Water poverty in Western Nepal: assessment of Alital Rural Municipality in Rangun watershed

Water is fundamental to life, and both human survival and economic growth depend on a sufficient supply of water of potable quality (Barbier 2004). Human activity is known to impact the ecosystem and water resources directly (Dodds et al. 2013), making it necessary to change people's behavior to conserve water resources and sustain future generations (WCED 1987), given that global water resources are limited. Water scarcity is an emerging issue in the rural watersheds of Nepal (Merz et al. 2003; Gyawali et al. 2019). Rapid population growth and interest in sophisticated lifestyles and agriculture-dependent livelihoods have put significant pressure on Nepal's water resources (Kattel & Nepal 2022). Consequently, it is of utmost importance to develop new management strategies that combine traditional practices and scientific research to meet water demands and preserve water quality in Nepal's rural watersheds (Merz et al. 2003).

Water-related problems are often specific to location and influenced by human behavior and its interconnection with other factors, e.g., environmental, social, technological, etc. (Alexander et al. 2010). Addressing the multi-dimensional aspects of water-related problems is challenging but necessary, and indices that incorporate social, environmental, economic, and management factors are best suited for water poverty assessment (Manandhar et al. 2012). Various indices have been developed to address water availability and quality issues, providing a clear framework for addressing water-related challenges at different levels of governance, from municipal to federal (Sullivan 2011). Indicators and indices have been widely used in the water sector, such as the WPI by Sullivan et al. (2003), the water sustainability index by Chaves & Alipaz (2007), the climate vulnerability index by Sullivan & Meigh (2005), and others.

A composite instrument, the WPI integrates human well-being and water availability indices to assess the effects of water scarcity on human populations (Pandey et al. 2012). The emphasis lies on underprivileged and marginalized communities, and the approach incorporates data and information concerning water availability, scarcity, accessibility, and people's capacity to use water for various purposes (Sullivan et al. 2003). Its primary objective is to evaluate available water resources and identify community requirements and demands. However, depending on needs, it can be adapted to various scales and intensities (Sullivan et al. 2006).

Water poverty is becoming increasingly severe in Nepal due to factors including declining water quality, an inadequate and unreliable water supply system, rising water demand for irrigation and domestic use, financial insecurity, population growth, and a shortage of human resources to manage water resources (Panthi et al. 2018). Other factors contributing to Nepal's water scarcity are rugged topography, inadequate facilities for healthcare, education, hygiene, and clean water, and the reliance of mountain communities on agriculture despite significant issues such as a lack of irrigation systems, poor road infrastructure, and challenging geology (WWF 2012).

There have been limited water poverty assessments in larger watersheds across Nepal, including the Indrawati Basin (WWF 2012), West Rapti and Kankai River basins (Pandey et al. 2012), Kali Gandaki River Basin (Manandhar et al. 2012), Upper Bagmati River Basin (Thakur et al. 2017), Karnali River Basin (Panthi et al. 2018), and Koshi Basin (Koirala et al. 2020). However, there is a significant demand for small, watershed-specific studies, particularly in western Nepal. This study was done to determine the extent of water poverty and scarcity in Alital Rural Municipality, Dadeldhura District, in the Rangun Watershed.

Five components, as proposed by Sullivan et al. (2003), were used to calculate WPI: resource, access, use, capacity, and environment. As water poverty issues and indicators differ between locations, each indicator must be carefully analyzed and selected while calculating the WPI. Thirteen sub-components were chosen for this study, taking data accessibility and experts' viewpoints into account. The WPI components and sub-components and their relationships are listed in Table 1.

The relationship of sub-components with the overall WPI could be either decreasing (inversely proportional) or increasing (directly proportional). For example, an increase in the rainfall variability would increase the WPI because rainfall fluctuation would bring more water-related problems, whereas an increase in the literacy rate would eventually decrease the WPI, because people would have a greater ability to cope with issues when they are more literate.

A wide range of data was collected from both primary and secondary sources. Primary data include a questionnaire survey and focus group discussion (FGD), where purposive sampling was done. Secondary data were collected from the Department of Hydrology and Meteorology (DHM) Nepal and several scientific journals and articles.

The WPI intensity scale developed by WWF (2012) was used to determine the water poverty in the study area (Table 2).

Following is a description of how the five components are calculated (Coppin & Richards 1990):

When annual precipitation is sufficient for the area's agricultural production, rain index (I_r) = 1. If precipitation is ‘p’ percent lower than the amount of water the crop needs in a year, I_r = 1 − p/100. Similarly, current runoff should be distinguished from adequate perennial runoff when calculating I_k, and its maximum value should not exceed 1.

The settlements living nearby the major rivers get benefit from such rivers and the perennial river benefit factor ‘B’ represents settlements that depend on and get benefit from such rivers (where ‘B’ is 1 when all settlements benefit) (WWF 2012).

In this study, the number of household's dependent on piped water sources is defined as the number of houses with a piped water supply in their backyard, whereas household's dependent on distant water sources were defined as the number of households that depend on community taps, springs, spouts, wells, rivers, and streams.

Economic activities in this study were defined as those resulting in direct financial gain, such as business operations, wage labor, receiving remittances, government service, etc.

WHO states that a person requires 20 L of water per day to be healthy (WHO/UNICEF 2000). In this study, the minimum water required for domestic purposes (S_min) is taken as 1 liters/capita/day (Thakur et al. 2017), while the maximum (S_R) is taken as 100 liters/capita/day (Howard & Bartram 2003).

To calculate the rainfall and runoff potential and the rainfall variability sub-components of the resource component, data from 12 meteorological stations around the Rangun Watershed were used. The rain index was calculated on the basis of rainfall sufficiency for crop cultivation. Alital's rain index ranged, on a ward by ward basis, from 0.33 to 0.52 (Table 4).

The runoff index was calculated by differentiating present from perennial runoff and ranges from 0.23 to 0.26 (Table 4). Many villages in Alital benefit from the river in one way or another, so the perennial river benefit factor ranged from 0.27 to 0.99 (Table 4).

The resource component – ward by ward range 9 to 15 – was calculated by integrating all of these indices. Ward 2 was shown to have the highest resource availability and ward 6 the lowest (Table 4).

The household survey found that 50% of those surveyed have access to piped drinking water (Table 5), but only for between 1 and 12 h per day. Water drying during summer and pipe blockages during the monsoon also forced people to carry water from distant sources. Most households share a common drinking water tap, and consume water from nearby streams, springs, and stone spouts. Some 22% of the areas also have irrigation facilities. Access components in Alital on a ward by ward basis varied from 9 to 15 (Table 5).

Capacity is calculated based on the people's literacy rate and economic condition. According to the ward profile (2019), the literacy rate in Alital is 78.9%, comprising 71.93% of females and 85.33% of males. The ward by ward capacity component of Alital ranged from 10 to 14 (Table 6).

Higher use values indicate lower water poverty levels. The use component in Alital ranged from 5 to 11 (Table 7).

The WQI was analyzed using seven parameters (i.e., DO, PO₄, NO₃, pH, temperature variation, TDS, and Turbidity). The overall WQI in Alital Rural Municipality is 73 and varies from 71 to 79 in different wards (Gurung et al. 2019a, 2019b).

The natural vegetation coverage was calculated using ArcGIS version 10.2.1 and Landsat image from 2018. Alital's environment component, determined ward by ward, ranged from 15 to 17 (Table 8).

All WPI components were given equal weight by multiplying by 20, so that the cumulative score would be 100 (WWF 2012; Thakur et al. 2017). The ward by ward values showed that wards 6, 7, and 8 have medium water poverty, while wards 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 have medium-low poverty (Figure 2). In particular, water poverty is highest in ward 7 (54) and lowest in ward 2 (64). Alital's average WPI is 57, indicating a medium level of water poverty (Table 9). The use component scored the lowest values in every ward in Alital, while the environment component always scored the highest (Figure 3).

The results of the correlation analysis are shown in Table 10.

The Alital water poverty indicates a medium-low level of poverty, with a WPI score of 57. However, the severity of water poverty varied among the wards, ranging from medium-low to medium. The WPI component values showed the primary factors contributing to water poverty in each ward. For example, wards 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8 exhibit poor water use, while wards 1 and 6 face challenges in terms of resource and access, respectively (Figure 4).

A similar study of eleven districts in the Kaligandaki river basin by Manandhar et al. (2012) also showed water use as low with a better environment component. Pandey et al. (2012) observed low water consumption and emphasized the need to create irrigation plans and arrangements for domestic level water use in Nepal's medium-sized river basins. Most studies in Nepal show low water consumption patterns, indicating that the government needs to focus mainly on increasing domestic and agricultural water use (Manandhar et al. 2012; Panthi et al. 2018). Agriculture is considered as the primary source of income and a significant contributor to Nepal's livelihoods. In a developing country such as Nepal, home gardening utilizing excess water from household water use would significantly contribute to increased food security and financial independence (Galhena et al. 2013; RVWRMP 2020). Thus, the country should invest in the water sector and focus on improving domestic and agricultural water use (Pandey et al. 2012).

Water use among wards of Alital ranged between 5 and 11, which indicates that domestic water use is very low across Alital. Poor water use, which leads to water poverty, may be due to limited water supply (i.e., 1–12 h a day), a decrease in water availability during summer (mainly March to May), and an unreliable piped water source in the area. Such problems can be overcome by focusing on rainwater harvesting, controlling runoff and developing water use.

The Nepali government has made significant strides in the education sector under Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG4), which aims to provide education for all by 2030 (UNESCO 2017). These efforts have resulted in substantial improvements in the country's literacy rate. In Alital, the literacy rate increased 13% between 2014 and 2019, rising from 66% (52.32% female and 77.32% male), to 78.9% (71.93% female and 85.33% male). Enhanced literacy plays a crucial role in empowering individuals to manage available water resources effectively, ultimately contributing to poverty reduction, as demonstrated worldwide. In Alital, where 39% of households have a source of income (refer to Table 7), the municipality exhibits both a high literacy rate and a substantial income source. This indicates that the local population possesses the capacity to afford and manage water resources effectively.

The access component is determined by the availability of drinking water and irrigation facilities. The survey revealed that 50% of households in Alital have access to drinking water, which aligns with the overall ward profile of 56%. However, nearly half of households lack access to piped drinking water, and those who do have access experience limited supply (typically ranging from 1 to 12 h per day). As a result, households are compelled to travel long distances to fetch water, relying on springs, stone spouts, and streams to meet their needs. During the dry season, the piped water supply becomes inadequate due to decreased water availability. Furthermore, the irrigation coverage in Alital Rural Municipality is alarmingly low, at only 22%. Therefore, there is a pressing need to enhance both drinking water and irrigation water supply in order to improve access throughout the area.

There is a robust positive correlation between resources and access, implying that enhancing resource accessibility would reduce the time and effort required to collect water, consequently alleviating water poverty. However, the positive relationship between resources and the environment is not statistically significant, suggesting that an increase in resource availability may not directly result in an expansion of environmental resources. Similarly, the positive relationship between access and the environment is also not statistically significant, indicating that an increase in environmental resources may not necessarily lead to improved access. On the other hand, a notable negative correlation is observed between use and the environment, signifying that a higher utilization of environmental resources will diminish water availability. For example, increased use of forest products can lead to a reduction in forest cover, exacerbating water poverty. These findings are summarized in Table 10.

A WPI is an index-based approach that facilitates the integration of water resource management across different scales, ranging from local to national (Tu 2011). It serves as a valuable tool for promoting an integrated and sustainable approach to water resource management, including the development of a water use master plan (WUMP) (Neupane et al. 2015, as cited in Thakur et al. 2017). The combination of WPI and WUMP helps in identifying areas that require management interventions, thereby minimizing risk and uncertainties at lower levels (Thakur et al. 2017). Furthermore, the WPI is beneficial for policymakers and water resource managers, as it aids in identifying water-scarce regions and enables the development of comprehensive approaches that address poverty, health, environment, capacity, and water resource availability (Sullivan 2002; Manandhar et al. 2012; Koirala et al. 2020). However, it is crucial to select appropriate indicators carefully for each component to ensure they reflect the actual ground scenario accurately during assessments.

The assessment of water poverty in Alital Rural Municipality unveiled an average WPI score of approximately 57, indicating a medium-low level of water poverty. The WPI scores varied across the different wards, ranging from 54 to 64. Consistently, the use component obtained the lowest score, highlighting the need for improvement in this component. Conversely, the environment component consistently scored the highest, indicating favorable availability of resources. The assessment revealed a significant positive correlation between resources and access, suggesting that an increase in resources would significantly improve their accessibility. However, a significant negative correlation between use and the environment was found, indicating that increasing resource use would result in a decrease in water availability.

The pressure on water sources in the area has increased due to population growth, changes in precipitation patterns, concreting of water sources (to reduce infiltration there), and haphazard road construction (Adhikari et al. 2021). Key factors contributing to water poverty in the area include unreliable piped water sources, limited water supply, reduced water availability in summer (mainly March to May), and inadequate irrigation facilities. To address these challenges, appropriate measures should be implemented to optimize the use of available water resources in the area. It is crucial to prioritize water development and utilization, with a focus on improving both irrigation and domestic water use. Strategies such as rainwater harvesting, runoff control, and other water harvesting techniques should be adopted to meet domestic water consumption. Considering the variations in scores for resources, environment, use, access, and capacity among different wards, prioritization should be tailored based on individual scores to effectively address the water poverty situation. A water poverty assessment is a prerequisite to sustainable water management, and the method used in this study can be applied broadly.

This study was done as a part of M.Sc. thesis work at the Central Department of Environmental Science (CDES), Tribhuvan University, Kirtipur, Kathmandu, Nepal. The study was funded by Youth Alliance for Environment (YAE) under the Paani Program, Baluwatar, Kathmandu, Nepal. The authors are grateful to CDES for this research opportunity, and YAE for technical and financial support and all team members YAE for their guidance and support.

All relevant data are included in the paper or its Supplementary Information.

The authors declare there is no conflict.