water

Article
Improving Monitoring and Water Point Functionality
in Rural Ethiopia
Carmen Anthonj 1, *, Lisa Fleming 1 , Ryan Cronk 1 , Samuel Godfrey 2 , Argaw Ambelu 3 ,
Jane Bevan 2 , Emanuele Sozzi 1 and Jamie Bartram 1
1 Water Institute, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill,
NC 27599, USA; [email protected] (L.F.); [email protected] (R.C.); [email protected] (E.S.);
[email protected] (J.B.)
2 Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH), UNICEF Ethiopia, P.O. Box 1169, Addis Ababa 1169, Ethiopia;
[email protected] (S.G.); [email protected] (J.B.)
3 Department of Environmental Health Sciences & Technology, Jimma University, P.O. Box 378, Jimma,
Ethiopia; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-919-966-7644




Received: 24 September 2018; Accepted: 29 October 2018; Published: 7 November 2018


Abstract: This study examines the patterns, trends, and factors associated with functional community
water points in rural Ethiopia and identifies potential areas of improvement in terms of practitioner
response to functionality and functionality monitoring. It was part of an integrated WaSH
and nutrition program implemented by UNICEF Ethiopia and the Government of Ethiopia.
Cross-sectional surveys were conducted to collect WaSH-related data in communities and WaSH
committees from four community-based nutrition (CBN) program groupings in Ethiopia. In all
areas, CBN was implemented, but only in less than half of the areas, a WaSH intervention was
implemented. Seventy-three representative kebeles, comprising 30 intervention and 43 control
communities, were surveyed. Two structured surveys were conducted. The ‘community survey’
addressed community water points and their functionality and the main areas for improvement
needed. The ‘WaSH committee survey’ investigated technical and management aspects of water
points and their functionality. Data were analyzed using bivariate regression to identify community
characteristics and management practices associated with functionality of water points and explore
opportunities to improve water point functionality and monitoring. In the communities, 65% of
water points were functional. Eighty percent of communities had a WaSH committee. The WaSH
committee members reported that the most used water point types were protected dug wells and
boreholes, and that 80% of their water points were functional. India Mark II pumps were more
likely to be functional and communities with longer established WaSH committees had higher water
point functionality. Communities suggested that the key factors for water point sustainability were
improving water quality and water pressure, reducing water collection time, and speeding up repair
times. Taking community leaders’ ‘priority lists’ into consideration offers sustainable opportunities for
demand-driven, adaptive and targeted design and implementation of rural water supply programs,
which, if they include the grassroots level as key informants and actors of change, can succeed.
Interventions should integrate the ‘voice’ of the community, the WaSH committees, and other
stakeholders and thereby facilitate transdisciplinary approaches at different stages of program
management (planning, monitoring, and evaluation). This would help closing the knowledge to
action gap and improve policy, programming, practice, and service delivery.

Keywords: community perceptions; drought; handpump; monitoring and evaluation; participation;

rural water supply; seasonality; sustainability; transdisciplinarity; WaSH committee; WaSH intervention

Water 2018, 10, 1591; doi:10.3390/w10111591 www.mdpi.com/journal/water

Water 2018, 10, 1591 2 of 17

1. Introduction
Access to safely managed drinking water and sanitation services and basic hygiene (WaSH) are
foundations of human health, well-being, socio-economic development, and human dignity [1–7].
Achieving universal access to safely managed water and sanitation services is a priority in global
development policy, reflected in Goal 6 of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
A safely managed drinking water service is an improved source accessible on premises,
available when needed, free from contamination. A basic drinking water service includes drinking
water from an improved source, with a collection time of less than 30 min for a roundtrip including
queuing, which despite the global commitment to WaSH, many low- and middle-income countries
(LMICs) do not have universal access to [8]. As per definition of the WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring
Programme (JMP), improved drinking water sources are those which, by nature of their design and
construction, have the potential to deliver safe water, and include: piped water, boreholes or tubewells,
protected dug wells, protected springs, rainwater, and packaged or delivered water.
The JMP estimates that 30% of the rural Ethiopian population had access to a basic drinking water
service in 2015 [9]. The National Growth and Transformation Plan II’s Water and Sanitation [10] targets
83% of the total population using safely managed, adequate, and resilient water supply services by
2020. Given the numbers provided by the JMP and in a recent publication from the program area [11],
there is a long way ahead to achieve this target.
Even where basic water services are available, water points are non-functional (i.e., water unavailable
from a water point at the time of survey) [12,13]. Measuring water service availability parameters
is a challenge due to the complex range of outcomes associated. There are many factors, such as
fee collection, access to post-construction support, and management arrangements associated
with functional water points that help practitioners identify opportunities to improve service
delivery [13–18]. Few studies describe factors associated with functionality and patterns and trends in
water point management in Ethiopia.
This study from rural Ethiopia aimed to (i) investigate the patterns, trends, and factors associated
with functional community water points and (ii) identify potential areas of improvement in terms of
practitioner response to functionality and functionality monitoring.

2. Methods
Cross-sectional surveys were conducted in communities and with WaSH committees in Amhara,
Oromia, Tigray, and Southern Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples’ Region (SSNPR) of Ethiopia.
Data were collected between January and March 2017, by the Water Institute at the University of North
Carolina (UNC) and Jimma University, on behalf of UNICEF Ethiopia, from four community-based
nutrition (CBN) program groupings.

2.1. Study Context

In the context of food insecurity and malnutrition, and in order to maximize the potential
health impact of community-based nutrition (CBN) programs among vulnerable groups in rural
Ethiopia, an integrated nutrition and WaSH program was implemented by UNICEF Ethiopia and the
Government of Ethiopia between 2011 and 2015. It was designed to respond to the combined risks
of chronic malnutrition and inadequate access to basic WaSH services for 1.4 million people in four
regions in rural Ethiopia.
In all surveyed areas, CBN was implemented. In some areas, a WaSH intervention was
implemented (community water supply, hygiene promotion and sanitation, multiple use services),
whereas in the control group, only CBN was implemented. Thirty intervention woredas (districts)
comprising 576 kebeles (communities) were subject to the WaSH intervention. Of these, 15 were food
and water insecure, and the other 15 woredas were relatively water secure and received CBN only
(methods which are detailed in reference [11]).
Water 2018, 10, 1591 3 of 17

2.2. Sampling
Seventy-three representative kebeles, including 30 intervention and 43 control communities,
were identified by random sampling. A survey was conducted in each community with members
representing the community and knowledgeable about kebele resources including water and sanitation
facilities, i.e., community or opinion leaders, religious leaders, elders, community health volunteers,
women’s affairs leaders.
WaSH committee surveys were conducted in kebeles that had a functional WaSH committee
and protected water points. Members of WaSH committees are locally responsible for water
point maintenance, establishment of new water points, and management of existing water points.
WaSH committees are established by the woreda water office or by the kebele administration. A WaSH
committee consists of permanent residents who have the potential to mobilize their community and
raise funds, selected by the community members. Half of a WaSH committee is supposed to be male,
and half female. The WaSH committee (WaSHCo) has a chairperson, secretary, logistic personnel,
and head of finance. It is the WaSHCo’s responsibility to collect funds and service fees from community
members, aid organizations, and the government. The WaSHCo is directly responsible for contracting,
procurement, quality control, and financial accountability to the community, kebele, and woreda
administration. The community/kebele has the right to dissolve the committee if they are not
functional or transparent. Committee members in charge of administering the water points qualified
for participation in the survey.

2.3. Data Collection

Data collection was carried out by 21 field enumerators and four supervisors recruited by Jimma
University and trained by Jimma University, the Water Institute at UNC, and UNICEF Ethiopia.
Surveys were conducted using separate survey tools for community members and WaSHCo members.
The data were collected using Android smartphones with the SurveyCTO mobile data platform.
The community survey addressed community water points and their functionality, management,
benefits of functional water points to the community, the impact of natural disasters on functionality,
activities linked to water during the last two years, and the main areas for perceived improvement
needed from water points. The WaSH committee survey included information on WaSH committees
in the program area, technical and management aspects of water points and their functionality,
seasonality and drying out of water points, payment of water, as well as activities linked to water
during the last two years. The functionality of water points at the time of the survey was defined as
follows: (i) fully functional were water points that provided services without restriction; (ii) partially
functional were water points that were defective but it is still functional in some aspects; (iii) not
working were water points that had stopped providing service due to defects, but that could be
functional after maintenance; (iv) abandoned were water points that were neither functional nor
considered for maintenance due to feasibility issues (i.e., no service after maintenance expected,
high cost for maintenance).
Informed consent was obtained from each participating community and WaSHCo member.
Ethical clearance was obtained from the Institutional Review Board of the College of Health Science at
Jimma University, Ethiopia (RPGC/967/2016) and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
(study #15-3317).

2.4. Data Analysis

The statistical analysis aimed to identify community characteristics and management practices
associated with functionality of water points and explore opportunities to improve water point
functionality and monitoring in rural Ethiopia.
The datasets from the two surveys (community survey; WaSH committee survey) were analyzed
independently, because the unique identifying code generated for each survey were not comparable
Water 2018, 10, 1591 4 of 17

and the unique community names were corrupted and lost for the community survey. The analysis
goals were the same for each survey, since both aimed at investigating factors associated with functional
community water points and identifying potential areas of improvement in terms of practitioner
response to functionality and functionality monitoring.
Descriptive statistics were calculated and included frequencies for all variables of interest, as well
as means, medians, maxima and minima for numerical variables.
Bivariate analyses were conducted on the WaSH committee survey to examine the strength of
association between the predictor independent variables and the primary outcome variable (water
point functionality). In the bivariate analysis, differences in communities in intervention and control
areas were controlled for. A 90% confidence interval (CI) was used to estimate the precision of the
odds ratios (OR) (significance level set at p-value ≤ 0.10). All analysis was conducted using STATA 15
(StataCorp LLC, College Station, TX, USA).

3. Results

3.1. Functionality of Water Points in Rural Ethiopia: Findings from the Community Survey

3.1.1. Characteristics of Communities

The 74 communities had on average 842 households and a population of 2611 people, as
shown in Table 1. A farmers’ cooperative was present in 47% of the communities. Sixty-eight
percent of communities had received a community-led total sanitation (CLTS) intervention. CLTS was
implemented between 2000 and 2009, with the majority of CLTS interventions occurring in 2007.
All interviewees were aware of the meaning of the open defecation free (ODF) community locution.
More than 80% of communities were certified as open defecation free.

Table 1. Characterization of communities.

Community Characteristics n %
Region
Amhara 23 30.67
Oromia 9 12.00
SNNPR * 29 38.67
Tigray 14 18.67
Total number of households
N 74
Mean 842
Median 220
Total population
N 74
Mean 2611
Median 1150
Area was affected by natural disaster in past 1 year
Drought 26 60.47
Excessive rain 17 39.53
Flood 19 44.19
Crop failure 30 69.77
Crop pests/diseases 32 74.42
Disease outbreak in animals 34 79.07
A farmers’ cooperation is present 35 47.30
Year of community-led total sanitation (CLTS)
N 50
Mean 2007
Median 2007
Awareness of meaning of ODF ** community 58 78.38
Community has received a certificate as ODF 29 39.00
Note: * Southern Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples’ Region; ** Open defecation free.
Water 2018, 10, 1591 5 of 17

Most community areas had been affected by natural disasters in the year preceding the survey.
Water 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 17
Drought (66%) was most common. Many communities also experienced excessive rain (41%) and
floods (39%).
Most community areas had been affected by natural disasters in the year preceding the survey.
Drought (66%) was most common. Many communities also experienced excessive rain (41%) and
3.1.2. Water Point Functionality and Management
floods (39%).
Communities had an average of four improved public/community water points, as shown in
3.1.2.
Table 2. Water Point Functionality
On average, three wereand Management
functional per community. Besides the improved water points,
the communities possessed
Communities had antwo unimproved
average public water
of four improved points on average.
public/community water points, as shown in
Table 2. On average, three were functional per community. Besides the improved water points, the
communities possessed twoTable 2. Numberpublic
unimproved of water points
water in communities.
points on average.

Number
Table 2.ofNumber
Water Points inpoints
of water Communities (n = 74).
in communities.
Variable n Min Max Mean Median
Number of Water Points in Communities (n = 74).
Total improved
Variable 74n 0
Min 40
Max 4
Mean 2 Median
Totalimproved
Total functional 7474 0 25
40 34 1 2
Totalfunctional
Total unimproved 7474 0 15
25 23 2 1
Total unimproved 74 0 15 2 2

The water points were constructed and commissioned between 2000 and 2012, as shown in
The water points were constructed and commissioned between 2000 and 2012, as shown in
Figure 1, most
Figure between
1, most 2005
between and
2005 and2009.
2009.

Construction of water point (year) (%)

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2012

Figure
Figure 1. 1.Construction
Constructionof
of water
water point
pointand
andstart
startofoffunctioning.
functioning.

Ofwater
Of all all water points,
points, 65%65%
werewere functional,
functional, as shown
as shown in Table
in Table 3. Most
3. Most communities
communities reported
reported having
having an operational WaSH committee
an operational WaSH committee (88%). (88%).

Table 3. Functionality and management of water points in intervention and control communities.
Table 3. Functionality and management of water points in intervention and control communities.
Characteristics of Community n %
Characteristics
Total functional water of points
Community n
206 65.19 %
WaSH committee
Total functional is currently operational
water points 52
206 88.14 65.19
WaSH committee
WaSH committee manages
is currently the water point
operational 59
52 79.73 88.14
Problems manages
WaSH committee with waterthepoint solved
water quickly
point 16
59 21.62 79.73
ProblemsPerceived
with water quality
pointofsolved
management
quickly 16 21.62
Very good 18 24.32
Perceived quality of management
Reasonable 39 52.70
Very good 18 24.32
Bad 17 22.97
Reasonable 39 52.70
Bad Changes in the community due to new water point 17 22.97
More time for other economic activities (n = 3) 3 40.00
Changes inBetter
the community due to new water point
health (n = 3) 3 60.00
More time fordiarrhea
Less other economic
(n = 3) activities (n = 3) 33 60.00 40.00
Better health
More(n = 3) go to school (n = 3)
children 33 60.00 60.00
Less diarrhea (n = 3) 3 60.00
More children go to school (n = 3) 3 60.00
Water 2018, 10, 1591 6 of 17
Water 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 17

The
The majority
majorityofofwater points
water were
points managed
were through
managed WaSHWaSH
through committees (80%). Community
committees leaders,
(80%). Community
woreda
leaders, woreda or kebele administrators were rarely the ones managing the water point inarea,
or kebele administrators were rarely the ones managing the water point in the program the
as shownarea,
program in Figure 2.
as shown in Figure 2.

Management of water points in communities (%)

WaSH Committee
4 3 Kebele administration
5 Woreda administration
4 Community leaders
Other
4
Do Not Know

80

Figure 2. Management of water points in communities.

communities.

Most respondents considered

Most respondents considered the
thequality
qualityofofmanagement
managementofof water
water points
points reasonable
reasonable (53%),
(53%), as
as shown
shown in Table
in Table 3. Twenty-two
3. Twenty-two percent
percent reported
reported problems
problems with thewith the point
water watertopoint to be quickly
be solved solved
quickly
(22%). (22%).
Most communitiesreported
Most communities reportedbenefits
benefitsasas a consequence
a consequence of the
of the UNICEF
UNICEF intervention
intervention betweenbetween
2011
2011 and 2015
and 2015 (77%).
(77%). Benefits
Benefits mentioned
mentioned arising
arising from
from a new
a new waterpoint
water pointincluded
includedimproved
improved health,
reduced
reduced incidence
incidence ofof diarrhea,
diarrhea, more
more time
time for
for economic
economic activities,
activities, and
and more
more children
children going
going to
to school.
school.
Numerous
Numerous activities linked to water water were
were conducted
conducted in in the
the communities
communities in in the
the two
two years
years
preceding the survey, as shown in Figure 3. In about half of all communities, community
preceding the survey, as shown in Figure 3. In about half of all communities, community orientation orientation
and
and training
training had
had been
been conducted
conducted (51%)
(51%) and
and slightly
slightly less
less than
than aa third
third established
established WaSH
WaSH committees
committees
accompanied
accompanied by by training
training (28%).
(28%).

Activities linked to water conducted in communities in the last two years (%)

Community orientation
WaSHCo establishment and training
Identification of water point type to construct
Identification of location for water point construction
Community participation and involvement
Assessment of water source and technology options
Transportation, collection of water supply materials
Rehabilitation of water supply system
Construction of water supply system
Water point / system abandoned / closed
Inauguration of water system

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Figure 3. Activities linked to water in communities.

communities.

3.1.3. Perceived Areas

3.1.3. Perceived Areas for
for Improvement
Improvement Needed
Needed in
in Water
Water Management
Management Systems
Systems
Community respondents reported several perceived areas for improvement
Community respondents reported several perceived areas for improvement of water management
of water
systems
managementneeded, as shown
systems in Figure
needed, 4. The
as shown improvement
in Figure of water quality
4. The improvement was most
of water prevalent
quality in
was most
prevalent in 61% of the communities. The distance to the water point and the supply time (53% each)
Water 2018, 10, 1591 7 of 17

61% of the communities. The distance to the water point and the supply time (53% each) were issues
that more than half of the communities wanted to improve. The improvement of water pressure was
important to 47% of communities. Reacting faster to problems (41%), the long idle time (37%), and the
long time for water collection (34%) were also reported by communities as perceived needs.

Main perceived areas for improvement needed from water management systems
(%)

Improve water quality

Distance to the water point
Improve supply time
Improve water pressure
React faster to problems
Long idle time
Long time for water collection
Improve accounting
Be tolerant with cuts on connection / access
Improve billing / cash collection system
Reduce price of water
Transparency in resource mobilization
Transparency in selection of WASHCos
Reduce price of contract

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Figure 4. Perceived areas for improvement needed in communities.

3.2. Functionality of Water Points in Rural Ethiopia: Findings from the WaSH Committee Survey

3.2.1. Characteristics of WaSH Committees

WaSH committees existed in all surveyed intervention areas and in 89% of the control areas.
WaSH committees in intervention communities had different characteristics to those in control
communities, as shown in Table 4. The WaSH committees in the intervention areas had been established
between 1988 and 2008, the committees in the control area were established between 1997 and 2012,
as shown in Table 4. The vast majority of WaSHCos were operational (98% in intervention areas; 94% in
control areas). Almost half of the WaSH committees were responsible for other water points in the
community (48% in intervention areas; 42% in control areas). On average, in both areas, WaSHCos were
responsible for the management of three water points.

Table 4. Characterization of WaSHCos in intervention and control areas.

Control Areas Intervention Areas

Characteristics of WaSH Committees
n % n %
WaSH Committee exists 31 88.57 40 100.00
WaSHCo operational/working at present 29 93.55 39 97.50
WaSHCo responsible for other water points 13 41.94 19 47.50
Number of water points WaSHCo manages
N 13 19
Mean 3 3
Median 1 2

3.2.2. Water Points, Management, and Functionality

Protected dug wells (30% in intervention areas; 31% in control areas) and boreholes (30% in
intervention areas; 23% in control areas) were the most frequently used public water points according
Water 2018, 10, 1591 8 of 17

to the WaSHCo survey. A protected spring was used by 15% of the communities in the intervention
areas and 23% of the communities in the control areas, as shown in Table 5. The most used improved
public water point (dug wells and boreholes) had an average depth of 50 m in intervention areas,
and 19 m in the control areas.

Table 5. Characterization of water points in intervention and control communities.

Control Areas Intervention Areas

Characteristics of Water Point n % n %
Type of public water point mostly used in community
Piped into dwelling 0 0.00 1 2.50
Piped into yard/plot/compound 1 2.86 0 0.00
Public tap/standpipe 6 17.14 5 12.50
Tube well/borehole 8 22.86 12 30.00
Protected well 11 31.43 12 30.00
Protected spring 8 22.86 6 15.00
Unprotected spring 0 0.00 2 5.00
River/lake/pond/stream/dam 1 2.86 2 5.00
Depth of improved water point (most used public) [meters]
N 23 29
Mean 19 50
Range [min–max] 1–70 1–282
Current state of the water point
Working 26 74.29 34 85.00
Working partially (with problems) 6 17.14 3 7.50
Not working 3 8.57 3 7.50
Reason why water point only works partially
Water point is dry at the moment 2 22.22 2 33.33
One spare part is missing 5 55.56 3 50.00
Requires a big rehabilitation 5 55.56 2 33.33
The rehabilitation is in process 1 11.11 1 16.67
The pump was stolen 2 22.22 0 0.00
Abandoned 2 22.22 1 16.67
Water point has a pump 20 57.14 27 67.50
Type of pump
Afridev 11 55.00 19 70.37
India Mark (Im-I&Ii) 5 25.00 3 11.11
Direct action hand pump 1 5.00 1 3.70
Rope pump 0 0.00 1 3.70
Submersible electrical pump 1 5.00 2 7.41
Other hand pump 2 10.00 1 3.70
Time to repair pump last time it broke down [days]
N 20 27
Mean 25 35
Median 4 3
Perceived water quality at this water point
Very Bad 2 5.71 3 7.50
Bad 6 17.14 6 15.00
Good 18 51.43 24 60.00
Very Good 8 22.86 7 17.50
Do Not Know 1 2.86 0 0.00
Water point dries up 7 20.00 9 22.50

Figure 5 shows an association of well depth and water availability. The association between well
depth and drying out of water points, however, was not found statistically significant.
Water 2018, 10, 1591 9 of 17

About 80% of all water points were fully functional (85% in intervention areas; 74% in control
areas), some were partially functional (8% in intervention areas; 17% in control areas), 8% were not
working at all.
Water 2018, 10, xReasons
FOR PEERfor water points only working partially included missing spare parts (53%),
REVIEW 9 of 17
need for rehabilitation (33% in intervention areas; 56% in control areas), water point being dry (33%
in intervention
in intervention areas;
areas; 22%22% in control
in control areas)
areas) or abandoned
or abandoned (17%
(17% in intervention
in intervention areas;
areas; 22%22% in control
in control
areas).
areas). Other
Other reasons
reasons forfor water
water points
points functioning
functioning only
only partially
partially werewere ongoing
ongoing rehabilitation
rehabilitation (14%),
(14%),
or water
or water pumppump having
having been
been stolen
stolen (none
(none in intervention
in intervention areas;
areas; 22% 22% in control
in control areas).
areas).

Figure 5. Well
Figure depth
5. Well andand
depth drying up up
drying of water point.
of water point.

About
Abouttwotwo
thirds of allofwater
thirds pointspoints
all water had ahad
pump (68% in(68%
a pump intervention areas; 57%
in intervention in control
areas; 57% inareas).
control
Afridev pumps were most common (70% in intervention areas; 55% in control areas), fewer
areas). Afridev pumps were most common (70% in intervention areas; 55% in control areas), fewer communities
used an India Mark
communities used(11% in intervention
an India Mark (11%areas; 25% in control
in intervention areas)
areas; 25%or inother pumps.
control areas) or other pumps.
WaSH
WaSH committees
committees were
weremainly responsible
mainly responsibleforfor
thethe
maintenance
maintenance and repair
and of of
repair pumps
pumps in in
thethe
intervention (85%) and control (75%) areas. Woreda water offices also took care of maintenance
intervention (85%) and control (75%) areas. Woreda water offices also took care of maintenance and and
repairs of pumps
repairs of pumps(41%(41%
in intervention areas; areas;
in intervention 60% in60%
control areas). In
in control the intervention
areas). area, five percent
In the intervention area, five
of water pumps were managed by regional water offices, as shown in Table
percent of water pumps were managed by regional water offices, as shown in Table 6. 6.

Table 6. Responsibility
Table of maintenance
6. Responsibility andand
of maintenance repair of pump.
repair of pump.
Control Areas
Control (n =(n43)
Areas = 43) Intervention
Intervention Areas
Areas(n
(n== 30)
30)
WaSHWaSH committee
committee 75 75 85
85
Woreda
Woreda water water
office office 60 60 41
41
Regional waterwater
Regional office office 0 0 55

TheThe
lastlast
timetime
thethe
pumppump broke
broke down,
down, pump
pump repairs
repairs took
took on on average
average 35 35 days
days in the
in the intervention
intervention
area
area communities
communities andand 25 days
25 days in the
in the control
control areaarea communities,
communities, as shown
as shown in Table
in Table 5. 5.
The majority of the communities perceived the water quality at the
The majority of the communities perceived the water quality at the water point as good water point as good(60%(60%
in in
intervention
intervention areas;
areas; 51%51% in control
in control areas),
areas), orgood
or very very (18%
goodin(18% in intervention
intervention areas; 23%areas; 23% inareas).
in control control
areas).
Out of all communities, 21% reported their water point dries up at some point of the year.
Out of collection
Payment all communities,
for water 21%wasreported their
similar in thewater
dry andpoint dries
in the up at
rainy some point
seasons, as shownof the inyear.
Table 7.
Payment collection for water was similar in the dry and in the rainy seasons,
Most communities had WaSH committees that did not collect payment (dry season: 40% in intervention as shown in Table
7. Most communities had WaSH committees that did not collect
areas; 56% in control areas; rainy season: 45% in intervention areas; 57% in control areas).payment (dry season: 40% in
intervention areas; 56% in control areas; rainy season: 45% in intervention areas;
In more than half of all communities, community orientation and training had been conducted 57% in control areas).
(60% in In more than areas;
intervention half of52%all communities, community
in control areas). Water pointorientation
types to and training had
be constructed been
were conducted
identified
(60% in intervention areas; 52% in control areas). Water point types to be constructed
and selected by 43% of the intervention and 30% of the control communities. About 28% established were identified
andand selected
trained by 43%
a WaSH of the intervention
committee, and
slightly less 30% of thecommunity
mentioned control communities.
participationAbout
and 28% established
involvement,
and trained a WaSH committee, slightly less mentioned community participation and involvement,
including community contributions in form of cash, labor, and kind (25%). In the intervention area,
more activities linked to water were conducted than in the control area, as shown in Figure 6.
Water 2018, 10, 1591 10 of 17

including community contributions in form of cash, labor, and kind (25%). In the intervention area,
more activities linked to water were conducted than in the control area, as shown in Figure 6.

Water 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW Table 7. Seasonal payment for water. 10 of 17

Control
Table 7. Seasonal payment Areas
for water. Intervention Areas
Seasonal Payment of Water N % N %
Control Areas Intervention Areas
Payments collection
Seasonal in dry
Payment season
of Water N % N %
There is no
Payments payment
collection in dry season 16 45.71 16 40.00
PerThere
Jeri-can
is noof 20 L
payment 16 4 45.7111.43 16 8 40.00 20.00
Regularly perofmonth
Per Jeri-can 20 L 4 10 11.4328.57 8 9 20.00 22.50
PerRegularly
break down of water point
per month 10 0 28.570.00 9 1 22.50 2.50
Per break down of water point 0 0.00 1 2.50
Payments collection in rainy season
Payments collection in rainy season
There is no payment 20 57.14 18 45.00
There is no payment 20 57.14 18 45.00
Per Jeri-can of 20 L 4 11.43 6 15.00
Per Jeri-can of 20 L 4 11.43 6 15.00
Regularly per month 7 20.00 9 22.50
Regularly per month 7 20.00 9 22.50
Per break down of water point 0 0.00 1 2.50
Per break down of water point 0 0.00 1 2.50

Activities linked to water conducted in communities in the last two years (%)

Community orientation
Identification of water point type to construct
Identification of location for water point…
WaSHCo establishment and training
Community participation and involvement
Assessment of water source and technology options
Construction of water supply system
Rehabilitation of water supply system
Water point / system abandoned / closed Intervention areas
Transportation, collection of water supply materials Control areas

Inauguration of water system

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Figure 6.
Figure 6. Activities
Activitieslinked to water
linked according
to water to WaSH
according committees.
to WaSH committees.

Comparingthe
Comparing themain
main activities
activities linked
linkedtoto
water conducted
water conductedduring the previous
during two years
the previous twobetween
years between
community
community andand WaSH
WaSH committeesurveys
committee surveysrevealed
revealed that
that similar
similar activities
activities are
are reported
reported for
for both
both groups
groups at similar frequency, i.e., community orientation (about 53%), WaSH committee
at similar frequency, i.e., community orientation (about 53%), WaSH committee establishment and establishment
and training (28%), inauguration of water system (3%). However, differences in reporting become
training (28%), inauguration of water system (3%). However, differences in reporting become visible
visible for other activities, as shown in Figures 3 and 6.
for other activities, as shown in Figures 3 and 6.
There were substantive differences in the identification of water point types (18% community
Thereversus
leaders were 36%
substantive
WaSHCodifferences
members) and in the identification
locations where to of water point
construct typescommunity
these (11% (18% community
leaders
leaders versus 30% WaSHCo members), the assessment of water source and technology options community
versus 36% WaSHCo members) and locations where to construct these (11% (4%
leaders versusleaders
community 30% versus
WaSHCo 19% members), the assessment
WaSHCo members), of water
the construction (3% source andleaders
community technology
versus options
(4%16% WaSHCo members),
community rehabilitation
leaders versus (3% community
19% WaSHCo leadersthe
members), versus 13% WaSHCo
construction (3%members),
community and leaders
abandonment
versus 16% WaSHCo (3% community
members),leaders versus 13%
rehabilitation (3%WaSHCo
community members)
leaders of versus
water supply systems, members),
13% WaSHCo as
well as community participation and involvement (11% communities, 25%
and abandonment (3% community leaders versus 13% WaSHCo members) of water supply systems, WaSH committees).
as well as community participation and involvement (11% communities, 25% WaSH committees).
3.2.3. Factors Associated with the Functionality of Water Points
3.2.3. Factors Associated
In bivariate analyseswith theWaSHCo
of the Functionality
survey,of
theWater Points of water points (working at the
functionality
time of the survey) was significantly associated with characteristics of the water point, such as the
In bivariate
drying up of theanalyses of the
water point, as WaSHCo survey,
shown in Table the drying
8. The functionality
up of theofwater
waterpoint
points (working at the
significantly
time of the survey) was significantly associated with characteristics of the water
reduced the functionality compared to water points that never dry up, both in the unadjusted (ORpoint, such as the
drying up of the water point, as shown in Table 8. The drying up of the water point significantly
0.33; CI 0.09–1.13; p = 0.077) and in the adjusted model (OR 0.28; CI 0.08–0.99; p = 0.050). A water point
reduced thean
that was functionality
Indian markcompared
pump wastosignificantly
water points that
more never
likely to dry up, both in
be functional as the unadjusted
compared to any(OR 0.33;
other pump (OR 3.55; CI 0.92–13.74; p = 0.067) in the unadjusted model. The functionality of the water
Water 2018, 10, 1591 11 of 17

CI 0.09–1.13; p = 0.077) and in the adjusted model (OR 0.28; CI 0.08–0.99; p = 0.050). A water point that
was an Indian mark pump was significantly more likely to be functional as compared to any other
pump (OR 3.55; CI 0.92–13.74; p = 0.067) in the unadjusted model. The functionality of the water point
was also significantly associated with the year in which the WaSHCo was created. Water points in
areas with more recently created WaSHCos had significantly reduced odds of functionality (OR 0.83;
CI 0.69–1.02; p = 0.072) in the unadjusted model, and so did having carried out an assessment of water
source and technology options in the past two years as compared to those who did not conduct such
an activity (OR 0.19; CI 0.06–0.68; p = 0.010).

Table 8. Bivariate logistic regression results for the use of basic water services.

Unadjusted Model Adjusted Model

Bivariate Analysis; Outcome is Functionality CI 90% CI 90%
OR Low Up p-Value OR Low Up p-Value
Explanatory variable
Characteristics of water points
Number of private improved water points 1.24 0.24 6.38 0.801 0.98 0.18 5.28 0.980
Number of public improved water points 0.90 0.74 1.08 0.253 0.95 0.78 1.17 0.632
Depth of the improved water point [m] 1.01 0.99 1.04 0.316 1.01 0.99 1.04 0.391
Water point ever dries up 0.33 0.10 1.13 0.077 * 0.28 0.08 1.00 0.050
Water point has a pump Omitted 2.16 0.68 6.90 0.192
Indian mark pump 3.55 0.92 13.74 0.067 3.03 0.76 11.99 0.115
Management of water points
Year in which water point was constructed 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.443 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.527
Water point constructed by local micro-enterprise 1.10 0.34 3.60 0.875 0.93 0.28 3.15 0.911
Water point constructed by Woreda water office 0.50 0.16 1.53 0.224 0.62 0.19 1.98 0.417
Responsibility for maintenance of pump
WaSHCo/caretakers 2.83 0.55 14.69 0.216 1.57 0.24 10.50 0.641
Year in which WaSHCo was created 0.83 0.69 1.02 0.072 0.89 0.73 1.09 0.261
Woreda water office maintenance of the pump 0.27 0.05 1.52 0.138 0.40 0.07 2.42 0.317
WaSHCo responsible for other water points 0.81 0.27 2.45 0.705 0.88 0.27 2.80 0.823
Number of males on the WaSHCo 1.13 0.77 1.67 0.530 1.10 0.74 1.64 0.647
Number of females on the WaSHCo 0.83 0.48 1.41 0.483 0.81 0.46 1.44 0.473
Maintenance/caregiver group for water point 0.36 0.11 1.13 0.081 0.39 0.12 1.27 0.116
Number of times the WaSHCo met in past year 1.03 0.89 1.19 0.693 1.04 0.85 1.29 0.687
Water payments collection in dry season
No water payment 0.67 0.22 2.02 0.473 0.60 0.19 1.89 0.384
Payment per Jeri-can of 20 L 1.40 0.27 7.14 0.686 1.17 0.22 6.15 0.852
Payment regularly per month 0.73 0.22 2.45 0.615 0.97 0.26 3.54 0.958
Water payments collection in rainy season
No water payment 1.00 0.33 3.01 1.000 0.95 0.30 2.99 0.926
Payment per Jeri-can of 20 L 1.08 0.21 5.65 0.930 0.95 0.18 5.10 0.951
Payment regularly per month 0.55 0.16 1.89 0.342 0.67 0.18 2.50 0.545
Activities related to water
Community orientation 1.80 0.59 5.48 0.301 1.53 0.48 4.81 0.472
Identification of water point type to construct 1.27 0.39 4.15 0.688 1.28 0.38 4.332 0.690
Identification of location for point construction 0.66 0.21 2.10 0.480 0.81 0.24 2.762 0.740
Assessment of water source/technology options 0.20 0.06 0.68 0.010 0.23 0.06 0.835 0.025
Community participation and involvement 0.67 0.20 2.26 0.517 0.61 0.18 2.100 0.430
Construction of water supply system 0.77 0.18 3.23 0.715 0.72 0.17 3.116 0.661
Rehabilitation of water supply system 0.57 0.13 2.52 0.461 0.58 0.13 2.608 0.474
WaSHCo establishment and training 0.87 0.26 2.88 0.819 1.05 0.29 3.805 0.941
Water point/system abandoned/closed 0.93 0.17 4.95 0.927 1.08 0.19 6.127 0.930
Transportation/collection of supply materials 0.37 0.06 2.42 0.298 0.26 0.04 1.860 0.179
Celebration/inauguration of supply system 0.25 0.012 4.31 0.343 0.24 0.01 4.149 0.323
Other activities 0.67 0.16 2.87 0.586 0.65 0.15 2.859 0.567
Note: * Significant factors marked in bold. The significance level was set at p-value ≤ 0.10.
Water 2018, 10, 1591 12 of 17

4. Discussion
We analyzed community and WaSH committee survey data on water point functionality and
management from a UNICEF program evaluation in four regions of Ethiopia. We found that most
water points were protected dug wells and boreholes, and 80% of water points were functional at the
time of survey. Eighty percent of communities had a WaSH committee, nearly all were operational,
and were primarily responsible for repairs. Repair times were slow—on average, taking more
than a month. India Mark II pumps were more likely to be functional than other pump types
and communities with longer-established WaSH committees had higher water point functionality
compared to WaSH committees that were established more recently. Communities suggested that the
most important water system improvement opportunities were improving water quality and water
pressure, reducing distance to sources, and speeding up repair times.

4.1. Factors Associated with the Functionality of Water Points

Factors associated with water point functionality are multidimensional, and include the materials
used to build the water points, fee collection, access to post-construction support, and management
arrangements [13–19]. Our study indicated that water points constructed with Indian mark pumps
were significantly more likely to be functional than other types, regardless of intervention or control
area. This contradicts previous studies from other countries noting that Indian mark pumps are less
functional compared with Nira hand pumps [13]. The reason for higher functionality of water points
with India Mark pumps cannot be determined based on our data. Follow up studies with larger
sample sizes could uncover whether the level of training on maintenance and repair, or the amount of
spare parts could have been higher for this particular type of water point. Another factor affecting
water point functionality is management. In Ethiopia, water points are mainly managed through
WaSH committees. In the program area, most WaSHCos (88%) actively take care of water management
systems. This study has pointed out that water points managed by longer-established WaSHCos are
more functional than those managed by younger committees. Longer-established committees may
have better management structures in place, better training, and more motivated and committed
members. These considerations may suggest that regularly training existing water committees may be
viable solutions for improving the functionality of water points.
Considering that most water points were managed by WaSHCos, their empowerment and
empowerment of the community is crucial for a better and for more sustainable water services [20].
We found that community participation and involvement was low overall, with few communities
engaged in the assessment of water sources and technology options, training of WaSH committees,
and other engagement activities. Participation, empowerment, and sense of ownership have been
linked as important factors that contribute to water system sustainability in other studies. Not all
forms of participation contribute to sustainability equally—participation in ‘software’ activities
such as finances and management are associated with higher levels of sustainability whereas
community participation in technical decisions can negatively affect sustainability [21]. Nevertheless,
programs should consult and engage communities in the water system installation and management
processes to create a stronger sense of ownership so that communities are committed to their systems.

4.2. Droughts, Extreme Weather Events, and Vulnerability of Water Points

In the program area, about 20% of the communities reported that their water points dry up at
some point of the year which contributes to lower water service availability. Considering that most
communities are affected by droughts, which are projected to become more frequent and severe,
this paints a gloomy picture in terms of access to drinking water.
Deeper wells increase community resilience and water access in the context of drought, as shown
in Figure 5. The Ministry of Water, Irrigation and Energy (MoWIE) provides deeper boreholes and
larger piped systems that connect several communities through their Climate Resilient WaSH Strategy
Water 2018, 10, 1591 13 of 17

and OneWaSH program, which maps deep groundwater resources and drills for more sustainable
water supplies [22,23]. The appropriateness of deep groundwater investigation and development
during periods of increased drought in Ethiopia has been demonstrated before. Investments in deeper
groundwater prove to reduce the unit costs and improve the sustainability of water points [24–27].
Similarly, mapping of water points, year-round availability of water, and vulnerability towards
droughts provide opportunities for monitoring and water service delivery in rural areas [28,29].
Besides droughts, excessive rains and floods are common in the program area (41% reported
excessive rains, 39% floods). All these extreme weather event types generate additional cost for water.
We found no significant association between excessive rain or floods and water point functionality,
possibly due to small sample size and low study power, which did not allow sophisticated analyses.
Extreme weather events should however be taken into account in order to assess the vulnerability,
improve the monitoring, and adapt the functionality of water points towards climate resilient
WaSH [22,30].
Recognizing the limitations of voluntary WaSH committees [31], particularly for larger more
climate-resilient multi-village schemes, the MoWIE in partnership with UNICEF have developed a
model for semi-professional rural utilities that aim to group several water systems together under one
management team. Programmatic opportunities to improve water point functionality lie in supporting
the utility with the development of a business plan, setting tariffs, and ensuring regular maintenance.
This model is currently being rolled out and proving successful in Somali, Afar, and Amhara regions,
Ethiopia [32].

4.3. Comparing Findings in Intervention and Control Area

The comparison of the different respondent groups’ answers on water management activities
in the program area suggests: WaSH committee members, as focal points for water management,
possess more detailed knowledge on the activities that are being carried out than community leaders
who are also responsible for many other issues in the community.
Comparing the main activities linked to water conducted during the previous two years between
WaSH committees of intervention and control group surprisingly reveals that more activities were
done in the control group. The WaSH intervention took place between 2011 and 2015, and most of the
activities named in Figure 6 were part of it. The evaluation took place two years after the finalization
of the UNICEF program, in 2017. This may speak to limited new activities having been conducted
since the end of the project. Less activities in the intervention group could, however, also be owed to
having ‘nice new’ WaSH systems implemented through the intervention, and thus no urgent need for
further activities.
Considering that water points are mostly managed by WaSHCos, this may indicate that for
improved water point functionality, more care is needed by the implementing agencies in handing over
activities to the respective WaSHCos, to build capacity by enabling them to (better and sustainably)
conduct water management activities after the finalization of projects [21]. This is supported by
previous studies that found water systems managed by the community or semi-professionalized
providers to not only be less costly, but also more sustainable [26].

4.4. Opportunities to Improve Water Point Functionality Monitoring

There are several opportunities to improve and use the survey questions from this program
evaluation in monitoring of water points. Collection of more detailed data on seasonal variation and
management is important to inform water services throughout the year and to better understand
changes due to extreme weather events. While the survey included questions on seasonal payment,
several others need to be included such as seasonal water point management [30].
The most common reason for water points to be partially functional was missing spare parts
(53%). This is consistent with previous studies, where parts required for repair [33]. This underlines
the importance of understanding what parts commonly break or are lost or stolen from water points,
Water 2018, 10, 1591 14 of 17

to ensure that local post-construction support providers have the parts they need and local supplies
have parts in stock for purchase. Improving the questions posed to WaSH committee members on
types of part breakdown would provide information to decision makers and private sector actors on
how to stock spare parts suppliers and improve supply chains.
Ensuring that questions are policy and program relevant, evidence based, and technically sound
(i.e., follow SMART criteria) ensure useful data collection in the future. Some questions in the survey
could be improved, such as identifying “adequate” sites for construction.
Actors conducting surveys may add implementation and process indicators to understand
the processes by which water points remain functional over time. This would enable the use of
monitoring data in operational and implementation research to understand the processes that drive
improvement. An example would be the hardware and management pathways associated with water
point rehabilitation when systems break down [34].

4.5. Closing the Knowledge to Action Gap

This study identified the main perceived areas for improvement in water management systems
that community leaders deemed important, as shown in Figure 4. While water quality (60%), time and
distance to water supply (53%), water pressure (47%), and response time to problems (41%) were
prevalent, improvements of accounting (26%) and cash collection systems (18%) were considered less
vital. Transparency in resource mobilization (12%) and in the selection of WaSHCos (11%) were of
minor relevance in terms of perceived importance.
Taking these community leaders’ ‘priority lists’ into consideration offers opportunities for
demand-driven, adaptive and targeted design, and implementation of rural water supply programs,
which, if they include the grassroots level as key informants and actors of change, can succeed [35,36].
While community perceptions point to actual shortcomings, they also mirror community needs and
suggest acceptable solutions [37] that will likely be supported through a sense of ownership and
participation [17].
When the ‘voice’ of the community is not taken into account, the service quality may not improve.
A study from Tanzania found that dissatisfaction among community members on water service
delivery or ‘negative feedback’ in terms of customers refusing to pay water bills or tampering with
meters encouraged decision makers to improve services [38]. Therefore, future WaSH interventions
should better integrate the ‘voice’ of the community, the WaSH committees, and other stakeholders at
different stages of the program management: in planning, monitoring, and evaluating interventions.

4.6. Methodological Discussions and Limitations

While the data represent water services for more than eighty communities, which have
populations of 26,000 on average, there were insufficient water points to conduct multivariable
regression analyses. Due to the small sample size, only descriptive statistics and bivariate analyses
were performed, and these analyses were only performed with 74 observations. This did not allow
for sophisticated analyses. Therefore, these findings are not per se generalizable beyond the regions
studied. However, similar trends may be visible in similar settings. Community respondents may not
have perfect knowledge of the water point situation in the community and some responses may not
represent the true situation. The data are cross-sectional therefore only associations can be shown and
not causation. Benefits of the water system as reported by communities (e.g., reduced incidence of
diarrhea) were qualitatively reported and not verified.

5. Conclusions and Policy Recommendations

This evaluation shows that, in the four Ethiopian program regions, water point functionality
is mainly associated with the type of hand pump [13]. Breakdowns were linked to missing spare
parts [33], proper management [34], and droughts [30,39]. With droughts predicted to become more
frequent and prolonged in Ethiopia as a consequence of climate change, more climate-resilient water
Water 2018, 10, 1591 15 of 17

supply schemes gain importance and provide opportunities for improved water point functionality.
This study captured the perceptions on main areas of water management systems that community
leaders deem important. These were improving water quality and water pressure, reducing distance to
sources, and speeding up repair times. Here lies an opportunity for closing the knowledge to action gap:
integrating different stakeholders in the development of a policy- and program-relevant survey design
and adding implementation and process indicators to understand the processes by which water points
remain functional over time, integrating them in data collection, monitoring, and evaluation processes
would improve rural water supply projects overall. While community leaders’ perceptions such as on
perceived areas for improvement point to actual shortcomings, they also mirror community needs
and recommend solutions that will likely be supported by participation at the grassroots level [37].
Therefore, transdisciplinary collaboration with an emphasis on perceptions and participation of
the target communities and WaSH committees as focal points of water management, and a more
“demand-driven” approach are supportive tools to make programming potentially more targeted,
effective, and sustainable [35–37].

Author Contributions: A.A. and J.B. (Jamie Bartram) designed the research presented in this paper. A.A.
coordinated the data collection. L.F. conducted the data analysis. C.A. was the lead author. R.C. and E.S.
contributed to the writing. A.A., J.B. (Jane Bevan), S.G. and J.B. (Jamie Bartram) revised the paper.
Funding: Funding for collection and analysis of data was provided by UNICEF Ethiopia (43185731/UNC ID
5102828).
Acknowledgments: We thank Getachew Hailemichael of UNICEF Ethiopia for the coordination of the study,
Georgia Kayser, Ronna Chan and Margaret (Peggy) Bentley for their support for start-up and training of the survey,
and Jeanne Luh and Amy Guo, A.J. Karon, and Kate Shields for cleaning of the data and preparing the project
report. Data collection would not have been possible without the collaboration and support of Argaw Ambelu’s
team of supervisors and enumerators from Jimma University. Finally, we thank all of the study participants who
have taken time to provide the information analyzed in this study.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had a role in the design of the study;
in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish
the results.

References
1. Bartram, J.; Lewis, K.; Lenton, R.; Wright, A. Focusing on improved water and sanitation for health. Lancet
2005, 365, 810–812. [CrossRef]
2. Bartram, J.; Cairncross, S. Hygiene, sanitation, and water: Forgotten foundations of health. PLoS Med. 2010,
7, e1000367. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Bartram, J.; Godfrey, S. Drinking-water supply. In Routledge Handbook of Water and Health; Bartram, J.,
Baum, R., Coclanis, P.A., Gute, D.M., Kay, D., Mc Fayden, S., Pond, K., Robertson, W., Rouse, M.J., Eds.;
Routledge: London, UK, 2015; pp. 191–202, ISBN 978-1138910072.
4. Black, R.E.; Morris, S.S.; Bryce, J. Where and why are 10 million children dying every year? Lancet 2003, 361,
2226–2234. [CrossRef]
5. Clasen, T.F.; Alexander, K.T.; Sinclair, D.; Boisson, S.; Peletz, R.; Chang, H.H.; Majorin, F.; Cairncross, S.
Interventions to improve water quality for preventing diarrhea. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2015, 10, 1–201.
[CrossRef]
6. Esrey, S.A.; Potash, J.B.; Roberts, L.; Shiff, C. Effects of improved water supply and sanitation on ascariasis,
diarrhoea, dracunculiasis, hookworm infection, schistosomiasis, and trachoma. Bull. WHO 1991, 69, 609–621.
[PubMed]
7. Fewtrell, L.; Kaufmann, R.B.; Kay, D.; Enanoria, W.; Haller, L.; Colford, J.M., Jr. Water, sanitation, and hygiene
interventions to reduce diarrhoea in less developed countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Lancet Inf. Dis. 2005, 5, 42–52. [CrossRef]
8. UN General Assembly, Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. 21 October
2015. A/RES/70/1. Available online: http://www.refworld.org/docid/57b6e3e44.html (accessed on 18
September 2018).
Water 2018, 10, 1591 16 of 17

9. WHO; UNICEF. Progress on Drinking Water, Sanitation and Hygiene—2015 Update and SDG Baselines
2015; United Nations Children’s Fund: Geneva, Switzerland; World Health Organization: Geneva,
Switzerland, 2015.
10. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. Growth and Transformation Plan II (GTP II) (2015/16–2019/20);
National Planning Commission: Adis Abeba, Ethiopia, 2016.
11. Anthonj, C.; Fleming, L.; Godfrey, S.; Ambelu, A.; Bevan, J.; Cronk, R.; Bartram, J. Health risk perceptions are
associated with domestic use of basic water and sanitation services—Evidence from rural Ethiopia. Int. J.
Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 2112. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
12. Lee, E.L.; Schwab, K.J. Deficiencies in drinking water distribution systems in developing countries.
J. Water Health 2005, 3, 109–127. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13. Cronk, R.; Bartram, J. Factors Influencing water system functionality in Nigeria and Tanzania: A regression
and Bayesian network analysis. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51, 11336–11345. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
14. Carter, R.C.; Ross, I. Beyond ‘functionality’ of handpump-supplied rural water services in developing
countries. Waterlines 2016, 35, 94–110. [CrossRef]
15. Alexander, K.T.; Tesfaye, Y.; Dreibelbis, R.; Abaire, B.; Freeman, M.C. Governance and functionality of
community water schemes in rural Ethiopia. Int. J. Public Health 2015, 60, 977–986. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16. Foster, T. Predictors of sustainability for community-managed handpumps in sub-Saharan Africa:
Evidence from Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Uganda. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 12037–12046. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
17. Whittington, D.; Davis, J.; Prokopy, L.; Komives, K.; Thorsten, R.; Lukacs, H.; Wakeman, W. How well is
the demand-driven, community management model for rural water supply systems doing? Evidence from
Bolivia, Peru and Ghana. Water Policy 2009, 11, 696–718. [CrossRef]
18. Foster, T.; Shantz, A.; Lala, S.; Willetts, J. Factors associated with operational sustainability of rural water
supplies in Cambodia. Environ. Sci. Water Res. Technol. 2018, 4, 1577–1588. [CrossRef]
19. Fisher, M.B.; Shields, K.F.; Chan, T.U.; Christenson, E.; Cronk, R.D.; Leker, H.; Samani, D.; Apoya, P.; Lutz, A.;
Bartram, J. Understanding handpump sustainability: Determinants of rural water source functionality in the
Greater Afram Plains region of Ghana. Water Resour. Res. 2015, 51, 8431–8449. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
20. Behnke, N.; Klug, T.; Cronk, R.; Shields, K.F.; Lee, K.; Kelly, E.; Allgood, G.; Bartram, J. Resource mobilization
for community-managed rural water systems: Evidence from Ghana, Kenya, and Zambia. J. Clean. Prod.
2017, 156, 437–444. [CrossRef]
21. Marks, S.J.; Davis, J. Does user participation lead to sense of ownership for rural water systems? Evidence
from Kenya. World Dev. 2012, 40, 1569–1576. [CrossRef]
22. Butterworth, J. Getting to the Heart of Climate Resilient WASH. 2018. Available online: https://www.
ircwash.org/blog/getting-heart-climate-resilient-wash (accessed on 18 September 2018).
23. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Ministry of Water, Irrigation and Energy (MoWIE). Climate Resilient
Water Safety Strategic Framework; Ministry of Water, Irrigation and Energy: Adis Abeba, Ethiopia, 2016.
24. Godfrey, S.; van der Velden, M.; Muianga, A.; Xavier, A.; Downs, K.; Morgan, C.; Bartram, J. Sustainability
check: Five-year annual sustainability audits of the water supply and open defecation free status in the “One
Million Initiative”, Mozambique. Environ. Sci. Eng. 2014, 4, 471–483. [CrossRef]
25. Godfrey, S.; Hailemichael, G. Three-phase approach to improve deep groundwater supply availability in the
Elidar district of Afar region of Ethiopia. J. Water Sanit. Hyg. Dev. 2016, 6, 414–424. [CrossRef]
26. Godfrey, S.; Hailmicheal, G. Life cycle cost analysis of water supply infrastructure affected by low rainfall in
Ethiopia. J. Water Sanit. Hyg. Dev. 2017, 7, 601–610. [CrossRef]
27. Josephs-Afoko, D.; Godfrey, S.; Campos, L. Assessing the performance and robustness of the UNICEF
model for groundwater exploration in Ethiopia through application of the analytic hierarchy process,
logistic regression and artificial neural networks. Water SA J. 2018, 44, 365–376. [CrossRef]
28. Giné-Garriga, R.; Jiménez-Fernández de Palencia, A.; Pérez-Foguet, A. Water-sanitation-hygiene mapping:
An improved approach for data collection at local level. Sci. Total Environ. 2013, 463–464, 700–711. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
29. Jiménez Fernández de Palencia, A.; Pérez-Foguet, A. Quality and year-round availability of water delivered
by improved water points in rural Tanzania: Effects on coverage. Water Policy 2012, 14, 509–523. [CrossRef]
Water 2018, 10, 1591 17 of 17

30. Kelly, E.; Shields, K.F.; Cronk, R.; Lee, K.; Behnke, N.; Klug, T.; Bartram, J. Seasonality, water use and
community management of water systems in rural settings: Qualitative evidence from Ghana, Kenya,
and Zambia. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 628–629, 715–721. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
31. Hutchings, P.; Chan, M.Y.; Cuadrado, L.; Ezbakhe, F.; Mesa, B.; Tamekawa, C.; Franceys, R.A. Systematic
review of success factors in the community management of rural water supplies over the past 30 years.
Water Policy 2015, 17, 963–983. [CrossRef]
32. Butterworth, J. Rural Utilities for Water Supply in Ethiopia. 2018. Available online: https://www.ircwash.
org/blog/rural-utilities-water-supply-ethiopia (accessed on 18 September 2018).
33. Klug, T.; Cronk, R.; Shields, K.F.; Bartram, J. A categorization of water system breakdowns: Evidence from
Liberia, Nigeria, Tanzania, and Uganda. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 619, 1126–1132. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
34. Klug, T.; Shields, K.F.; Cronk, R.; Kelly, E.; Behnke, N.; Lee, K.; Bartram, J. Water system hardware
and management rehabilitation: Qualitative evidence from Ghana, Kenya, and Zambia. Int. J. Hyg.
Environ. Health 2017, 220, 531–538. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
35. Hering, J. Implementation science for the environment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018, 52, 5555–5560. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
36. Klenk, N.L.; Meehan, K. Transdisciplinary sustainability research beyond engagement models:
Towards adventures in relevance. Environ. Sci. Policy 2017, 78, 27–35. [CrossRef]
37. Anthonj, C.; Diekkrüger, B.; Borgemeister, C.; Kistemann, T. Health risk perceptions and local
knowledge of water-related infectious disease exposure among Kenyan wetland communities. Int. J. Hyg.
Environ. Health 2018, 222, 34–48. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
38. Nganyanyuka, K.; Martinez, J.; Lungo, J.; Georgiadou, Y. If citizens protest, do water providers listen? Water
woes in a Tanzanian town. Environ. Urban. 2018, 30, 613–630. [CrossRef]
39. Pearce, J. Real Time Monitoring of Boreholes Enables Critical Services to be Sustained during the Drought in
Somali Region. 2017. Available online: https://www.ircwash.org/blog/real-time-monitoring-boreholes-
enables-critical-services-be-sustained-during-drought-somali (accessed on 18 September 2018).

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).