had house connections or yard taps; 27% had public taps; 8% had wells Breakdowns as reported by operators: mean 2, household members: mean 3, women's focus groups: mean 2.9. Typical duration of breakdowns (dys) operator: mean: 4.2, household members: 9.8, women's focus groups mean 15.8. Systems received prior to 2000, range between 5 and 8 years in age 
Hoko & Hertle (2007)  Evaluate the sustainability of a rural water point rehabilitation project that was carried by a local NGO Rural Zimbabwe: 144 water points; Mwenezi: 37; Gwanda: 41; Bulilima: 38; Mangwe: 28 Cross-sectional quantitative study using structured observation of water points and structured questionnaires None stated Boreholes with handpumps Water points not working in Mwenezi: 4%; Gwanda: 17%; Bulilima: 13%; Mangwe: 25%. Operation of the water points deemed difficult by a minimum of 19% (Mwenezi) to a maximum of 64% (Mangwe) of respondents 
Jiménez & Pérez-Foguet (2011)  Establish relationships between technology, functionality and durability of rural water points Rural Tanzania 2005–2006: 5,921 water points 15 districts covering 15% of rural population Quantitative cross-sectional survey (Water Aid data) None stated Handpumps 2,326 (39.3%); Motorised pumping systems 2,180 (36.8%); Gravity fed 1,263 (21.3%); Other (protected springs, rainwater-harvesting, windmill powered water point): 152 (2.6%) a 
Kleemeier (2000)  Explore the assumption about the link between participation and sustainability by presenting findings from a study of operation and maintenance on rural water supplies that were constructed under a programme widely praised for its exemplary approach to community participation Rural Malawi 1997–1998: Sample includes schemes from all three of Malawi's administrative regions. Sample limited to schemes that originally had less than 120 km of pipeline. 17 schemes visited for 1 day and a follow-up visit to four of the schemes Cross-sectional survey involving discussion with water schemes' monitoring assistant, main committee, tap committees, repair teams and observation of schemes None stated Piped-communal taps Overall, 66% of the taps supplied water a minimum of 50% of the days in the previous 3 months. In 4 of the smallest schemes (13–37 taps), 80% or more of the taps supply water on a regular, if not continuous basis 
Majuru et al. (2012)  Assess the impact of unreliability on water service indicators of distance to source, water quantity and quality Rural South Africa 2007–2008: 3 communities of which one was a control/reference community, 114 households in total Quasi-experimental with repeated cross-sectional surveys of water supplies and daily symptom diaries over 56 weeks None stated Piped-communal taps; Drilled wells with handpumps; Water tanks Handpumps: broke down for about 2 weeks every 3 months; 83%; Tanks: water ran out after 2 weeks: 50% Communal taps Community 1: 2 breakdowns 89%, Community 2: 4 breakdowns: 58% 
Moon (2006)  Assess the role of private sector participation in developing and sustaining rural water schemes Rural Tanzania 2004–2006: 6,812 distribution points in 3 regions and 1 district in another region Quantitative cross-sectional survey (Water Aid data) None stated Four commonly used extraction systems in the study area: pump and engine, Afridev handpumps, Tanira handpumps, and gravity systems Pump and engine schemes have a functionality rate of 48% and the others vary between 60% and 70% 
Musonda (2004)  Identify factors that contribute to the promotion of sustainability of rural water supplies in Zambia Rural Zambia 2001: 16 water points in Mazabuka District Mixed methods cross-sectional survey with structured questionnaires and observations None stated Hand-dug well and boreholes with handpumps 8 functioning out of 16, 3 in disrepair for 2 months, 1 in disrepair for 4 years, 1 very difficult to operate, 3 functioning but had problems. Five years was the average age for functional handpumps, as they had been constructed between 1995 and 2000. All semi-functional handpumps had been constructed between 1980 and 1996 
Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (2008)  Carry out a descriptive based analysis of Norad's previous support to the WSS sectors in partner countries, with emphasis on Kenya and Tanzania during the period 1975–1995 Rural Kenya and Tanzania Archive search and literature study, single and group interviews cross-sectional field work None stated Kenya: piped water supply. Tanzania: handpumps, gravity schemes Rukwa: between 65% and 74% of 2,000 water points still operating and in daily use. Kigoma: between 76% and 78% of 800 water points still working and in daily use. Kenya: 16 towns, 91% of water points still working and in daily use 
Schweitzer (2009)  Evaluate the efficacy of community management in sustainability of rural water supply Rural Dominican Republic 2008–2009: Stratified random sample of 64 water systems built in the DR by initiatives of the National Institute of Potable Water (INAPA, 23) and Peace Corps (41) out of a total cohort of 185 (118 PC and 67 INAPA) Mixed methods using secondary data analysis observation (participant and non-participant) focus group/key informant interviews household surveys formal versus informal interviews None stated INAPA (21): Public or shared taps: 1%; Patio connections: 77%; Household connections: 9%; Multiple connections: 14%; Peace Corps (40): Public or shared taps 6%: Patio connections 68%; Household connections 8%; Multiple connections 18% Systems with major repairs within last month: INAPA: 80%, Peace Corps 45%. Days per week with water INAPA: 5.7, Peace Corps: 6.2. Hours per day with water INAPA: 11.4, Peace Corps: 16.6. Average system age (years) INAPA: 5; Peace Corps: 6.85 
World Bank–Netherlands Water Partnership (2009)  Investigate how the provision of support to communities after the construction of a rural water supply project affected project performance in the medium term Rural Peru and Ghana. Peru mid 2004, Ghana late 2004. Peru: 99 villages, 25 households in each village, 1,360 male and 1,089 female respondents Cross-sectional mixed methods using household survey, system operator survey, focus group with village leaders, focus group with women, focus group with village water committee None stated Handpumps, public taps and house connections b 

aFunctionality: handpumps: 45.31%, gravity-fed systems: 48.61%, motorised pumps 44.36%, other systems: 36.18%. Aggregated functionality: 45.4%.

Handpump functionality dropped from 61% in first 5 yrs to 6% in the 25 yr period. Motorised systems started at 77% and dropped to 13%, gravity-fed systems 66% to 20%. Aggregated rate: 35–47% working 15 yrs after installation.

>30% of WP become non-functional after the first 5 yrs and after this the functionality rate decreases at a slower rate (another 30% become non-functional in the following 15 yrs). Handpumps show least favourable functionality rate; gravity-fed show irregular trend between periods but best performance in the long-run; motorised pumping systems have a very good performance in the first period and maintain a similar descending slope as others in the long term.

bPeru: Taps working (operator data): FONCODES Average: 95%; SANBASUR Average 93%; Average hours of operation/day (household data): FONCODES: 18.8; SANBASUR: 19.9. Average major unplanned interruptions in water supply service for at least 1 day in past 6 months (operator data): FONCODES: 89%; SANBASUR: 59%; (Leaders): FONCODES: 70%; SANBASUR: 55%. Average system age: FONCODES: 7.57 years; SANBASUR: 6.13 years. Average number of days to fix major problem operator: FONCODES: 4.53; SANBASUR: 1.06; leaders: FONCODES: 2.08; SANBASUR: 2.58. Ghana: % of villages where all project handpumps are working (89): Brong Ahafo: 88; Volta: 92. % villages with working systems that had a breakdown in last 6 months (57): Brong Ahafo: 58; Volta: 55. Average years since completion: Brong Ahafo: 6.2; Volta: 5.8 (Average 6). Median days to repair the system last time it broke (reported by hhs) (20): Brong Ahafo: 18; Volta: 22.

Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal