ASSESSING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF COMMUNITY

PARTICIPATION IN WATER FACILITY MANAGEMENT: A CASE

OF ABENSU AND POKUASE COMMUNITIES, GA WEST
MUNICIPAL ASSEMBLY

OCTOBER, 2014

DECLARATION
I, Jedidia Nana Kwame Fosu, hereby declare that this submission is my own work towards
the award of a masters degree in

development management and that, to the best of my

knowledge, it contains neither materials previously published by another person nor material
which has been accepted for the award of any other degree, except where due
acknowledgement has been made in the text.

Jedidia Nana Kwame Fosu (MDM 214010260)

Student

ID

.
Signature

..
Date

DEDICATION
To my beloved parents and siblings.

ii

ABSTRACT
The supply of potable water is vital because water is a prerequisite for survival. The Ga West
Municipality faces the problem of inadequate potable water supply hence the need to manage
the water facilities available to them. Community participation in water management is
assumed as a key element for ensuring the sustainability of community water projects. In 2007,
the government of Ghana adopted community participation and management as a strategy to
ensuring sustainable water supply. Ideally the assumption behind this development strategy
was that, by involving beneficiaries at all levels of community based projects, they will be able
to ensure transparency and accountability and have control over their long term operation
and maintenance.The thesis focuses on assessing how effective community participation has
been in ensuring the sustainability of water projects in two selected communities of the Ga
West Assembly in Ghana. It examines this through keeping track of participatory processes
including community contribution, existence and functionality of management structures like
Water and Sanitation (WATSAN) committees and caretakers, support by government and NonGovernmental Organisations (NGOs) together with level of community organization. This was
therefore backed up by different types of data collected using household questionnaires, Key
informants Interviews among district assembly officers, Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) and
Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA). The collected data from the field was organized in
Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 16.0 and Microsoft Excel. Descriptive
statistics, frequencies and percentages were used to describe and summarize the data. Tables
and graphs were used to present the data. The finding indicates that there is low level of
community participation in implementation and management of water facilities in the study
communities. This has resulted in low sustainability in water facilities found with study area.
The study recommends that the assembly and NGOs should effectively involve the community
in all stages of water project cycles. Furthermore, there should be community education and
sensitization to sustain their active participation.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First and foremost, I would like to give all praise, honour and glory to God Almighty for
guiding me and seeing me through this level. Second, I am indebted to my supervisor, Mr. Kofi
Ocran, for guiding me through the development of this research. I am thankful for his support,
scholarly advice and contributions he made to this research.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENT
Contents
Declaration ..................................................................................................................................
Dedication...................................................................................................................................ii
Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... iii
Acknowledgement...................................................................................................................... iv
Table of Content ......................................................................................................................... v
List of Figures .......................................................................................................................... viii
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................. ix
Glossary ...................................................................................................................................... x
CHAPTER ONE .........................................................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................1
1.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................1
1.2 Background to the study ....................................................................................................1
1.3 Problem Statement ............................................................................................................2
1.4 Objectives of the Study ......................................................................................................4
1.4.1 General Objective .......................................................................................................4
1.4.2 Specific Objectives ......................................................................................................4
1.5 Research Questions ...........................................................................................................4
1.6 Significance of the Study....................................................................................................5
1.7 Justification of the Study ...................................................................................................5
1.8 Scope of study ....................................................................................................................6
1.9 Organization of Thesis .......................................................................................................6
CHAPTER TWO ........................................................................................................................8
LITERATURE REVIEW ...........................................................................................................8
2.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................8
2.2 Theoretical Framework .....................................................................................................8
2.3 Water Supply in Ghana ................................................................................................... 10
2.4. Effectiveness ................................................................................................................... 12
2.5 Community Participation in Water Management ............................................................ 13
2.6 Level of Community Participation ................................................................................... 17
v

2.7 Factors that affect Community Participation .................................................................. 21

2.8 Community Management of Water Supply Systems ........................................................ 23
CHAPTER THREE .................................................................................................................. 30
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ...................................................................... 30
3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 30
3.2 Study Area....................................................................................................................... 30
3.3 Research Design .............................................................................................................. 32
3.4 Population of the Study ................................................................................................... 34
3.5 Sampling Method ............................................................................................................ 34
3.6 Data Collection ................................................................................................................ 35
3.6.1 Secondary data.......................................................................................................... 35
3.4.2 Primary Data ............................................................................................................ 36
3.7 Data Analysis................................................................................................................... 36
3.8 Ethnical Consideration .................................................................................................... 37
3.9 Limitation of Study.......................................................................................................... 38
CHAPTER FOUR .................................................................................................................... 39
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION................................................................................................. 39
4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 39
4.2. Socio-Demographic and other Characteristics of the Community .................................. 39
4.2.1 Being a Resident ........................................................................................................ 39
4.2.2 Years of being a Resident .......................................................................................... 40
4.2.3 Sex and Age of the Respondents ................................................................................ 41
4.2.4 Marital Status of Household Respondents ................................................................. 42
4.2.5 Occupation of Household Respondents ..................................................................... 43
4.2.6 Level of Education .................................................................................................... 43
4.3 Sources of Community Water Supply .............................................................................. 44
4.4 Factors that affect Community Participation in the Sustainable Management of Water
Facilities ................................................................................................................................ 46
4.4.1 Lack of support from the Government and NGO ...................................................... 47
4.4.2 Lack of incentives for WATSAN Committee Members ............................................. 48
4.4.3 Time Constraints....................................................................................................... 48
4.4.4 Illiteracy .................................................................................................................... 49
vi

4.4.5 Lack of General Information .................................................................................... 49

4.4.6 Age ............................................................................................................................ 50
4.5 Community Participation in the Sustainable Management of Facilities ........................... 51
4.5.1 Contribution to Operation and Maintenance ............................................................ 52
4.6 Sustainable Management Skills ....................................................................................... 53
4.6.1 Management Committee ........................................................................................... 53
4.6.2 Management of Facility Sites .................................................................................... 54
4.6.3 Gender in Water and Sanitation (WATSAN) Committee .......................................... 55
4.6.4 Performance of WATSAN ......................................................................................... 56
4.6.5 Community Satisfaction with Facilities Management ................................................ 57
4.6.6 Capacity Building for WATSAN Committee ............................................................. 57
4.7 Assessment of Levels of Community Participation .......................................................... 58
CHAPTER FIVE ...................................................................................................................... 60
SUMMARY OF MAJOR FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS .............. 60
5.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 60
5.2 Findings of the Study ....................................................................................................... 60
5.3 Recommendation ............................................................................................................. 63
5.4 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 64
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 65
APPENDICE ............................................................................................................................ 75
APPENDIX-1: SURVEY INSTRUMENT ............................................................................. 75
QUESTIONNAIRE............................................................................................................... 75
APPENDIX-2: STRUCTURED INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR KEY INFORMANTS
INTERVIEWS & FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS ............................................................. 80
APPENDIX- 3: PICTURES OF INTERVIEWS AND FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS ...... 82

vii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figures
Figure 1: Level of Education .

Page
.

44

Figure 2: Water sources reported in study communities

45

Figure 3: An interview with the District Water and Sanitation Officer (DWSO)
.

82

83

Figure 6: A well- protected mechanised water pumping station at Abensu .

83

Figure 4: A Focus Group Discussion at Abensu

82

Figure 5: A well- maintained mechanised borehole at Abensu

viii

LIST OF TABLES
Table

Page
.

40

Table 4.2 Years of being a resident .

40

Table 4.3 Sex of Respondents .

41

42

Table 4.5 Marital Status of Household Respondents .

42

43

Table 4.7: Constraints to Community Participation .

46

Table 4.8: Specific Constraints to Community Participation .

47

Table 4.9: Households Participation in Water Facilities Provision .

51

56

Table 4.1 Being a resident

Table 4.4 Age Structure

Table 4.6 Occupation: of Household Respondents

Table 4.10: Gender Composition in WATSAN

ix

GLOSSARY
LIST OF ACRONYMS
BHs

Boreholes

COM

Community Ownership and Management

CP

Community Participation

CWS

Community Water Supply

CWSA

Community Water and Sanitation Agency

DA

District Assembly

DWST

District Water and Sanitation Team

FGD

Focus Group Discussion

GWA

Gender and Water Alliance

GWCL

Ghana Water Company Limited

GWDA

Ga West District Assembly

HDWs

Hand Dug Wells

IRC

International Water and Sanitation Centre

MDGs

Millennium Development Goals

NGOs

Non-Governmental Organizations

O&M

Operation and Maintenance

PRA

Participatory Rural Appraisal

SPs

Small Town Pipes

SPSS

Statistical Package for Social Sciences

UNDP

United Nations Development Program

UNICEF

United Nations Children Emergency Fund

UWS

Urban Water Supply

WASH

Water, Sanitation and Hygiene

WATSAN

Water and Sanitation

WB

World Bank

WHO

World Health Organisation

WSDB

Water and Sanitation Development Boards

WSS

Water Supply and Sanitation

xi

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
This chapter provides an introduction and background information to the study. It sets out the
problem statement and the objectives. The chapter also specifies the research question,
discusses the significance, justification and limitations of the study and concludes with an
outline for the whole thesis.

1.2 Background to the study

Water is a vital resource for human survival as it is central to all types of livelihoods (Specter,
2005). Though water resources are in abundance, it is unevenly distributed on earth resulting
in water scarcity in some parts of the earth. Limited access to clean and safe water associated
with poor water supply, hygiene and sanitation at household level widens the poverty gap,
gender inequalities and the prevalence of water borne diseases (GWA, 2006). This limited
access contributes to 3.7% of the total global disease burden and 2.2 million deaths each year
with women and children in the developing countries being the most affected (WHO/UNICEF,
2008). Although the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) 7 seeks to halve by 2015 the
proportion of people without access to safe drinking water and sanitation (UNDP, 2006), it is
anticipated that Sub-Saharan Africa will only reach the MDGs water target by 2040 (Sutton,
2008). Nevertheless some 400 million of the people living in Sub Saharan Africa will be left
without access to safe water with a majority of them being women and children living in rural
households (Sutton, 2008).

In Ghana, access to safe water remains one of the critical problems confronting the country
especially rural communities. Information gathered from the Community Water and Sanitation
Authority (CWSA) of Ghana indicates that at the end of 2008, only 48 percent of Ghanas rural
population was adequately supplied with clean water (Kokutse, 2009).

An increase in water pollution and mismanagement is also aggravating the imbalance between
supply and demand (Kaliba, 2002). The efficient management of the available water resources
is critical for sustainable development. Water is a collective asset and in most instances, it
needs to be managed at the community level. Participatory development is the most important
approach towards enabling communities to help themselves and sustain efforts in development
work especially in the case of water supply.

In this regard, communities are no longer only seen as recipients of development programmes;
rather, they have become critical stakeholders that have an important role to play in the
management of programmes and projects in their areas (Daniels, 2002).

1.3 Problem Statement

Several decades of development funding (e.g. from World Bank in Africa) has revealed the
failures of top-down approaches to development (Cernea et al, 1997 cited in Maraga, 2010).
Not only does the provision of public goods remain low in developing nations, most projects
suffer from lack of sustainability. A possible reason for these failures is attributed to the lack
of local participation. Since the 1980, the new development slogan has been "participatory or

community-led development" and there has been a rush to jump on the participatory wagon
(Khwaja, 2004).

Ghana has experienced many failures relating to rural water supply projects (Fielmua, 2011).
These failures are often attributed to the traditional role delegated to the communities in that
they had always been on the receiving end and had, therefore, become onlookers of their own
development. This approach, with its long history in Ghana, makes it difficult for rural
communities to accept the concept of community participation particularly with respect to
ownership and hence responsibility for the system (Laryea, 1994, as cited in Barimah, 2011).
Considering the performance of Ghana towards the realization of the Millennium Development
Goals, especially those related to water and sanitation, a strategy that seeks to infuse general
participation of communities in the management of water and sanitation services and facilities
was introduced (CWAS, 2007).

The fundamental question, therefore, arises as to whether community participation in the water
supply projects has led to sustainability of these projects. Bunch (1995) postulates that the
major question in many development programmes and projects is not whether to increase
participation but how to achieve effective participation. It is against this background that this
study seeks to research into the effectiveness of community participation in sustainable
management of water facilities.

1.4 Objectives of the Study

1.4.1 General Objective
The key objective of the study is to assess the effectiveness of community participation in the
sustainable management of water facilities within the Abensu and Pokuase Communities in Ga
West Municipality of Ghana.

1.4.2 Specific Objectives

In order to achieve the above general objective, the study seeks to address the following
specific objectives:
1. To identify major key factors that affect community participation in the sustainable
management of water supply facilities;
2. To examine the various roles played by the community in the sustainable management
of facilities;
3. To find out the level of participation of community members in sustaining water
delivery services.

1.5 Research Questions

The research questions backing these objectives are:
1. What are the key factors affecting community participation in the management of water
supply services?
2. What are the roles played by the community in the sustainable management of
facilities?

3. What is the level of participation of community members in sustaining water delivery

services?

1.6 Significance of the Study

Community participation is crucial for undertaking projects that are geared towards improving
their welfare. Community participation and management approach which has been adopted
by the Ghanaian Government is geared towards achieving the millennium development goals.
The findings of the study would therefore help in identifying obstacles faced by the Municipal
Assemblies in bringing development to their area. The study will contribute to references and
encourage other researchers to carry out research on same or similar topics. The study might
provide the other researchers with areas of references for their works as well as new concepts
that can be used as a direction for new studies. This research will contribute to the increasing
body of knowledge about the factors leading to the success or failure of community
participation in the sustainable management of water supply facilities.

1.7 Justification of the Study

The water sector is among the social service projects which have been on top of Ghanas
political agenda and receives huge financial support from donor countries and international
financial institutions (Kasiaka, 2004).

Many studies have been conducted on community participation approach in water projects
(Tani, 2009; Williams, 2008; Mba and Keankye, 2007; Schouten, 2006; Gomez, 2002).
However, few studies have been conducted on how community management affects the

sustainability of water supply services. This study, therefore, explores the linkage between
community participation and water schemes sustainability. The involvement of key
stakeholders like the community, private sector and charity organizations are of paramount
importance in developing water projects. After several years of the adoption of community
participation approach in Ghana, it is relevant to research and find out whether community
participatory management approach leads to water project sustainability.

1.8 Scope of study

The study confined itself in Greater Accra, in which communities in the Ga West Municipality
were reasonably selected as a case study. This was because the Ga West Municipality has
adopted the community participation approach in the management of water projects compared
with other districts in the region, hence it was a potential area for getting adequate and relevant
information related to the study. Furthermore, the focus has been narrowed to Pokuase Zonal
council focusing on mechanised and non-mechanised borehole facilities. Water supply is a
broad concept. The study, therefore, looked at how sustainable a water supply project could be
if the community participates at the pre and the post project stages.

1.9 Organization of Thesis

The thesis is structured into five chapters. Chapter one (1) presents relevant background to the
study and includes the problem statement, justification of the study, the study objectives,
research questions, scope of study , limitation of study and organization of the study,
Chapter Two (2) presents a review of relevant literature to analyse community participation
and the possible factors that are likely to influence community participation in water facility

management, as applied to Ghana National Strategy for Community Participation in Water

Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH).
Chapter three (3) discusses the study area, site selection and offers an outline of the different
methodologies employed in this research. This includes the design of study: methods used in
collecting the data with a justification for each method used; method of analysis; and constraint
and problems associated with it.
Chapter Four (4) illustrates the presentation and discussion of the findings of the study.
Chapter Five (5) concludes and draws policy implications/recommendations for effective
involvement of primary stakeholders in water supply facility management.

CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
This chapter discusses the relevant literature in relation to this study. The chapter starts with
an overview of the water supply sector in Ghana. The chapter further identifies and discusses
theories that inform participation and management that will be adopted for the analyses. It
further provides the concept that guided the assessment of the effectiveness of community
participation in the management of water facility.

2.2 Theoretical Framework

A review of literature on community participation reveals that there is no universally valid
theory of participation (Singh, 2005). This section draws on the work of Meizen-Dick et al.
(2004). During the last few decades an increasing amount of literature on collective action and
natural resources has emerged. Most of these researches tried to examine the role of collective
action in the management of natural resources (Olson 1965; Wade 1990; Ostrom 1990).
Collective action is dened as the action taken by a group (either directly or on its behalf
through an organization) in pursuit of members perceived shared interests (Marshall, 1998).
According to Meizen-Dick et al (2004), collective action is about collective decision-making,
setting rules of conduct for a group and designing management rules, implementing decisions
and monitoring adherence to rules. Collective action involves costs, both in time and money.
These definitions imply that collective action requires the involvement of a group of people
with a shared interest in some kind of common action and work in pursuit of that shared
interest.

Any group that attempts to obtain a public good must have the resources to cover these costs.
It must also have mechanisms in place to extract payment from its members. Members can
contribute in various ways to achieve the shared goal: Money, labour; or in kind contributions.
The action can take place directly by members of a group, or on their behalf by a representative
or even an employee. The coordination can take place through a formal organisation, an
informal organisation, or, in some cases, through spontaneous action. The theories of collective
action suggest that individuals under certain institutional arrangements and shared norms are
capable of organising and sustaining cooperation that advances the common interest of the
group in which they belong (Ostrom, 1990).

Community participation is influenced by theories underpinning collective action such as the

rational choice theory, which accepts that people will calculate the likely costs and benefits of
any action before deciding on what to do. The anticipated outcome will influence the decision
to participate or not. There are different outcomes that are expected from alternative courses
of action and people will evaluate and choose that which is best for them (Heikkila and Gerlak,
2005; Rowley & Moldoveanu, 2003; Scott, 2000). Community Participation can also be
informed by the theory of group action. This is said to be inspired by common interest (Olson,
1971) and social identity theory (Rowley and Moldoveanu, 2003).

Water is traditionally taken as a common good and of common interest. Since water is a
collective asset, it needs to be managed at the community level. Today, collective action is a
reputable model for managing rural water supply because of an acceptance from multiple
stakeholders within rural development circles. This reinforces the notion that stakeholders have

interests, and they are likely to mobilise to protect or enhance those interests if there is a sense
of urgency attached to their interests (Rowley and Moldoveanu, 2003).

2.3 Water Supply in Ghana

In Ghana, water supply is classified based on the approach of service delivery. These are Urban
Water Supply (UWS) and Community Water Supply (CWS). Ghana Water Company Limited
(GWCL) is the public agency responsible for water supply delivery in the urban areas. The rest
of the water systems, which are rural and small towns water systems fall under CWS. The
government agency responsible for facilitating community water supply in the rural and small
towns is the Community Water and Sanitation Agency (CWSA). In the urban areas, majority
of the inhabitants relying on pipe borne water from standpipes, vendors and neighbours.
Community water supply refers to water supply to rural and small towns, which are owned and
managed by the communities. Small towns water supply in Ghana refers to water supply
delivery using piped networks to communities with population between 2,000 and 50,000
under Community Ownership and Management (COM) arrangement (Nyarko, 2007). Under
the COM, the communities elect their representatives to form the Water and Sanitation
Development Boards (WSDB) who are responsible for the management of the water system.
Rural water supply, on the other hand refers to the use of point sources, such as hand dug wells
or boreholes fitted with hand pumps.

The World Health Organization and UNICEFs Joint Monitoring programme for Water Supply
and Sanitation (2001) has estimated that about 62% of Ghanas rural population has access to
improved water services. Since 1995, the Ghanaian Community Water and Sanitation agency

10

(CWSA) has been responsible for the coordination and facilitation of activities in the sector
(Edig, et al. 2002). CWSAs national strategy promotes a demand-driven planning approach
that emphasizes participatory project design and implementation. The rural water supply
projects are expected to include consultation with communities about relevant technology and
management choices and the participation of women is valued and encouraged. Once the
projects are built, district assemblies hold the water systems in trust for the communities.

However, communities are encouraged to establish water and sanitation (WATSAN)

committees to manage the systems. Project implementation is expected to include initial
training in these committees and special training on repair and maintenance to two villagebased caretakers who are generally members of the WATSAN committee. Once boreholes
and hand pumps are installed, communities are expected to be responsible for borehole
maintenance and repairs. The WATSAN committees and caretakers have access to a welldeveloped, multi- faceted system of post-construction support. A central actor in the postconstruction support system is the District Water and Sanitation Team (DWST), consisting of
an engineer, a hygiene expert and a community mobilizer seconded to the district government.
DWST members are not supposed to do hand pump repairs themselves, rather to help the
village WATSAN committees obtain the support and training they need to run and repair the
systems, to help resolve any management and water use conflicts that arise, and to plan new
capital projects. The DWSTs visit WATSAN committees on request and assist communities
in finding spare parts if asked to do so. They also visit some communities on their own initiative
to check on conditions and organise training sessions on topics they consider to be relevant.

11

However, the financial resources available to the DWSTs to carry out these functions are
limited and vary across districts.

How much attention a village receives from a DWST is dependent on both how pro-active the
village is in requesting assistance and on the resources and priorities of the district-level team.
Another important resource for WATSAN committees is the area mechanics living in the
district. These are private individuals originally trained during the project implementation
process to do routine maintenance or repair work on boreholes at the request of communities.
Area mechanics are frequently called upon to obtain the spare parts needed by the community
and then to install these parts. Communities must pay for the services of the area mechanics
from revenues collected from village households or money obtained in some other way. The
DWSTs may help WATSAN committees link up with an area mechanic when major repairs
are needed. The work of the DWSTs is also largely demand-driven assistance (responses to
community requests), though some villages also receive unrequested support.

2.4. Effectiveness
The concept effectiveness, according to Elton (2009), means producing a decided or desired
effect after implementing something. Effectiveness, according to Svoboda (2003), measures
(a) the extent to which the major goals stated in the mission are achieved,
(b) the extent to which key stakeholders (donors and other groups with major stake) are
satisfied with results, and
(c) the extent to which the organisation is able to attract resources to continue its activities.

12

Effectiveness has often been used to assess the overall performance of service delivery by
an organisation. Effectiveness is the extent to which a system achieves its programme and
policy objective (Dollery et al, 2002). It encompasses a number of different desired aspects
of service linked to programme outcome objectives. These are: i) appropriateness matching service to clients needs; ii) accessibility aspects like affordability,
representation amongst priority groups and physical accessibility; and iii) quality the
process of meeting required standards or incidence of service failures (Dollery et al, 2002).
Narayan (1993) has considered effectiveness as the optimal, hygienic and consistent use of
water supply facilities to maximise benefits and minimize the negative consequences over
a period of time.

In recent years, a number of attempts have been made to develop tools to assess the
effectiveness of community participation. Burns and Taylor (2000) provide tools and appraisal
exercises for measuring:

a) the history and patterns of participation; b) the quality of

participation strategies adopted by partners and partnerships; c) the capacity within partner
organisations to support community participation; d) the capacity within communities to
participate effectively; and e) the impact of participation and its outcomes.

2.5 Community Participation in Water Management

According to Meyer and Theron (2000) there is no universally accepted definition of
community participation. Participation is an approach through which beneficiaries and other
stakeholders are able to influence project planning, decision-making, implementation and
monitoring phases. On the other hand, participation considered as a prerequisite for project

13

ownership, successful implementation and sustainability of the projects in question.

Participation does not mean acceptance of all ideas from diverse groups. In participation, there
is a need to combine indigenous and intellectual knowledge. However, care must be taken so
that intellectual knowledge does not influence that of the indigenous (Kasiaka, 2004).
Participation demonstrates the positive recognition of a common good by the people whose
achievement is found to be impossible with individual efforts but with the collective efforts of
all (Mejos, 2007).

Different definitions have been given to community participation. Wagner (1959) defines
community participation as an active process shared by beneficiaries that influence the
direction and execution of development projects rather than receive share of project benefits
or involvement of people in project to solve their own problem. Community Participation
means that community plays an active role in its own affairs by sharing and exercising political
and economic power. It might include any of the following: prioritization and vocalization of
community needs; selection of appropriate facilities, technologies and locations; financial
contribution to capital costs; provision of labor for construction of systems and facilities;
management of operation and maintenance; setting and collection of water tariffs; or Physical
maintenance and repair activities.

On the other hand Singh (2005), states that community participation means a process by which
individuals, families or communities assume responsibility for local problems and develop a
capacity to contribute to their own community development. Community participation is also
defined as an active process whereby beneficiaries influence the direction and execution of

14

development projects rather than merely receive a share of a projects benefits. Community
participation is frequently identified by scholars and practitioners as central to success in
delivering physical infrastructure services (e.g., World Bank, 2004).

Participation is all about enabling communities to help themselves by utilizing their own skills
and resources. Communities will be committed to their projects and feel a sense of ownership
for them. Butterworth et al (2009) argues that community participation is vital at all phases of
water projects. It is essentially crucial at the beginning during the planning and decision
making process. The introduction of water supply to a community is usually through village
leaders or elders; they then call the whole community together in a large meeting. The most
important aspect of community participation at the implementation stage is to develop the
sense of ownership to the implemented activity for long-term sustainability, to reduce costs, to
provide training and empowerment. It is also a means of exploiting the free labor of
beneficiaries (Endashaw, 2011). Peter and Bob (2004) pointed out that communities select a
water supply technology, of which they become owners, are involved in its implementation
and responsible for managing the operation and maintenance of their chosen technology (they
may or may not actually conduct maintenance themselves).

The involvement of local people from the beginning ensures that projects are more responsive
to community needs, resources and abilities. Therefore, communities will be determined to
maintain it by putting time, effort and savings into schemes (Emmanuel, 1995). At the same
time participation at all stages of project and conceiving their rationale from the perspective
and culture of poor will bring them much closer to peoples reality and reduce the risk (Brett,

15

2005). Collective action will be a function of individuals incentives to contribute to the

maintenance and abide by the rules and regulations, the capacity of the community as a whole
to cooperate and to manage the incentives, and the overall policy environment in which the
institutions must operate (McCarthy et al, 2002). Agarwal (2001) has distinguished different
forms of participation in community-based management of natural resources. It could vary
from mere membership in the beneficiary group to active involvement in terms of influence in
decision-making and interactive participation which empowered the beneficiaries.

According to Uphoff (1999), four basic ubiquitous activities of organization (decision- making,
resource mobilisation and management, communication, and conflict resolution) were
essential for mutually beneficial collective action. Without the above four activities,
community participation becomes more difficult and less likely. According to Tegegne (2009)
a motivated community is the one that needs the service more and, therefore, considers the
scheme as its own property. As a result, water supply schemes constructed by community
motivation are likely to be sustainable. Effective Operation (O) and Maintenance (M) are
essential for sustainability. Community level O and M is one of the ways through which
sustainability can be achieved. In cases of scarce government resources, the money collected
from cost recovery can be used for capacity building such as sanitation, education and village
level maintenance training which can play great role in sustaining the services.

The objectives of community participation therefore, are empowerment, beneficiary capacity

building, increasing project effectiveness, improving project efficiency and project cost
sharing. Effective community participation is all about enabling communities to help

16

themselves by utilizing their own skills and resources. It is a means of improving local
welfares, training people in local administration and expanding government control through
local self-help activities (World Bank, 2004).

2.6 Level of Community Participation

To examine the level of community participation in the water supply, it is vital to establish the
different types of participation as dened by scholars (Gomez and Nakat, 2002).
The type of participation determines the role played by all stakeholders, especially the
community members who are the beneficiaries of the project. Furthermore, the level of
participation establishes the degree of involvement of each stakeholder because social,
political, economic, educational, and other conditions differ from one community to another.
The form and degree of peoples involvement in water supply projects also vary (Whyte,
1986). Even within each of these activities the involvement and responsibilities of communities
often vary. For example, some communities contribute only labor for the running of a project,
while others contribute financially as well (Whyte, 1986). The level of involvement of
community members in development activities depends on the approach utilised by the
implementing agency, its objectives and priorities, and the traditions and expectations of the
community involved in the project. Organisations more familiar with participatory approaches
will be more likely to share with the community the control and responsibilities of the project
than those agencies without any experience on the subject (Gomez, 2002). Another important
factor is the internal structure of the implementing agency. Organisations where decisions and
responsibilities are shared between its members will be more inclined to try new ideas and

17

approaches for the design and implementation of their projects than those with a traditional,
vertical, and hierarchical structure.

In the old schemes for the provision of water and sanitation services, as in the Supply Driven
Approach, participation was merely conceived as the contribution of the community in cash or
kind to the implementation of a previously designed solution to their problems. These
contributions did not give community members the opportunity to participate in the decision
making process, nor did they create a sense of ownership on the part of the beneficiaries of the
project (Whyte, 1986). Although the new participatory approaches utilised in the sector for the
provision of services do not give communities absolute control of the process, they allow
communities to play a more active and decisive role in all the phases of development projects
including planning, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation. High levels of interactive
participation do not necessarily translate into successful and sustainable projects. On the other
hand, low levels of extractive participation do not unavoidably render disappointment and
failures. There are always exceptions to the rules. Different types and levels of participation
are appropriate in different situations and at different stages of the project. What type of
participation and at what level of participation should be pursued becomes a judgment call by
the project manager.

Nekwaya (2007) pointed out that the route to effective community participation would depend
on selecting the right combination of approaches. However, this would determine whether the
community authorities actually allow the community to participate and make its own decisions.

18

It is also important to understand the modes of participation as these overlap with the levels of
community participation and are necessary for community participation.

Community participation connotes the involvement of people in the decision-making

processes. The general argument is that community participation may contribute inputs into
the decision-making or implementation process (Reed, 2010; Rowe and Frewer, 2004;
Soneryd, 2004; Arnstein, 1969) and sharing in the cost/benefit outcomes (Blackburn et al.,
2002). Conventional wisdom is that without community participation, there is little likelihood
of sustainability being realised. This is in part a pragmatic recognition of Governments
inability to deliver services, but in part an ideological proposition which values concepts such
as empowerment, and capacity building for their own sake.
Level of community involvement is measured of eight indicators, i.e. attendance in
meetings/conferences, not only expect incentives, active community in expressing
input/advice/ suggestions, input from government, involvement in establishing the concept
plan, openness of development actors, public involvement in approving the draft plan and
organized society in decision-making (Goldhamer in Slamet, 1993).

The seven levels of community participation as highlighted by (Theron, 2005:115) are as

follows:
1. Passive participation. Passive strategies very often involve a one-way flow of
information from the planners to the public (Kumar, 2002:25). People participate by
being told what is going to happen or has already happened. Participation relates to a

19

unilateral top-down approach by the authorities. The information being shared belongs
to outsiders or professionals.
2. Participation in information giving. This level does not constitute community
participation because they merely require the community to judge a finished or almost
finished product. People participate by answering questions posed in questionnaires or
telephone interviews or similar public participation strategies. The public do not have
the opportunity to influence proceedings as the findings of the research are neither
shared nor evaluated for accuracy.
3. Participation by consultation. People participate by being consulted as
consultants/professionals/planners and external officials listen to their views. The
professionals define both problems and solutions and may modify these in the light of
the peoples responses. The process does not include any share in decision-making by
the public, nor are the professionals under any obligation to take on board peoples
views.
4. Participation for material incentives. People participate by providing resources, for
example labour, in return for material rewards. This helps to reduce overall costs, and
participants in return receive a resource (Nampila, 2005:39).
5. Functional participation. People participate in a group context to meet predetermined
objectives related to the project, which may involve the development or promotion of
externally initiated social organisations. Such involvement does not tend to occur at the
early stages of project cycles or planning, but rather after major decisions have been
made. These institutions tend to be dependent on external initiators and facilitators, but
may also become self-dependent.

20

6. Interaction strategies. People participate in a joint analysis, the development of action

plans and capacity building. Participation is seen as right, not just the means to achieve
project goals.
7. Self-mobilisation strategies: People participate by taking initiatives independent of
external institutions to change systems. This bottom-up approach allows people to
develop contacts with external institutions for resources and the technical advice they
need, but they themselves retain control over how resources are used. Such selfinitiated, bottom-up and self-reliant mobilisation and collective actions may or may not
challenge an existing inequitable distribution of wealth and power.

2.7 Factors that affect Community Participation

A variety of views have emerged in assessment of the factors affecting community
participation in water facilities. Scholars such as Dorsener (2004), Pretty (1995) and Dudley
(1993) agree that a variety of social, political, cultural, behavioural, economic factors affect
communities from participating in development projects. Dorsener (2004) claims that behind
the word participation lays a wide range of processes and mechanisms, all of which are contextspecific and have a different impact on the overall performance of participation. Undoubtedly,
there are so many factors that may be seen as a hindrance to community participation.

Narayan (1995) analyzed lessons from 121 rural water-supply projects funded by different
agencies in 49 developing countries. This study identified the participation of local
communities as an important factor for project effectiveness and community empowerment.
As main problems, the study identified the reluctance of central governments to give up control

21

and invest in the capacity of local organisations. It also noted the lack of womens involvement.
In summary, the literature suggests that the following factors affect the success of communitybased approaches to drinking water supply:
(1) Involvement of the communities in design, construction, evaluation, operation, and
maintenance of the water projects;
(2) Household contributions to water projects in the form of cash and labor;
(3) Social capital and local leadership; and
(4) Provisions to ensure womens participation.

Analysing the performance of water systems in six countries (Benin, Bolivia, Honduras,
Indonesia, Pakistan, and Uganda), Katz and Sara (1997) found that the community-based
approach significantly increased sustainability. The authors established a strong linkage
between participation of the household members and sustainability of the projects. The most
important factors contributing to success can be summarized as information accessible to the
households, capacity building at all levels, training in operations and maintenance, control over
funds and good quality construction. The study also observed that the approach did not work
consistently well among all the communities. In some cases, the projects were supply driven
(for example, not offering communities different options). In other cases, community
representatives failed to consider the demands of disadvantaged groups. Most of the studies
on community driven water supply projects have analysed the relation between participation
and project outcomes in terms of effectiveness and sustainability. Most of these studies have
concluded that participation improves project outcome (Narayan 1995; Sara and Katz 1998;
Isham and Kahkonen, 2002; Prokopy 2005). Narayan (1995) has pointed out that the extent of

22

beneficiary participation was determined by the characteristics of both the beneficiaries and
the agencies. Two beneficiary characteristics she identified were demand and the degree to
which beneficiaries were organised to their role. But, she had not tested empirically the factors
affecting participation.

2.8 Community Management of Water Supply Systems

Community Management refers to the capacity of a community to control or at least strongly
influence the basic decisions over construction and management of its water supply system
(Mc Common and Yohalem 1990).

WHO (1996) defined community management as a

situation where beneficiaries of water supply services have responsibility, authority and control
over the development of their services. In other words the community is able to control, or to
at least strongly influence, the development of its water and sanitation system (McCommon et
al, 1990). McGarry (1991) noted that, since the community will also have the authority and
responsibility for operation and maintenance, this will be more effective and efficient, leading
in turn to improved sustainability. It is where people are organized together to bring about an
improvement in their lives, that could not have been attained by individuals. The community
members have responsibility, authority and control over the development of the services.

Community Management (CM) has become a major subject in the design of rural water supply
and sanitation projects throughout the developing world. For rural water supply, the prominent
model is community management service model (WEDC, 2003). Community management has
achieved widespread acceptance and majority of rural water supply and sanitation projects all
over Sub-Saharan Africa are currently applying it (IRC, 2003). Community management

23

evolved as an NGO- or donor-driven model for time-bound pilot projects. This model may
play under the leadership of government with community institutions to scale up the rural water
supply delivery with the support from local and national government structures (Schouten &
Moriarty, 2004). Community management as a demand driven community-led approach
incorporates participatory method and decentralization strategy to successfully deliver rural
water supply services better than supply driven government-led models (Lockwood, 2004). It
is argued that CM can improve efficiency, meet the target of the project within planned budget
and enhance sustainability of rural water management (Mazango & Munjeri, 2009). The basic
assumptions of community management allow beneficiary community to own, develop,
operate and maintain their facilities or systems (Harvey & Reed, 2007). Additionally, it plays
important roles during the planning and implementation phases (WEDC, 2003).

The core values of community management are to empower and equip communities to take
control of their own development (Doe & Khan, 2004). However, community management
encounters a lot of challenges. First, it cannot work successfully due to absence of right
configuration of markets, government institutions and tradition (Kleemeier, 2000; Kleemeier,
2010). Second, the problem with the volunteer based community management of water supply
is that community-level committee and care-taker lose their interests or trained individual
moved away, community never felt ownership of the new infrastructure (Carter et al., 1999).
Third, sustainable rural water supply projects in developing countries face several threats. For
instance, dependency on community spirit becomes weaker with the modernizing influences
such as increased mobility through infrastructure development, more off land employment
access, industrialization, rural urban drift, increased wealth, materialism and individualism

24

which erode the traditional structures and values. Moreover, bureaucracies of government
structures in developing countries are not suitable for community management approach
(Carter et al., 1999). Fourth, this management model is also fraught with types of constraintsinternal and external. Internal constraints include poverty, strong traditions, misplaced
priorities and unfavorable settlement patterns within the rural milieu. External constraints
noted are beyond the control of rural communities and they include time constraints and
sectorial development plans by External Support Agencies (Laryea, 1994). Fifth, community
management is identified as a tool for water and sanitation projects for short to medium term
success (Carter et al., 1999). Doe and Khan (2004) recommended community management for
smaller rural communities in which community will be involved actively. Community
management model, albeit runs smoothly at the initial stage, problems begin within 1-3 years
after the commissioning of systems leading to the breakdown of management system (Harvey
& Reed, 2007). Moreover, Harvey and Reed (2007), identified the causes for breaking of
management system which are dependency on voluntary input, lack of incentives for
community members, absence of appropriate replacement policy for committee members, lack
of transparency, accountability and lack of regulations, lack of legal status and authority of the
water committee, absence of liaison with local government institutions, and inability to replace
the major capital items. Most of the community managed water supply schemes run with acute
financial shortage as this management cannot collect tariff from the beneficiary efficiently
(Whittington et al., 2009). Sixth, in addition to all of these problems, Kleemeier and Narkevic
(2010) have described elaborately the problems of community management approach.
Significant problems are given below:

25

1) Impossible to predict funding from one year to the next. As a result it is very difficult
to make even short term sector planning;
2) Poorer, dispersed, and less organized communities cannot address in most of the cases;
3) Dramatic drop of management capacity of local water committee over the time as the
people lost their interest, even though, initially committee members are trained
extensively; no option to skill upgrading, or move away;
4) Spotty cost recovery for operation and maintenance; if too much raised attract
unscrupulous for occupying surplus; otherwise too little is collected which cannot meet
the expenses of repair while needed;
5) For technologically complex system or large number of users, customer operation
becomes challenging;
6) Recuperation of investment cost identically stopped fully once an upfront payment has
been made;
7) Availability of spare parts, trained manpower and tools are scarce for major repair
resulting in the infrastructure sitting idle for a long period of time.

It is mentioned that in developed countries community management model could not manage
rural water supply successfully, so it is not justified to expect breakthrough of community
management in low income countries (Harvey & Reed, 2007). However, Opare (2011)
observed that developing countries adopt community management initiatives as it removes
internal differences, increases technical knowledge and management experiences. Opare
(2011) reveals that community management system works successfully, if local capacity is
adequately strengthened with external support prior to assumption of full community control

26

of water supply systems, and if assumption of responsibilities is pursued gradually. In addition,

capacity building, construction supervision and providing support to the community owned
management during the first year of implementation are recommended for maintaining long
term functionality of water points (Jimnez & Prez-Foguet, 2011). Harvey, Uno, and Reed
(2006) have acknowledged low levels of service sustainability in the rural water supply sector
as the effect of community management. Community management dominated the scene of
rural water supplies in developing countries for a long time. However, it has failed to produce
the desired results in terms of sustainability and functionality, and it is time to question the
very nature of the management model instead of blaming practitioners and governments for
poor implementation (Koestler & Shaw, 2009). WELL (1998) suggests that for sustainable
WSS programme design, four success criteria need to be considered. These are effectiveness,
equity, efficiency and replicability. Therefore, to achieve sustainable scheme management
structure, social, economic, technical, institutional and environmental factors of rural water
supply need to be considered in scheme management for long term sustainability of services.
Scholars have debated the controversial issues surrounding the ways that community and
participation have been conceptualised, mobilised and deconstructed in natural resources
management and development literatures (Leach et al. 1997; Guijt and Shah 1998; Agarwal
2001; Agrawal and Gibson 2001; Cooke and Kothari 2001; Hickey and Mohan 2004; Williams
2004). Despite critiques of exclusions, captures and marginalisation, the considerable staying
power of notions of community and participation in development policies has resulted in a
proliferation of community-based and participatory projects throughout the global South. In
the water sector, creating water user committees as part of community-based water resources
management plans are common, whereby the committee is responsible for representing

27

communities in managing water structures and decision making at the local scale (Ahluwalia
1997; Mehta 1997; Bardhan 2001; Meinzen-Dick and Zwarteveen 2001). Committee members
often are assumed to have common interests and goals, overlooking social difference and
heterogeneity of communities as well as environments (Leach et al. 1997). While development
project planners may acknowledge the problems that exist, project implementations often treat
communities as territorially dened intact wholes within the remit of the projects. Ahluwalia
(1997) argues that different water users often have different interests and that inter-group
conicts tend to be suppressed, such that in name of social cohesion the interests of the less
powerful are forgone and existing inequalities are reinforced. Similarly, Mehta (1997) argues
that viewing community historically, as well as out of its social and political context, can
reinforce existing asymmetrical social relations. Thus, notions of community being inherently
egalitarian are problematic (see also Zimmerer 2000; McCay 2001; Staeheli 2003). Mosse
(2003) argues that the social and power relations that play out in water management can
challenge notions of democracy and equity that are increasingly embodied in national water
development policies uncritically espousing community and participation. Thus, while notions
of community in water management may be externally dened by implementing organisations
(e.g. local or extra-local NGOs, donors, states), they are implemented through local power
relations, where different people with various strengths and weaknesses based on their
structural position in village society will negotiate their positions within such projects vis-vis the costs and benets in the context of their overall lives and livelihoods. As a result, it is
important to look at the ways that community institutions operate in creating boundaries,
exclusions, inclusions and regulations. The second popular discourse, related to that of
community, is participation. Community members are expected to participate in projects in

28

order to enhance equity and efciency, as well as to feel greater ownership towards projects,
which is also expected to lead to better water resources management and greater ecological
sustainability. Multinational lenders such as the World Bank and USAID saw community
management as a general transition from supply to demand-driven approaches, which also fits
within broader trends towards decentralization of government services and transfer of
responsibilities to lower levels of government and ultimately to communities themselves
(Nicol, 2000).

29

CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
This chapter describes the research methods and materials used to collect relevant data. It
covers the location and description of the study area as well as research design, the procedure
for data collection, analysis and presentation of the data.

3.2 Study Area

The area under study is located in the Ga West Municipality. It lies within latitude 548 North,
539 North and longitude 012 west and 022 West. It shares common boundaries with Ga
East and Accra Metropolitan Assembly to the East, Akuapem South to the North and Ga South
to the South and West. It is currently one of the sixteen (16) districts in the Greater Accra
Region with its capital being Amasaman. Ofankor, Medie, Adjen Kotoku and Pokuase are
some of the major towns found in the municipality. It occupies a land area of approximately
305.4 square kilometres with about 193 communities zoned into six zonal councils (Pokuase,
Mayera, Ofankor, Ayikai Doblo, Kotoku and Amasaman) for effective administration. The
councils serve as rallying points for community mobilisation for participation in various
strategic decisions for spatial development management. The councils have delegated power
through the Municipal Assembly. The population of the municipality according to the 2010
National Population and Housing Census is 262,742 with growth a rate of 3.4% (Ghana
Statistical Service, 2012). The municipality is rapidly urbanising as a result of its closeness to
the capital city Accra where there is a lot of inflow of migrant workers. The population is
mainly concentrated along the Peri-Urban areas of the municipality particularly on the border

30

with the Accra Metropolitan Assembly and Ga East District Assembly. The 2000 population
and housing census figure also showed a density which was much higher than the national
density though lower than that of Greater Accra Region (with 895.5 persons per sq. km). This
implies great pressure on resources including water (Ga West District Assembly, 2006).
The Pokuase Area Council which falls within this area was chosen for the study because there
is little research and information about the state and management of water facilities through
local community involvement, making the area more suitable for study.
Drainage
The major rivers that flow through the municipality are the Densu, and Nsakyi rivers. Densu,
which is the largest of them drains down from the Eastern Region through the western portions
of the district to Ga South Municipality where it enters the sea. It is also the major supply of
water to most of the people in the municipality and its neighbouring communities and serves
as a natural boundary between Ga West and Ga South Municipalities (Ga West District
Assembly, 2006).
Vegetation and Climate
The municipality lies within the coastal savannah agro-ecological zone and has a bi-modal
rainfall pattern with an annual mean ranging from 790mm on the coast to 1270mm to the
extreme north. The annual temperature ranges from 25C in August to 28C in February and
March, a condition that allows for farming activities and some rearing of animals (Ga West
District Assembly, 2006). The bi-modal rainfall pattern enables some households in the
municipality to depend on rainwater as their main source of water for the home. This reduces
cost and time in accessing water for household use.

31

3.3 Research Design

Designing a study helps the researcher to plan and implement the study in a way that will help
the researcher to obtain intended results, thus increasing the chances of obtaining information
that could be associated with the real situation (Burns & Grove 2001). As this study deals with
peoples perceptions and their participation in water project cycle and management, it is mainly
qualitative in nature. Mugenda (2003) define research design as an attempt to collect
information from members of a population in order to determine the current status of the
population with respect to one or more variables.

Qualitative approaches attempt to define the phenomena from the participants perspectives
(Babbie, 2001). The research was conducted within the case study framework. This was used
since the study was mainly qualitative in nature. As Travers (2002) pointed out, there are five
main methods employed by qualitative researchers: observation, interviewing, ethnographic
fieldworks, discourse analysis and textual analysis, a case study can deal with most of these
methods (Yin 1984). This research, though, has adopted four qualitative methods, namely:
interviewing, discourse analysis, observation and textual analysis to explore all research
questions. The ethnographic fieldwork which requires a long time to complete has been
discarded because of time constraints. Cho and Trent assert that qualitative research can be
more credible as long as certain techniques, methods, and/or strategies are employed during
the conduct of the inquiry (2006). Case study is a systematic way of collecting information
about a particular person, social setting, a community or a group and to understand how it
operates. It involves data collection techniques like the interview, observation, and documents.
Case study can be exploratory or descriptive. Descriptive design was chosen because of its

32

suitability and applicability to the study area. According to Burns and Grove (2001),
descriptive research is designated to provide a picture of a situation as it naturally happens,
justify current practice and make judgment and also develop theories. In this study the
researcher has given a picture of influence of community participation on management of water
supply projects in the Ga West Municipality. Descriptive research was used to describe
characteristics of a population or phenomenon being studied. It does not answer questions
about how/when/why the characteristics occurred. Rather it addresses the "what" question
(What are the characteristics of the population or situation being studied?). The characteristics
used to describe the situation or population is usually some kind of categorical scheme also
known as descriptive categories. For example, the table categorizes the elements. Descriptive
research design enabled the study to determine the life status of respondents. Moreover,
descriptive statistics was used in the study, as it both saves time and resources. The descriptive
design is employed to facilitate the systematic collection and presentation of data that give a
clear picture of the current situation and the causes of the poor management of the maintenance
of rural water supply facilities in the District.

There is a quantitative component to

complement the advantages and disadvantages of the difference between qualitative and
quantitative methods. The quantitative method involves the use of structured and unstructured
questionnaires while the qualitative include the use of focus group discussions with the
sampled subjects selected for this research. This research method permits innovations in
research design, compensates for the weaknesses in individual instrumentation and thus
guarantees the strengths, validity and reliability of findings (Creswell, 2003). Above all, it
allows for flexibility in the study of a complex or an evolving phenomenon with human and
organisational interplay.

33

3.4 Population of the Study

Population is a group of individuals, objects or items from which samples were taken for
measurement (Kombo, 2006; Mugo, 2000). Best et al (1998) reiterates that population is a
group who have one or more characteristics in common. The total population for Pokuase
Zonal council is 10,858 (Ghana Statistical Service, 2010). The population for the study therefor
includes all households in Pokuase and Abensu communities. The target population comprised
the of all WATSAN Committee members, Community opinion leaders, officials of the
Community Water and Sanitation Agency (CWSA) and District Water and Sanitation Team
(DWST).

3.5 Sampling Method

The process of selecting a portion of the population to represent the entire population is known
as sampling (Webster, 1985; LoBiondo-Wood & Haber 1998; Polit 1999). Purposive sampling
approach was adopted to select the Pokuase and Abensu communities due to the high number
of water facilities available to compare to the other communities in Pokuase Zonal Council.
The target number of respondents from the communities of Pokuase and Abensu administered
with questionnaires was sixty (60) and ten (12) local leaders, while focus group discussion
comprised seven (7) WATSAN members in Abensu and three (3) member in Pokuase. A total
number of two (2) DWST officials were interviewed. This brings to the overall number of 84
respondents. The sample size was arrived looking at the time frame in which to conduct a field
research and also the number was good enough to generalise the findings in that area.

34

A random sampling technique was used to select respondents in each community. In addition,
focus group discussion (FGD) was conducted among the WATSAN committee members in
order to complement any weakness that might arise from the questionnaire survey.
Terreblanche and Durrheim (2002) note that focus group discussion is typically a group of
people who share a similar type of experience, they continue to emphasize that the group is not
naturally constituted as an existing social group. Morolong and Lemphane (2000) echo the
contention by saying focus group discussion is a method, which a small group of people is
brought together to discuss a topic. In this regard the participants are guided by a set of detailed
questions.
Out of this, a sample size of hundred (100) household respondents was selected. The final
number of the respondents consisted of 72 people. There was a 28 percent decrease from the
initially proposed number of 100 people.

3.6 Data Collection

3.6.1 Secondary data
The secondary data collection procedure includes a review of relevant documents on the study
area and other related research. The research was carried out using secondary data from
journals, articles, documents from the municipal office and Ghana water policy documents.
Again, the District Assembly Data on water and sanitation, Water Liaison Officer and the
District Water Sanitation Team provided information. Furthermore, Water and Sanitation
Committee (WATSAN) and Water and Sanitation Development Boards (WSDB) supplied
relevant data.

35

The secondary data were used to increase the reliability and validity of data collected (Baddie,
2002; Kumar, 2002 cited in Phiri, 2009). The review provided valuable insight into the study
area and issues surrounding the research core objectives, relevant literature, the methodological
approach for general survey and discussion of research findings.

3.4.2 Primary Data

The primary data sources were generated from the questionnaire and interviews with the key
stakeholders. The interviews lasted on the average 45 minutes but the in-depth discussions
with the DWST members lasted for an hour. A focus group discussion was also used to gather
some primary data from stakeholders who were purposively selected due to their role in the
planning process. An observation was also employed to further ensure reliability. A sample of
the questionnaire, semi-structured interview and the interview guide are attached as
appendices. Some pictures of the interviews and focus group discussions are also attached as
appendix.

3.7 Data Analysis

Questionnaire administered were analysed using the Statistical Product and Social scientist
(SPSS 16.0 for windows). While qualitative data gathered through focus group discussion and
key informant interview were described qualitatively.
categorised and discussed.

36

Data collected were transcribed,

3.8 Ethnical Consideration

The study has taken into account ethical implications that may arise from a study of this nature,
including consent, confidentiality and anonymity and burden to participants. De Vos (2005)
defines ethics as a set of moral principles which is suggested by and individual or group, is
subsequently widely accepted, and which offers rules and behavioural expectations about the
most correct towards experimental subjects and respondents, employers, assistants and
students. In Neuman (2006) prints out that ethics in research is a set of principles that reveal
what is or is not legitimate to do in research practice.
Ethical issues simply explain the codes of practice and acceptable moral behaviour one needs
to consider when undertaking research (May, 2001; Hopf, 2004). Researchers inevitably
encounter ethical problems (Hopf, 2004) because research activities usually involve different
stakeholders, with different backgrounds, aspirations and ideologies.

The participants

involved in the research were made aware of the benefits of the research, especially of the
individual benefits which might be derived either directly or indirectly. Their role in the
research was also explained and they were made aware of what was expected of them if agreed
to participate (Silverman, 2000; Laws et al, 2002; Hopf, 2004).
The consent of all participants was sought and enough time was given to them to decide if were
willing to participate in the study. Additionally, enough time was given to respondents to
enable them to comprehend the objectives of the research which enabled them to make
informed decisions about whether they wanted to participate (Silverman, 2000: Laws et al,
2002: Hopf, 2004).
Research participants have their own priorities, which may or may not be similar to that of the
research. Efforts were made to avoid any intrusion into the participants private lives. This was

37

done for example, by avoiding questions that could intrude into the participants private lives,
and which might not have any bearings on the research anyway. Anything that could cause
harm to the participants, for example causing them to be stressed, depressed or anxious
(Kumar, 1996: Robson, 1999) as a result of their participation in the data collection was
avoided. Anything that it was considered could damage rapport between the researcher and the
participants, either in a form of bad language or ill treatment, and which could endanger trust
also reduce participant willingness to continue, was avoided (Hopf, 2004). Efforts were also
made to avoid triggering displeasure during the data collection that could make the participants
not welcome the researcher back, if it became necessary for further data to be gathered (Laws
et al, 2002).

3.9 Limitation of Study

The research is limited in scope because the collection of primary data from the local
government institution as well as the community representatives was not an easy task. This
was further constrained by the limited time for data collection. Also at the time of data
collection some district officials who had participated in the process have been transferred.
The above mentioned limitations culminated in my not being able to administer adequate
survey questionnaires, because most of the key stakeholders who have participated in the
planning process were no more in the municipality. Furthermore, the local government
authority does not involve NGOs in the community development program, so none could be
interviewed. This limitation however did not significantly affect the research because the main
respondents for the interviews were available during, that is the in-depth discussions.

38

CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Introduction
In this chapter, the major results of the study are presented and discussed. Statistical methods
such as percentages, frequencies and cross tabulations were used to analyze the socioeconomic status of the community; factors affecting community participation in water facility
management; roles played by the community in the sustainable management of facilities; the
level of participation of community members in sustaining water delivery services and the
variations that exist among the selected community water projects. Tables and graphs were
used to present results.

4.2. Socio-Demographic and other Characteristics of the Community

The study sought to establish information on various aspects of respondents background such
as the length of time of being a resident, level of education, income generating activities, and
age and sex composition. This information aimed at testing the appropriateness of the
respondent in answering the questions regarding how community participation can influence
the sustainable management of water facilities in the Pokuase and Abensu communities.

4.2.1 Being a Resident

The study sought to find out whether the household respondents were residents of the area

39

Table 4.1 Being a Resident

Resident Status
Yes
No
Total
Source: Authors Field Work, 2014

Frequency
72
0
72

Percentage
100
0
100

From the Table 4.1, all of the respondents (100%) were residents of the study area and,
therefore, they would give valid and reliable information about water facility.

4.2.2 Years of being a Resident

The study sought to find out for how long the household respondents had lived in the selected
communities.
Table 4.2 Years of being a Resident

No. Years of being a resident

10 years and below
11-20 years
21-30 years
31years and above
Total
Source: Authors Field Work, 2014

Frequency

Percentage

6
21
18
27
72

8.3
29.2
25
37.5
100

From the findings in Table 4.2, most of the household respondents (37.5%) had lived in the
selected communities for a period between 31 years and above, 29.2% for 21 to 31 years while
29.2% had lived for 11 to 20 years. The results suggests that, the household respondents had
lived in the communities long enough to give credible information.

40

4.2.3 Sex and Age of the Respondents

Out of the 72 people surveyed 38 (52.8%) were males and 34 (47.2%) were females as shown
in table 4.3 below. This skewedness implies that more males got selected in the study than
females. The study shows that, in terms of household, the males are more than females. This
is due to the fact that, the males are the household heads who take decisions pertaining to
community issues such as water and sanitation (Koomson, 2008). These results confirm the
Ga West District Assemblys report that the area is male dominated (Assembly Annual Report,
2013/2014).

Table 4.3 Sex of Respondents

Sex

Frequency

Percent

Female

34

47.2

Male

38

52.8

72

100

Total
Source: Authors Field Work, 2014

As indicated in Table 4.4, 36.1% of community members were between the ages of 18 and 35
years; 44.5% between the ages of 36 and 55 years; and 19.4% were above 56 years. The fact
that more respondents fell between the age range of 18 and 55 simply explains the full
involvement of the active age group in this study on community participation. Regardless of
age disparity, all respondents showed a positive attitude during the focus group discussion.
This implies that the selection of the respondents was gender sensitive. Effort to balance gender
in the study was important because of the role women play in community development and in
particular households.

41

Table 4.4 Age Structure of Respondents

Age of Respondents (Years)
Frequency
18-35
26
36-55
32
56 and above
14
Total
72
Source: Authors Field Work, 2014

Percent ( %)
36.1
44.5
19.4
100

4.2.4 Marital Status of Household Respondents

From Table 4.5, 61 respondents who were married constituted 84.7%. 10 (13.9%) respondents
were single and 1.4% was widowed. This statistical trend suggests that the household
respondents were dominated by married people. It is believed within the study population that
those who are married are usually more respons ible in many aspects of life than those who are
not. The implication of this is that there is high level of dependants among the married people
which results in high demand for water and sanitation facilities. Consequently, this category
of people would suffer more for inadequate provisions and breakdown of these facilities.
(Issah-Bello, 2011)

Table 4.5 Marital Status of Household Respondents

Marital Status
Single
Married
Widowed
Total
Source: Authors Field Work, 2014

Frequency
10
61
1
72

42

Percent (%)
13.9
84.7
1.4
100

4.2.5 Occupation of Household Respondents

It is important to consider the occupation of the respondents in order to establish whether they
earn enough income throughout the year to pay for water services. Three different occupations
were identified. The first two largest cohorts included those in farming, 30 (41.7%), and public
service, 28 (38.9%). The others who are traders were 14 (19.4%). The trend in the occupation
survey shows that the majority of the respondents worked in the informal sector where they do
not receive regular income. This has an implication on their ability to pay for water services.
Additionally, their meagre income from their occupation could only help them raise income
for daily household needs.

Table 4.6 Occupation

Occupation
Frequency
Farmer
30
petty trader
14
public servant
28
Total
72
Source: Authors Field Work, 2014

Percent %
41.7
19.4
38.9
100

4.2.6 Level of Education

The study sought to find the level of education of the respondents as this attribute could
contribute greatly to their level of understanding and contributions to discussions on issues
affecting the community.

43

Figure 1: Level of Education

Level of Education
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

54.2
Percentage

26.4
16.6
Never

2.8
Primary

Secondary
level

Tertiary level

Source: Authors Field Work, 2014

From Figure 1, majority of the household respondents (54.2%) had primary education, 26.4%
had secondary, and 16.6% had never attended school, while 2.8% had tertiary education. The
level of education as observed in Figure 1 suggests that the majority of the household
respondents had attained basic education and thus would provide valid and consistent
information about the project.

4.3 Sources of Community Water Supply

According to the Ga West Assembly Annual Report (2013/2014), hand dug wells and
boreholes constitute the water sources. The total number of functioning water points in the
District is 140, out of which 104 are boreholes and 22 are hand dug wells. Statistics from the
District Planning and Coordinating Unit shows that the Abensu and Pokuase communities have
one (1) and six (6) boreholes respectively. On the whole these boreholes were characterized
by frequent break downs. However, information gathered from the Abensu community showed

44

that repair works were carried out more frequently. However, in the Pokuase community only
two out of the six boreholes were functioning.

Figure 2: Water sources reported in study communities

Source of Water
% of water users

120
100
80
60
40
20
0
borehole
handrill well

abensu

Pokuase

100

86.4

13.6

Source: Analysis of data.

Figure 2 represents responses from the two study communities on their sources of water. The
analysis from the household interviews and FGD held within the two communities showed that
the main source of water is borehole (Figure 2). 13.6% of the household respondents in
Pokuase said they depended on hand- dug well. The communities revealed that, some of these
water sources were very far away from their households and some of them had broken down.
From Figure 2, it could be deduced that the Abensu community was highly dependent on
borehole water as compared with Pokuase community which operates a mixture of borehole
(84.4%) and hand-dug well (13.6%).As borehole water is the main source of safe water, it
implies that irrespective of the status of respondents: gender, age, marital status and

45

occupational attainment, every inhabitant needed it for their day to-day domestic usage and
other purposes.

4.4 Factors that affect Community Participation in the Sustainable Management of

Water Facilities
The sustainability of water facilities largely depend on the level of participation of water users.
Studies show that there is a direct relationship between participation and sustainability. The
higher the level of participation the more sustainable a project will be. In this light, the study
sought to find the factors that influence community participation in the Pokuase and Abensu
communities.
In order to understand the factors that determine community participation, information
affecting water facility users was gathered through interviews with the Water and Sanitation
(WATSAN) committees and household representatives as recommended by Komalawati,
2008. Table 4.7 illustrates the perception of community members on constraints.

Table 4.7: Constraints to Community Participation

Constraints
Yes
No
Source: Authors Field Data, 2014

Abensu
Frequency
%
23
82.1
5
17.9

Pokuase
Frequency
%
36
81.8
8
18.2

Table 4.7 indicates that community participation in water projects comes with many problems
as 82.1% of respondents in Abensu and 81.8% respondents also in Pokuase testify to problem
specific as listed in table 4.8.
46

Table 4.8: Specific Constraints to Community Participation

Constraints
Illiteracy
Lack of general information on water project
Age (limiting active participation)
Time (limiting active participation)
Lack of support from the government/NGO
Lack of incentives for WATSAN
committees
Total*
Multiple responses*

Abensu
Frequency
%
13
19.7
5
7.6
10
15.2
22
33.3
4
6.1
12
18.1

Pokuase
Frequency
30
31
20
35
42
39

%
15.2
15.7
10.2
17.8
21.3
19.8

66
100
197
100
Source: Authors Field Data, 2014

4.4.1 Lack of support from the Government and NGO

As presented in Table 4.8, a larger part of the respondents (21.3%) in the Pokuase community
expressed their heartfelt opinion that there was little or no encouragement from the local
government which was represented by the District Assembly to sustain the smooth running of
their water facility. Indeed, in line with good governance, some support from the local
government is an important influence on peoples participation. Some District officers
interviewed mentioned that support from the local government was important to increase
participation and project sustainability of water facilities in the target areas and this was
supported by the participants interviewed. According to them, local people still consider
support from the local government important for the implementation of the project activities.
A District officer said that we visit the facility sites when they receive funding from the
government. According to Gow & Vansant (1983), an unsupportive government may prevent
projects from effective local participation.
On the contrary at Abensu, only 6.1% of the respondents laid the blame on the NGO for lack
of support. A WATSAN member at Abensu said more people get involved when the NGO
47

supported our activities. Most NGOs provide us with the water services and attend our
meetings.

4.4.2 Lack of incentives for WATSAN Committee Members

From table 4.8, 39 (19.8%) respondents from Pokuase and 12 (18.1%) respondents from
Abensu said lack of incentives for WATSAN committees was a problem. For instance, the
DWST members in Pokuase noted that members of the community tended to have less
motivation to participate as members of WATSAN when they realized that projects did not
give money. Again, in Pokuase, once WATSAN members realized the incentive was training
and increasing knowledge and skills, most people were reluctant to join the group. In Abensu,
some of the respondents said WATSAN was ineffective due to a number of reasons such as
lack of interest or weak community participation in the selection of committee members, lack
of transparency in the operation of WATSAN and the failure of the committees to account to
their community members. This challenge affects the willingness to pay for sustainable service
delivery. Indeed, in order to make WATSAN committees accountable to projects that they
oversee, there is the need to incentivise members with some allowances.

4.4.3 Time Constraints

Table 4.8 indicates that 35(17.8%) respondents in Pokuase and 22(33.3%) respondents in
Abensu stated that they did not have enough time to participate in community water projects
as they see participation as time consuming and worthless. This observation agrees with that
of Kumar (2000) who noted that community participation was time consuming and slows the
progress in the initial stages of the field work thereby delaying the achievement of physical

48

and financial targets. On the other hand, Burkey (1992) indicated that participation of the rural
poor in their own development has been measured as a key factor in the success of projects.

4.4.4 Illiteracy
Some (15.2%) of the respondents in Pokuase and 19.7% in Abensu attributed their low level
of education to one of the factors affecting their participation in community projects. The high
level of illiteracy indicated by respondents agrees with Kakumba and Nsingo (2008) who
observed that lack of sustainability in development projects occurred as a result of low level
of education and poor management abilities. Some participants interviewed admitted that the
lack of technical knowledge and low level of their education made it difficult for them to
participate in the project, specifically in decision-making processes. According to a DWST
member, participants with a low level of education, usually just basic education, or those
who do not have any education, often had difficulties in expressing or giving their opinions
and suggestions because they were afraid to make mistakes. Again, they felt that they did not
really know how to relate to the project. Illiteracy beyond being able to read and write was a
real problem in the two communities as it was seen as a stigma which led to inferiority
complex. People exhibiting this character were just afraid to take part or be fully involved in
decision making, for fear of not making worthwhile contributions (Molefe, 1996; Roak et al,
1989; Bjaas et al 1991).

4.4.5 Lack of General Information

As reflected in table 4.8 that 31 and 5 respondents from Pokuase and Abensu respectively
pointed out that lack of general information about projects in their communities is the main

49

challenge that prevents their involvement in community water management. Dukeshire and
Thurlow (2002) support the assertion that rural citizen feel that there is a lack of access to
information about governments programmes and developments in their own communities and
that inefficient means of sharing information leads to low level of community participation on
government projects.

4.4.6 Age
Age was also identified as a factor that inhibits some participants active involvement in the
water projects. 20 (10.2%) respondents from Abensu and 10 (15.2%) from Pokuase said age
inhibits their participation. The participants interviewed said that it was difficult to involve
participants with younger ages in decision-making process because they tended to be silent but
listen and avoid speaking or expressing their opinions. However, the people preferred to give
support and offer opportunities to the young members in the communities to play a more active
role, for example as the leader or book-keeper. Obviously, they felt that they did not have much
ability to play that role again. This difficulty could raise conflict between members if passive
participation of older age groups prevents the participation of younger age group. An officer
of the DWST (Figure 3) told me that it took time to encourage older age participants to
participate actively in decision-making processes (Personal communication, September.2014).
In order to encourage older age to actively participate, she approached them carefully, asked
them questions about their daily activities, or made a joke just to make them comfortable and
have them trust her. Thereafter she was able to involve them in discussions and also make them
answer questions. In spite of this degree of involvement, it was still difficult to ask them to be
active in leadership, management and administration activities. This observation agrees with

50

McGregor et al. (1992) who argue that age influences participation in local community
activities. According to these researchers, participation is the greatest among groups of people
of more than 30 years old. That is, older people participate more in community engagement.
Other research demonstrates that people between the ages of 50 and 74 participate in citizen
consultation twice as much as younger people (CLG 2009, Brodie et al. 2009).

4.5 Community Participation in the Sustainable Management of Facilities

Community participation in water project activities is considered as very important because it
builds a sense of ownership and commitment among the local people (IRC, 2003). The forms
of participation vary as in planning, management, labour or even contributing money as shown
in table 4.9. There is also a general argument that community participation may contribute
inputs into the decision-making or implementation process of projects (Reed, 2010; Rowe and
Frewer, 2004; Soneryd, 2004)

Table 4.9: Households Participation in Water Facilities Provision

Variable (Forms of Community Participation)
choosing of site
choosing of technology
Election of WATSAN
Deciding on Capital Cost Contribution for construction
of facility e.g. labour or cash
Contribution towards O & M
Source: Field Data, 2014.

% of responses by community
Abensu
Pokuase
n=28
n = 44
48.2
2.3
88.9
4.5
72.6
13.6
76.4
12.5
58.9

40.8

The majority of respondents in Pokuase and Abensu communities did not participate in the
choosing of site for the water facility. In Pokuase only 2.3% and 48.2 % in Abensu participated
51

as shown in Table 4.9. This low involvement of community members in site selection is due
to low level of shared information at the initial stages of project design.
88.9% of respondents in Abensu and 4.5% in Pokuase admitted to taking part in the choosing
of water technology. According to respondents from Pokuase, lack of community participation
was due to lack of information on selection of technology for water project from the District
Assembly.
72.6% of respondents in Abensu community said they participated in the election of WATSAN
members whereas only 13.6% of respondents took part in Pokuase. There is growing
understanding that sustained water supply and delivery depends on sufficient user payments,
but also that stimulation of water users is essential. This incentive can happen through different
leverages and most importantly through cost-sharing. However, approaches of public water
source provisioning and subsidization need not be under estimated much as it is the mandate
of the local government to enhance community access to basic social services and
infrastructure.

4.5.1 Contribution to Operation and Maintenance

Sustainability invariably depends upon communities taking financial responsibility for their
water facilities, which if achieved will enable scarce resources from government and donors
to be targeted specifically to areas where there is no improved water supply (Haysom, 2006;
Parry-Jones et al, 2001). Communities are normally expected to finance and manage the
operation and maintenance of a system. From the study 58.9% of the household respondents
in Abensu community admitted to contributing to the operations and maintenance of their
facility. However in Pokuase only 40.8% admitted to contributing towards the operation and

52

maintenance of water facility. In Pokuase most of the respondents said they did not know that
it was their responsibility to maintain the facility as the water facility was provided by the local
government. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) is a crucial element of sustainability, and a
frequent cause of failure of many water supply and sanitation service facilities (CASTRO,
2009).
With the community ownership and management, communities are responsible for all O&M
and related cost of their water facilities. That is the sustainability of the facilities rests on the
community. From the communities perspective, sustainability implies their ability to recover
from technical breakdown in the schemes with their own resources. Thus community members
are required to raise funds for O&M cost. As part of the community management, water facility
bank account is required where funds raised for new investment and O&M are lodged.
However, discussions with the WATSAN committees in both communities showed that no
money was saved in the bank after acquiring the facilities. This was because communities did
not regularly contribute towards operation and maintenance. Money raised for maintenance
was usually raised from the daily sales of water which were not enough for major repairs.

4.6 Sustainable Management Skills

For water facilities to have sustainable use by the beneficiaries, some measures are expected
to be put in place to forestall any breakdown that may result in serious consequences.

4.6.1 Management Committee

Basically, management committee plays a major role in ensuring sustainability of water and
sanitation interventions. It is a normal practice that after the provision of the facilities, a

53

committee is put in place to oversee the day-to-day operation of the facilities. This practice is
expected to forestall any eventualities that may lead to total breakdown of the systems of
operation and management.

4.6.2 Management of Facility Sites

Management of water facilities is the responsibility of the WATSAN committees. In both
communities, communal cleaning was unplanned. It was done as and when the place was
perceived to be weedy or filthy. In all sampled communities, there were no by-laws on the use
and management of the facilities.
In spite of the training of the WATSAN members in the preparation of facility management
plans, none of them had action plans so they performed their activities on ad-hoc basis. The
study revealed that some had forgotten the procedure for action plan preparation whilst others
considered it as something they could manage without. A WATSAN Committee member in
Abensu expressed his view about action plans as follows:
We were taught how to prepare action plans and we realised that the purpose was to ensure
the proper functioning of the facilities. My daughter, if we did not prepare an action plan but
we make sure that the facilities are functioning as expected, and then the same purpose is
achieved. We will continue to make sure that the facility functions even without the Action
Plan. In spite of this reason from WATSAN Committee in Abensu, it could be revealed that
the committee just wanted not to be accountable to its community through action plan which
could reveal some lapses in their operation and, therefore, could be questioned.

54

The WATSANs failed to prepare action plans mainly because they did not want to be held
accountable. However, accountability of the WATSAN to community members is critical for
sustainability of the facilities. It is therefore essential that the idea of Community Ownership
and Management (COM) is adopted by district assemblies to promote accountability in these
local level institutions to ensure sustainability of water facilities. The study has revealed that
those WATSAN committees in Pokuase that were found ineffective were not accountable to
their community members in the management of their water facilities.

4.6.3 Gender in Water and Sanitation (WATSAN) Committee

The study also set out to establish gender participation in the various WATSAN committees.
Increased access to safe drinking water would mean much for women and their children in
terms of health, productivity and income. Therefore, the involvement of women has to be
maximized in terms of water supply scheme planning, implementation and management. The
Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) held in the Abensu and Pokuase had women numbers
reported to be few in the committees as illustrated in the table below. Women also had limited
participation in terms of decision making and contribution in community meetings related to
resource mobilization and allocation of water sources, operation and management in their
localities.
It was widely believed that social, economic and cultural reasons limit the women participation
in water committee.

55

Table 4.10: Gender Composition in WATSAN

Community
Abensu
Pokuase

WATSAN Members
Males
Females
5
2
3
0

Source: Field Data, 2014

4.6.4 Performance of WATSAN

An evaluation of the performance of the WATSAN in the study communities was carried out
during the focus group discussions. This was to ensure that the scoring reflected the true
performance of the institutions from the perspective of the stakeholders. Similar to the findings
of the WHO (1996), the poor performance of the institutions in the selected communities were
attributed to the low profile accorded to O&M, inadequate funds for O&M resulting from poor
fund-raising strategies and lack of directions (no action plans) for their operations. It was
revealed that the nomination of committee members rather than election as pertained in some
communities contributed to the malfunctioning of the committees. 70% of the respondents
claim they did not elect the WATSAN members. This confirms what Kalyan and Kakebeeke
(2001) identified in Mozambique. Whilst WATSAN performance in Abensu was said to be
good that of Pokuase was below average. In the latter community only three people (a caretaker
and a chairman) constituted the WATSAN Committee.
The other members had either left the community or refused to work because they wanted to
avoid derogatory remarks from the public. An interview with the ex-secretary of the committee
revealed that lack of transparency was the main cause of the poor performance of the
WATSAN committee in Pokuase (Field Work, 2014). This observation is similar to what
Adomako (1998) identified in the Manya and Yilo Krobo Districts as the cause of non-payment
56

and ineffectiveness of community management of facilities. The voluntary nature of the work
of WATSAN committees was another reason for the poor composition and non- performance.

4.6.5 Community Satisfaction with Facilities Management

Analysis of consumer satisfaction revealed that water sufficiency and reliability of supply,
trustworthiness of the WATSAN committees, prompt repairs of facilities and cleanliness of
facility sites were the prime indicators of consumers satisfaction. For instance, households in
Abensu were satisfied with the cleanliness of water facility site as shown in figure 5 as well as
the physical protection given to the water pumping station in figure 6. According to Tegegne
(2009) a motivated community is the one that needs the services more and there considers the
scheme as its own property. As a result, water supply schemes constructed by community
participation are likely to be sustainable. This kind of motivation has been displayed by the
Abensu community and therefore their water project could be described as sustainable.
However, a minority of 11.6% of the households indicated dissatisfaction with management
for lack of transparency in the use of public funds, lack of community interface, irregular flow
of water (without explanation), and lack of enforcement on payment of fees for repairs
(Personal Communication, September, 2014).

4.6.6 Capacity Building for WATSAN Committee

For water and sanitation facilities to operate optimally, it means that there must be provisions
put in place to ensure that at no point in time should the systems become dysfunctional. The
community members alluded to the fact that it was only at the time the facilities were to be
provided that some people were made to constitute the WATSAN committee and they were

57

given some training as to the role each member was expected to play. Thereafter no follow-up
training was given to WATSAN committees. The community members even wondered if the
initial training given to the WATSAN committees could stand the test of time especially when
it comes to fixing major breakdowns. To have a well periodically trained WATSAN committee
in place indicates that repair works, when necessary, are readily carried out on broken down
facilities to ensure continuous use of the facilities. Preventive maintenance should be a periodic
management practice that must be carried out by the committees in order to forestall any major
breakdown. Indeed, Opare (2011) noted that community management system works
successfully, if local capacity is adequately strengthened with external support prior to the
assumption of full community control of water supply systems, and if assumption of
responsibility is pursued gradually.

4.7 Assessment of Levels of Community Participation

Drawing on Prettys (1995) typology of participation, the forms of participation of WATSAN
and household members were analysed in an attempt to assess the level of Community
Participation (CP). From the FGDs and interviews held in the two focused communities, it was
realized that in the Abensu community the only water facility severing the whole community
is a mechanized borehole was later rehabilitated by the USAID. This water facility was
originally built by an NGO in consultation with the Abensu community after a careful site
selection. Gomez (2009) refers to this interaction between an NGO and the beneficiary
community as consultative participation. On the contrary, lack of community participation by
way of consultation has led to abandonment of many water projects in communities. For
instance, out of the three (3) water projects introduced by the District Assembly in the Abensu

58

community, two of them were abandoned midway because the project team realized the project
site was not conducive enough for a borehole system. Again, in the Pokuase community most
of the respondents claimed they were not consulted in the drilling of the boreholes. However,
the only time they were consulted was when they were asked to contribute Five Ghana Cedis
(GH 5) towards the construction of the facility. In Pokuase the level of participation realised,
shows that beneficiaries were only informed on what the district Assembly had already planned
to implement. This level of participation is what Theron 2005 refers to as passive participation.
Nekwaya (2007) pointed out that the route to effective community participation would depend
on selecting the right combination of approaches. However, this would determine whether the
community authorities actually allow the community to participate and make its own decisions.

59

CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY OF MAJOR FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Introduction
This chapter provides the summary of the findings of the study, conclusions drawn out of the
study, and the recommendations given for future considerations. It further highlights how the
specific objectives set for the study have been addressed. The study was conducted in two
communities in the Ga West Municipal Assembly of the Greater Accra Region. The focus of
this study was to assess the effectiveness of community participation in the sustainable
management water supply facility.

5.2 Findings of the Study

In order to examine the nature of community management of water supply facilities, three
objectives were developed as follows:
1. To identify major key factors that affect community participation in the sustainable
management of water supply facilities;
2. To examine the various roles played by the community in the sustainable management
of facilities;
3. To find out the level of participation of community members in sustaining water
delivery services.

The findings indicated that there was low level of community participation in water supply
facility management. To achieve effective community participation, development partners

60

should ensure a process whereby rural communities become more conscious of their own
situation, carefully understand rural socio-economic reality around them, have mutual
understanding amongst community members, understand their problems and the causes of
these problems, and what measures they themselves can take to bring about positive change in
their situation. A holistic approach to development at the local, national and international levels
should be followed to tackle the challenges of community participation. The recognition and
mobilization of the potential of all stakeholders and the community members themselves can
make a significant contribution to achieving effective community participation.

Government should create enabling environment for rural participation by addressing the
factors influencing community participation of which information sharing and consultation
must be paramount.

The substantial findings of this study forms the basis of drawing relevant conclusions on some
crucial issues relating to Community Participation and Management (CP&M) practices and
sustainability of water provision in the two research communities of the Pokuase Zonal
Council. It was evident that lack of management committee accounted for the inability to have
sustainable use of the water facilities. A management committee is responsible for the
operation and maintenance of the water facilities and therefore plays a crucial role in the
sustainability of water projects. The consequences of an ineffective of management
committees cannot be overemphasized as some of the water facilities had been abandoned
since they broke down.

61

The community members often find it difficult to operate and maintain the facilities after they
had been provided simply because they were not involved in both the design and
implementation plan of the interventions. This assertion was demonstrated in the Pokuase
Zonal Council where water facilities were provided and had since been abandoned due to noninvolvement of the beneficiary communities in the initial project design as regards site
selection.

Capacity building was found to be weak in the communities visited where these water facilities
were available. The WATSAN committees that are in place had not been trained adequately
thereby giving a big challenge to the operation and maintenance of the facilities. Considering
the poverty level of the community members coupled with lack of technical skills to manage
major breakdown of the water facilities, the community members result to seeking for both
financial and technical supports to fix the problems they encountered with the facilities.
From the responses gathered during the study, it was very clear that the beneficiaries would
wish that they are involved at every stage of donor intervention.

Much as the community members admitted that their contributions towards operation and
maintenance (O&M) is woefully inadequate coupled with the mode of payment which is also
unreliable, they all agreed to review the tariffs upwards to make it realistic with support from
their local authorities.

62

5.3 Recommendation
Based on the findings of the study, the following recommendations are made; to enhance
community participation in water delivery services and sustainability as follows:
1. The District Assembly, the Community Water and Sanitation team and NonGovernmental Organisations should involve community members in all the stages of
water project cycle right from designing, planning, implementation, monitoring and
evaluation stages of the project;
2. District Water and Sanitation Team

should put in more effort in sensitizing,

conscientising and educating community members to strengthen and also sustain their
active participation in water delivery in the district;
3. The District Assembly, the Community Water and Sanitation team and NonGovernmental Organisations should provide community members continuous training
and education programmes to sufficiently empower them to own, maintain and sustain
the water projects in their communities;
4. District authorities should partner communities to prepare by-laws to govern the
operation and maintenance of water supply facilities.
5. Effective Operation (O) and Maintenance (M) is essential for sustainability and
community level Operation and Maintenance is one of the ways through which
sustainability can be achieved. District Authorities should, therefore, support
WATSAN committees to perform their roles creditably as they are the hubs of effective
operation and maintenance of sustainable water management in the Pokuase and
Abensu communities.

63

6. District Assemblies should organize field visits for WATSAN members to share best
practices in water and sanitation projects to enhance their management practices.

5.4 Conclusion
The issue of community participation in its true sense of ownership by the community has
proved to be the vehicle for the successful operation and functioning of a water supply scheme.
One of the main reasons why a true sense of ownership may be missing is the lack of effective
participation by the community in the planning and decision making stages. Other reasons are
lack of transparency about what financial and technical contributions would be required from
the community, and the failure to develop the skills and provide training for the WATSAN
committee members on who the effective management of the water supply systems depends
on.

64

REFERENCES

Agarwal, B. (2001). Participatory Exclusions, Community Forestry and Gender: An Analysis

for South Asia and a Conceptual Framework. World Development, 29 (10): 1623 48
Agrawal A. & Gibson C. (2001). The role of community in natural resources conservation. In
A. Agrawal & C. Gibson (eds.) Communities and the environment: ethnicity, gender,
and
the state in community-based conservation. (pp. 3033) New Brunswick:
Rutgers University Press.
Arnstein, S. R. (1969) A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of
Planners, 35 (4) pp. 216-224. Retrieved May 23, 2014 from http://lithgowschmidt.dk/
sherry-arnstein/ladder-of-citizen-participation.html.
Babbie, E. R. (2001). The practice of Social Research (9th Ed.). Belmont, CA, CA,
Wadsworth Thomson Learning.
Ball, C. & Ball, M. (1991).Water Supplies for Rural Communities. London: IT Publication
Blackburn, J., Chambers, R. & Gaventa, J. (2002) Mainstreaming Participation in
Development. In N.Hanna & R. Picciotto (eds) Making Development Work:
Development Learning in a World of Poverty and Wealth. World Bank Series on
Evaluation and Development. Vol.4
Braimah, I. and Fielmua, N. (2011). Community Ownership and Management of Water and
Sanitation Facilities: Issues and Prospects in the Nadowli District of the Upper West
Region of Ghana. Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa, Vol. 13, No.2.
Brodie E., Cowling E., Nissen N., Paine A. E., Jochum V., & Warburton D. (2009),
Understanding participation: A literature review, London: National Council for
Voluntary Organizations.
Butterworth, J., Bethel, T., Demissie, B., Eyasu, M., Yeshumneh, T., & Jeths, M. (2009).
Improving WASH information for better service delivery in Ethiopia: Scoping report
of initiatives. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Burns, D and Taylor, M (2000) Auditing community participation an assessment handbook,
Bristol: Policy Press

65

Carter, R. C., Tyrrel, S. F., & Howsam, P, (1999). Impact and sustainability of Community
water Supply and sanitation Programmes in Developing Countries. Chartered
Institution of Water and Environmental Management, 13, 292-296.
Cernea, M. & Ayse K. (1997). Social Assessments for Better Development: Case Studies in
Russia and Central Asia. Environmentally Sustainable Development Studies and
Monographs. Series 16. World Bank, Washington, D.C.
Community Water and Sanitation Agency (CWSA). (2004). Small Towns Sector Policy.
CWSA, Accra.
Cooke, B. & Kothari, U. 2001. The Case for Participation as Tyrany. In: B. Cooke & U.
Kothari (eds.). Participation: The New Tyrany? (pp. 1-15) Norfolk: Biddles Limited.
Doe, S. R., & Khan, M. S. (2004). The boundaries and limits of community management:
Lessons from the water sector in Ghana. Community Development Journal, 39(4), 360371. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsh032
Dollery, B. & Wallis, J. (2002).Economic Theories of the Voluntary Sector: A Survey of
Government Failure Approaches. Otago University
Dorsener, C. (2004). Social Exclusion and Participation in Community Development Project.
Pretoria: Van Schaik
Dudley E. (1993). The Critical Villager: Beyond Community Participation. London:
Routledge. Evidence from Senegal. Social Policy and Administration Vol. 38, No.4.
Edig, A Van, Engel, S, Laube W. (2002). Ghanas water institutions in the process of reforms:
from the international to the local level. In S. Neubert, W. Scheumann, & A. Van Edig
(Eds.). Reforming Institutions for Sustainable Water Management. (pp.69-72) German
development Institute (DIE): Bonn.
Elton, S. (2009). What is a Strategy, Evaluation and Efficiency, Oxford University.
Emmanuel, O. (1995). Community participation in rural water supply project: The world
vision Ghana Experience. Cameu University.
Endashaw, M. (2011). An Assessment on Role of Community Participation in Rural Water
Supply Project: The case of Debati Woreda, Benishangul Gumuz Regional State. Addis
Ababa University.
66

Fielmua, N. (2011). The Role of the Community Ownership and Management Strategy towards
Sustainable Access to Water in Ghana: A Case of Nadowli District. Journal of
Sustainable Development in Africa. Vol. 4, No.3.
Fisher J (2011). Operation and Maintenance for Rural Water Service. WELL Briefing Note 15.
Water Engineering and Development Centre (WEDC). Leicestershire, UK:
Loughborough University.
Ga West Municipal Assembly (unpublished) 2010. Ghana Shared Growth and Development
Agenda - Medium Term Development Plan 2010-2013.
Gender and Water Alliance (2006a). Resource Guide: Mainstreaming Gender in Water
Management. Dieren: Gender and Water Alliance.
Gomez J.D & Nakat A. (2002). Community Participation in Water and Sanitation. Water
International. 27:3, 343-353.
Ghana Statistical Service, (2012). 2010 Population and Housing Census: Summary Report of
Final Result. Accra: Sakoa Press Limited.
Guijt, I. & Shah, M. (1998). Waking Up to Power, Conflict and Process. In I. Guijht & M.
Shah (eds). The Myth of Community: Gender issues in Participatory Development. (pp
.87-90). London: Intermediate Technology Publications.
Harvey, P., Uno, J. & Reed, R. (2006). Management of rural water services in sub-Saharan
Africa. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Civil Engineering, 159(4),
178-184.
Heikkila, T. & Gerlak, A. K., (2005). The formation of large-scale collaborative resource
management institutions: clarifying the roles of stakeholders, science, and institutions.
The Policy Studies Journal, 3 (4), pp. 583-612.
Hickey, S. & G. Mohan (2004) Participation: From tyranny to transformation? Exploring
new approaches to participation in development. London: Zed Books.
IRC, (2003) Community Water Supply Management: History of a Concept; Delft, the
Netherlands, pp 53-116.

67

Isham, J. & Kahkonen, S. (2002) Institutional determinants of the impacts of community based
water services: Evidence from Sri-Lanka and India. Economic Development and
Cultural Change, 50: 667-691
Issah-Bello, S., (2011) An Assessment of Sustainability of Water and Sanitation Interventions
in Northern Region: A case study of Nanumba North District. Kwame Nkrumah
University of Science and Technology
Kasiaka K. (2004), Participatory Planning and Sustainability of Water TASAF Water Project,
Tanzania: UDSM Press
Khwaja, A. I. (2004). Is Increasing Community Participation Always a Good Thing? Journal
of the European Economic Association 2 (3), 42736.
Kleemeier, E. (2000). The impact of participation on sustainability: an analysis of the Malawi
rural piped scheme program. World Development, 28(5), 929-944.
Kleemeier, E. (2010). Private Operators and Rural Water Supplies, A Desk review of
Experience. The World Bank.
Kleemeier, E., & Narkevic, J. (2010). A global review of private operator experiences in rural
areas, Private Operator Models for Community Water Supply. The World Bank.
Koestler, L., & Shaw, R. (2009). Private sector involvement in rural water supply: Case studies
from Uganda. Water, sanitation and hygiene: sustainable development and
multisectoral approaches. Proceedings of the 34th WEDC International Conference,
(pp. 410-413). Addis Ababa: United Nations Conference Centre.
Kokutse, F. (2009). WATER-GHANA: Something Doesn't Add Up, News Article, Inter Press
Service News Agency. Retrieved September 2, 2014 from http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?
idnews=46780.
Koomson, K. (2008). The role of community members in project management. Seminar Paper
prepared for community interface programme with the Assembly. New Takoradi:
Sokoa Press
Kumar, S. (2002), Methods for community participation: A complete guide for practitioners.
London: ITDG Publishers.

68

Lammerink, M.P. (1998). Community Managed Rural Water Supply: Experiences From
Participatory Action Research in Kenya, Cameroon, Nepal, Pakistan, Guatemala and
Colombia, Community Development, Oxford University Press, 33 (4): 342-352.
Laryea, O. N. (1994). Challenges and Prospects of Community Management in Ghana
UNPD/GWSC Rural Water and Sanitation Project, Sri Lanka: WEDC Publication
Leach M., Mearns R. & Scoones I. (1997). Challenges to community-based sustainable
development: dynamics, entitlements, institutions. IDS Bulletin, 28: 114
Lockwood, H., A. Bakalian, & W. Wakeman. (2004). Assessing Sustainability in Rural Water
Supply: The Role of Follow-up Support to Communities. Literature Review and Desk
Review of Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project Documents. Washington, D.C.:
World Bank.
Maraga, J. N. (2010), Factors determining community participation in afforestation projects in
River Nyando basin, Kenya. African Journal of Environmental Science and
Technology, 4(12):853-859.
Marshall, G. (1998). A dictionary of sociology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Mazango, N., & Munjeri, C. (2009). Water management in a hyperinflationary environment:
Case study of Nkayi district in Zimbabwe. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 34 (12), 28-35.
Mba C.J, & Kwankye S.O. (2007). Population, Health and Development in Ghana: Attaining
the Millennium Development Goals., Accra: Sub-Saharan Publishers
McCarthy, N., Cline D. & Boureima D. (2002). Cooperation, Collective Action in Natural
Resources Management in Burkina Faso: a Methodological Note. Washington D.C:
International Food Policy Research Institute
McCay B. (2001). Community and the commons: romantic and other views: In A. Agrawal &
C. Gibson (eds.) Communities and the environment: ethnicity, gender, and the state in
community-based conservation. (pp.180192) New Brunswick: Rutgers University
Press.
McCommon C., Warner D. & Yohalen D. (1990). Community Management of Rural Water
Supply and Sanitation Services. Washington D.C: UNDP-World Bank.

69

McGarry M. G. (1991). Water Supply and Sanitation in the 1990s. Geneva Water
International, Vol 16. pp. 153-160.
Meinzen-Dick, R. l., Di Gregorio, M. & McCarthy, N. (2004) Methods for studying collective
action in rural development. http://www.capri.cgiar.org/pdf/capriwp33.pdf (accessed
on 20-09-14).
Mejos, D. E. A. (2007) Against alienation: Karol Wojylas theory of participation. Kritike, 1
(1) pp. 71-85. http://www.kritike.org/journal/issue_1mejos_june2007.pdf (accessed on
2-10-14).
Meyer, I. & Theron, F. 2000. Workbook Public Participation in Local Government: A
framework for action. Bellville: SOPMP, University of Stellenbosch.
Mcgregor A., Clapham D., Donnison D. (1993), Community participation in areas of urban
regeneration, Research Report no. 23, Scottish Homes
Mosse D. (2003) The rule of water: statecraft, ecology, and collective action in South India.
Delhi: Oxford University Press,
Mujwahuzi M. R. (1983). Community participation in rural water supply schemes in Tanzania,
International Journal of Water Resources Development, 1:3, 231-242
Nampila, T. (2005), Assessing community participation: The Huidare informal settlement.
Master of Arts thesis: Department of Social Work: University of Stellenbosch.
Narayan, D. 1993. Focus on Participation: Evidence from 121 Rural Water Supply Projects.
UNDP World Bank Water Supply and Sanitation Programme. Washington, D.C.
World Bank.
Narayan, D. (1995). Participatory Evaluation: Tools for Managing Change in Water and
Sanitation. Paper NO. 207, The World Bank, Washington, D.C., USA, 1995a.
Nekwaya, J. H. (2007), Assessing community participation in development planning and
service delivery. A case study of the Omusati Regional Council. Master of Sustainable
Development and management: University of Stellenbosch.
Nicol, A. (2000). Adopting a Sustainable Livelihoods Approach to Water projects:
implications for Policy and Practice. London: Overseas Development Institute,.

70

Nyarko, K. B. (2007). Drinking Water Sector in Ghana: Drivers for performance. PhD
Dissertation, UNESCO IHE Delft, the Netherlands, July 2007. pp 42-50, 81.
Olson, M. (1965). The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press
Opare, S. (2011). Sustaining water supply through a phased community management
approach: Lessons from Ghanas oats water supply scheme. Environment,
Development and Sustainability, 13(6), 1021-1042.
Ostrom, Elinor (1990): Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective
action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Peter, H. & Bob, R. (2004). Rural water supply in Africa: Building blocks for hand pump
sustainability. Water, Engineering and Development Centre, Loughborough:
University Press.
Pickford, J. P. Barker, B. Elson, C. Ferguson, J. Parr, D. Sayvell, R. Shaw, and Skinner, B.,
(Eds.) 1996. Sustainability of water and sanitation systems. Intermediate Technology
Publication: London.
Pretty, J. N., Guijt, I., Thompson, J. and Scoone, I. (1995) Participatory Learning and Action:
A Trainers Guide. IIED, London.
Prokopy, L. S. 2005. The Relationship between Participation and Project Outcomes: Evidence
from Rural Water Supply Projects in India. World Development, 33 (11): 180119.
Reed, M. S., Evely, A. C., Cundill, G., Fazey, I., Glass, J., Laing, A., Newig, J., Parrish, B.,
Prell, C., Raymond, C. & Stringer, L. C. (2010) What is social learning? Ecology and
Society, 15 (4):1.
Rowe, G. & Frewer, L. J. (2004) Evaluating public-participation exercises: A research agenda.
Science, Technology, & Human Values, 29 (4) pp. 512-556
Rowley, T. J. & Moldoveanu, M. (2003) When will stakeholder groups act? An interest- and
identity-based model of stakeholder group mobilization. Academy of Management
Review. 28 (2) pp. 204-219.
Sara J. & Katz T. (1997) Making Rural Water Supply Sustainable: Report on the Impact of
Project Rules. Washington D.C: UNDP-World Bank Water and Sanitation program.
71

Schouten, T. (2006). Scaling Up Community Management of Rural Water Supply Resource

Centre Network for Water, Sanitation and Environmental Health.
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/well/links.htm (accessed on 18-09-14).
Schouten, T., & Moriarty, P. (2004). Scaling up the community management of rural water
supply. Waterlines, 23(2), 2-4.
Scott, J. (2000) Rational choice theory. In Browning, G., Halchi, A. & Webster, F. (Eds.)
Understanding Contemporary Society: Theories of the Present. pp. 126- 138. Sage
Publications.
Singh, U. (2005) Community Participation in the Management of Public Good: Myth or
Reality, Case Study of Two Villages in India, ISS Research Paper, The Hague, Holland.
Slamet, Y. (1993). Insight Community Development Participation. Surakarta: Sebelas Maret
University Press.
Soneryd, L. (2004) Public involvement in the planning process: EIA and lessons from the
Orebro airport extension, Sweden. Environmental Science & Policy, 7, pp. 59-68.
Specter, M. (2005), The last drop: Confronting the possibility of a global catastrophe. The
New Yorker, 82 (34).
Sutton, S. (2008), The risks of technology-based MDG indicator for rural water supply,
www.rwsn.ch (accessed on 20-09-14).
Svoboda, D. (2003). Impact Evaluation- Why, What and Who? Civic Association of Czech
Republic.
Tegegne, T. M. (2009). Sustainability of Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Services in
Ethiopia: A Case Study of Twenty Villages in Ethiopia. Cornell University
Therkildsen, O. (1988) Watering White Elephants: Lessons from Donor Funded Planning and
Implementation of Rural Water Supplies in Tanzania, Scandinavian Institute of African
Theron, F. (2005), Public participation as a micro-level development strategy, in Davids, F.
Theron and K. J. Maphunye. Participatory development in South Africa. A development
management perspective. Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers.

72

Uphoff, N. (1999). Understanding Social Capital: Learning from the Analysis and
Experience of Participation. In P. Dasgupta & I. Serageldin (eds.), Social Capital: A
Multifaceted Perspective. Washington D.C: The World Bank.
United Nations Development Program (UNDP). (2006). Human Development Report 2006
Beyond Scarcity: Power, Poverty and the Global Water Crisis. New York: UNDP.
Wade, R. (1990). Governing the Market: Economic Theory and the Role of Government in
East Asian Industrialization. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
WEDC. (2003). Community and Management, A WEDC Postgraduate Module: WEDC,
Loughborough University, UK.
WELL (1998) DFID guidance Manual on water supply and sanitation programmes. WELL,
WEDC, Loughborough University, UK.
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/well/resources/Publications/guidance-manual/overview.pdf
(Accessed: 21/08/14)
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (1987), Our Common Future,
Oxford: Oxford University Press,.
Whyte, A. 1986. Guidelines for Planning Community Participation Activities in Water Supply
and Sanitation Projects. World Health Organization. Offset Publication No. 96.
Geneva: WHO.
Whittington D, Davis J, Prokopy L, Komives K, Thorsten R, Lukacs H, Bakalian A, Wakeman
W. (2009). How well is the demand-driven, community management model for rural
water supply systems doing? Evidence from Bolivia, Peru and Ghana. Water Policy,
11: 696-718
William, M. (2008). Assessment of community participation in water supply and sanitation
Services: The Case of Yombo Dovya and Barabara ya Mwinyi, Water Community
Projects Temeke. Tanzania, The Hague, the Netherlands.
World Bank (2004), World development report: Making services work for poor people.
Washington DC: World Bank.
World Bank. (2008). Water and Sanitation Supply: Improving services for the poor.
Washington DC: IDA Publications.

73

World Bank/UNDP (2000). Sustainability Monitoring the VIP Way: A Ground-level

Exercise. Water and Sanitation Program-South Asia, UNDP/World Bank:
Washington D.C., USA.
WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation (2000) Global
water supply and sanitation assessment 2000 Report. Geneva, WHO.
Wright, A. M. Toward a Strategic Sanitation Approach: Improving the Sustainability of
Urban Sanitation in Developing Countries. UNDP/World Bank Water and Sanitation
Program, Washington D.C., USA, 1997
Zimmerer K. (2000), Rescaling irrigation in Latin America: the cultural images and political
ecology of water resources. Ecumene, 7: 15075.

74

APPENDICE
APPENDIX-1: SURVEY INSTRUMENT
QUESTIONNAIRE

GHANA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

This questionnaire is designed to elicit information on the effectiveness of community
participation in water management. It is a research work being carried out by a Masters of
Development Management Student. You are kindly requested to provide answers to enable
the researcher conduct the study.

Instructions to participants: This questionnaire is to be administered to respondents drawn

from stakeholders including but not limited to water committees and their leadership, district
assembly officers and community members in Ga West district. It is aimed at assessing the
level of community participation and management towards sustainability of water facilities.
Kindly be assured that your response(s) would be treated with utmost confidentiality. Thank
you.
___________________________________________________________________________
Please tick the appropriate answer and write in the spaces provided where necessary.

Part 1: Personal Data

1. Sex a) M [ ]
2. Age a) 18-35 [ ]

b) F [ ]
b) 36-55 [ ]

3. Marital Status: Single [ ]

c) 56 and above [ ]

Married [ ]

4. Community of residence? ......................................................................................................

5. How long have you stayed in your community? ...
Part II: Existence of water sources and functionality
6. Which types of water sources are commonly used in this community?
You may tick more than one source where necessary
a) Boreholes [ ]

b) Hand Drill Wells [ ]

c) Others (Specify).....
75

7. What is the current status of your main water sources in terms of functionality?
a) Functional [ ] b) Nonfunctional [ ] c) Temporarily down [ ]

d) Dont know [ ]

Part III: Existence of water committees, caretakers and their functionality

8. Are there water committees in this community? a) Yes [ ]

b) No [ ]

9. If yes, what is the composition in terms of gender?

a) More males in the committee [ ]

b) More females in the committee [ ]

10. Which ways and/or method used to choose the committee members?
a) Through democratic election [ ]

(b) Nominated and/or appointed [ ]

c) None of the above [ ]

11. For how long has the Water committee of your community existed?
a) Less than 6 months [ ]

b) Between 6-12 months [ ]

c) More than 1 year [ ]

12. What is your opinion about the role of water committee towards enhancement of
participation and management of water facilities by all community members in terms of
cleaning around sources and organizing management meetings?
a) They are very active [ ]

b) They are very inactive [ ]

c) They are partially active [ ]

d) Do not know [ ]

13. How many times in a month do water management committees in your community meet?
a) Once a month [ ]

b) twice a month [ ] c) Three times and above [ ]

d) Do not meet at all [ ]

14. Are there caretakers of water sources in this community?

a) Yes [ ]

b) No [ ]

15. If yes, how many times in a week are they present at the water sources?
a) Once a week [ ]

b) Twice a week [ ] c) Three times and above [ ]

d) Never present [ ]

e) Do not know [ ]

Part IV Community leadership aspects

16. Are you a member of water committee/Executive in this community i.e. chairman,
secretary or treasurer?

a) Yes [ ]

b) No [ ]

76

17. If YES what is your highest educational level?

a) Primary level [ ]

b) Secondary level [ ]

c) Tertiary [ ]

18. What is your working experience as a member of water committee leadership?

a) Between 0-12 months [ ]

b) Between 1-2 years [ ]

c) More than 2 year [ ]

19. Are there records of your water committee meetings?

a) Yes [ ]

b) No [ ]

20. Does your community water management committee have an Operation and maintenance
Plan?

a) Yes [ ]

b) No [ ]

Part V: Community Participation

21. Did you participate in the initial stages of projects planning?
22. Forced to participate?

a)Yes [ ]

a) Yes [ ]

b) No [ ]

b) No [ ]

23. Level Community Contribution towards O&M

You may tick more than one where necessary
a) Initial investment cost

Yes [ ]

No [ ]

b) Operation and maintenance

Yes [ ]

No [ ]

c) Do not contribute at all [ ]

d) Do not know [ ]

24. What was the community contribution in the implementation?

a) Labour [ ]

b) Cash [ ]

c) Both [ ]

Community Meetings
25. Were there any community meetings?

a) Yes [ ]

b) No [ ]

26. Is everyone in the community contributing to the public meetings discussion?

a) Yes [ ]

b) No [ ]

Sustainability Issues
27. Who does monitoring the water sources/ facility
a) The community [ ]

b) District Assembly [ ]

28. Do you have the capacity to maintain this project?

77

c) Central Government [ ]
a) Yes [ ]

b) No [ ]

29. If you do not have the capacity where do you get assistance in case there is break down of
the system...

30. i) Does the community contribute any user fees to cover operations and maintenance
services?
a) Yes [ ]

b) No [ ]

c) If yes how much ..

ii) Do all people contribute the same amount?

a) Yes [ ]

b) No [ ]

31. Is the amount collected enough to cover the operations and maintenance services?
a) Yes [ ]

b) No [ ]

32. If not where do you get extra money to cover the operations and maintenance of the system

Problems in Participation of Beneficiaries

33. Are there any problems encountered in participation of the community?
a) Yes [ ]

b) No [ ]

c) If yes what are those problems? ........................................................................................

34. Do you think community participation in planning, implementation and management of

water project leads to the effective and sustainable of water and sanitation services?
a) Yes [ ]

Part VI:

b) No [ ]

Level of support by government

35. Is there any kind of support offered to your community or Community organizations /
Committees by the following agencies?
a) District Assembly

Yes [ ]

No [ ]

b) Private contractors

Yes [ ]

No [ ]

c) Others (Specify).
36. If yes, how satisfied are you with the level of support to ensure provision and sustainability
of water supply by these agencies?
78

Please indicate by ticking, whether you are; 1 = extremely satisfied, 2 = satisfied, 3 =

dissatisfied or 4 = extremely dissatisfied, using a scale given between 1-4, with 4 being
the highest score
a) District Assembly

1[ ] 2[ ] 3[ ] 4[ ]

b) Prvate contractos

1[ ] 2[ ] 3[ ] 4[ ]

c) Others (Specify).............
37. Has your community water management committee ever been trained?
a) Yes [ ]

b) No [ ]

38. If yes, what kind of support was provided and by which agency?

39. How many times in a year has the water committee/Organization of this community been
trained?

a) Once a year [ ]

b) Twice [ ]

79

c) Thrice [ ]

APPENDIX-2: STRUCTURED INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR KEY INFORMANTS

INTERVIEWS & FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS
INSTRUCTIONS TO PARTICIPANTS:
This interview is to be conducted with respondents drawn from stakeholders including but not
limited to water committee leadership, district assembly staffs in water provision in Ga West
district. It is aimed at assessing the level of community participation and management for
sustainability of rural water facilities.
Feedback from this study will greatly contribute to a wealth of knowledge that can be used by
policy makers and other research institutions for further improvement in water sector activities.
Your participation will be appreciated and confidentiality will be observed with respect to your
feedback.
1. In your own experience with water sector activities, do communities elect water
management committees? If yes what is the composition in terms of gender?
2. What is your opinion about the level of participation and involvement of community
members in committees and other community meetings in water activities in terms of
gender?
3. Do water source committees hold meetings? If yes, how often do community water
management committees of each water source meet?
4. In your own view and experience, do water committees keep records of their meetings?
5. In your own experience, are there caretakers of water sources in the communities? If
yes, how often are they present at the water source?
6. Do you have any knowledge about the qualification of community leadership of water
committees like members of committee executive?
7. Do community water management committees have an Operation and maintenance
Plan (O&M)?
8. What is the level of compliance of communities towards contribution for Capital cost
and O&M water facilities?
9. What is your comment about the quality of services provided by private contractors
towards O&M of water sources?

80

10. Is there any kind of support that your organization provides to communities and their
committees to ensure sustainability of water supply?
11. What kind of support was provided and by which agency?
12. Has your organization provided any training to Water committees and HPMs?
13. What challenges do communities and their water management committees face in the
management of water sources?
14. In your opinion, what could be done to improve community management and
sustainability of water sources?
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR PARTICIPATING

81

APPENDIX- 3: PICTURES OF INTERVIEWS AND FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS

Figure 3: Author interviewing a District Water and Sanitation Officer (DWSO)

Figure 4: Author in a Focus Group Discussion (FGD) with WATSAN members and
some community members at Abensu.
82

Figure 5: Well- maintained mechanized borehole water facility at Abensu.

Figure 6: A well-protected mechanised water pumping station at Abensu.

83