Appendix 4 Full questionnaire results · Full questionnaire results RCPEH Report Appendices Page 28...

Appendix 4

Full questionnaire results

RCPEH Report Appendices Page 28 of 131

Summary of the internet questionnaire The questionnaire was hosted through the surveymonkey.com website. Participants were invited from the Department for International Development (DfID) and WHO, as well as from the Delagua database, the UK Sanitation Connection organised by WEDC, the IWA specialist group on Climate Change and Adaptation and the IWA specialist group on Small Water and Wastewater Systems. The survey was open from the 17th July to the 22nd September 2008. The data have been separated into countries in developed regions or developing regions as per http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/Host.aspx?Content=Data/RegionalGroupings.htm

Section 2 Contact details We received a total of 70 responses, however after removing those that had only filled in their contact details and minimal other information, as well as duplicates, the number included in these analyses is 43. The grouping by developed or developing region is based on their response for Question 7. The majority of respondents (27, 63%) were answering for areas in developing regions. Respondents mostly worked at NGOs, followed by academics and consultants.

Total (N=43)

16%

44%2%

19%

19%

Developed Countries (N=16)

13%

56%0%

6%

25%

Developing Countries(N=27)

19%

36%4%

26%

15%

Government

Non-GovernmentalOrganizationDonor/InternationalAgencyAcademic

Consultant

Figure 1 Question 2 Organization type The consultant category for Question 2 has been added based on the written answers. Other written answers were incorporated with the multiple choice answers. Similarly, for Question 4, the text answers have been incorporated in the categories. Policy makers included positions described as programme officers and local government. The majority of respondents identified themselves engineers and scientists, with the consultants also expected to be mostly from these categories.

RCPEH Report Appendices 9 of 131

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Developed

Developing

Total

Consultant EngineerField officer ManagementPolicy maker ScientistWater quality manager Water resource manager

Figure 2 Question 4 Type of position (N=43) The majority of respondents considered themselves to be working in their head office, with only 11% identifying themselves as being based at a field office.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Developed Developing Total

Field officeCountry officeRegional officeHead office

Figure 3 Question 5 Type of office within your organization?

Section 3 Description of relevant area This section was designed to elicit information on where they are answering questions for, including some background on climate and geography. Overall, the results from Question 7 suggest that the responses were limited by the fact that the survey was only available in English. Translation to Spanish and French could potentially have increased the responses from West Africa and South America, although it would also have depended on our ability to reach those stakeholders. However the results for Pakistan and India and South Africa suggest that these might be suitable areas for case studies.

RCPEH Report Appendices 0 of 131

Figure 4 Question 7 Countries which were covered by the responses (Darker colours indicate multiple responses) The responses are also broken up by continent below, and by low mortality and high mortality developing country status. The Middle East region below is represented by one respondent who was answering for the East Mediterranean WHO region which covers countries in the Middle East and North Africa.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Afri

ca

Asi

a

Aus

tralia

Eur

ope

Mid

dle

Eas

t

Nor

thA

mer

ica

Sout

h/C

entra

lA

mer

ica

LMDHMDD

Count of Continent

Status

Figure 5 Question 7 In what country or countries is the region you answering this questionnaire for? (Regions) Respondents were allowed multiple responses to Question 9 describing the climate and geography of the area they were working in. This will be further analysed in case studies, as will the responses for Question 10.


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Total Developing Developed

inlandcoastalMediterraneanaridtropicaltemperatepolarmountainous

Figure 6 Question 9 How would you describe the climate/geography of the area? (select as many as are appropriate) The responses of three rainy seasons came from Uganda, Albania, Sri Lanka, London and Ireland. The responses of two rainy seasons came from Phillippines, Sudan, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Pakistan, India, Pakistan and England.

05

1015202530

1 2 3 4 Notseasonal

TotalDevelopedDeveloping

Figure 7 Question 10 How many wet or rainy seasons do you experience annually in your area? (please select one only) Eight percent of respondents, all from countries in developing regions, said that there had been no official statement on observed climate trends, and 11 % said that there had been no official statement on predicted climate trends. Forty-three percent of respondents weren’t aware if there were observed or predicted climate statements available..

05

1015202530354045

Tota

l

Dev

elop

ed

Dev

elop

ing

Tota

l

Dev

elop

ed

Dev

elop

ing

Observed (N=40) Predicted (N=37)

Don't knowNoYes

Figure 8 Question 12 Has your national meteorological and hydrological service (NHMS) or equivalent regional organization issued an official statement on observed or predicted climate trends in your region? (please select one only)


While rainfall observations and predictions vary, where known, temperature and extreme events are said to be increasing and expected to continue increasing.

02468

1012

Incr

ease

Dec

reas

e

Unc

hang

ed

Unc

erta

in NA

Incr

ease

Dec

reas

e

Unc

hang

ed

Unc

erta

in NA

Observed rainfall Predicted rainfall

DevelopingDeveloped

048

121620

Incr

ease

Dec

reas

e

Unc

hang

ed

Unc

erta

in NA

Incr

ease

Dec

reas

e

Unc

hang

ed

Unc

erta

in NA

Observed temperature Predicted temperature

DevelopingDeveloped

0369

1215

Incr

ease

Dec

reas

e

Unc

hang

ed

Unc

erta

in NA

Incr

ease

Dec

reas

e

Unc

hang

ed

Unc

erta

in NA

Observed frequency ofextreme events

Predicted frequency ofextreme events

DevelopingDeveloped

Figure 9 Question 13 If so, what does this statement indicate about climate aspects: (please select one answer only per row) Organisations issuing these climate statements included: from developed regions, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO, Met Éireann, the Irish National Meteorological Service, the UK Met Office, and state Climatologists in both Pennsylvania and New Jersey; from developing regions, the Department of Hydrology and Meteorology in Nepal, the Ethiopian Meteorological Services, Hydro Systems International - Sri Lanka, the Indian Meterological Department, INETER


(Nicaraguan Institute of terrain studies), PAGASA in the Philippines, Pakistan Meteorological Department, South Africa weather service, the Bolivian Servicio Nacional de Hidrología y Meteorología, Tanzania Meteorological Agency, The Uganda Meteorological Department, Zimbabwe National Water Authority and Zimbabwe Meteorological Department.

How do these observations and predictions compare to the Hadley model? Statements about rainfall from your meteorological office Respondents from Uganda and Zimbabwe reported a predicted increase in rainfall by their Meteorological departments. For Uganda this reflects the model result of an increase of 3 to 4 % (0.10 to 0.13 mm/d). However, no change in rainfall is predicted for Zimbabwe (decrease of 2 % or 0.04 mm/d). Neither of these respondents reported any observed changes in rainfall. A respondent from Tanzania reported a predicted decrease in rainfall, whereas the model predicts no change by 2020 (-0.08 %, 0.01 mm/d), but a 3 % increase by 2030 (0.11 mm/d). All three respondents for southern Africa reported that they were uncertain about the changes in predicted rainfall, which is notable since this in one area where considerable change is expected (South Africa, -5 to -7 %) and the IPCC and QUMP models agree with this model. Respondents who reported observed changes included from west and south Africa (increase), Kenya (decrease) and southern Africa (decrease). From Asia, respondents from the Philippines, south Asia and Sri Lanka and the Maldives reported both observed and predicted increases in rainfall, with a respondent from Pakistan also indicating that increased in rainfall were predicted. Of these the model predicted increases for Pakistan (~8 %, 0.16 mm/d), India (16 to 18 %, 0.45 to 0.57 mm/d), Sri Lanka (2.4 to 5.5 %, 0.08 to 0.2 mm/d). China and Bhutan had increases by 2020 (5 % and 4.8 % respectively), followed by large decreases by 2030 (- 8 % and -20 % respectively). Other respondents from India and Pakistan reported that they were uncertain about predicted rainfall. The respondent from the Eastern Mediterranean region reported a decrease in predicted rainfall which corresponds with the predicted 5 to 10% decrease in rainfall in the region by 2030. No predictions were available from the Americas, however the respondent from the USA reported that there was an increase in observed rainfall, and no climate prediction statement available. A respondent from Bolivia indicated decreased rainfall had been observed. Statements about extreme events from your meteorological office Respondents from southern Africa and Zimbabwe reported an increase in observed and predicted extreme events. In Asia, respondents from the Philippines and south Asia reported an increase in observed and predicted extreme events. Predicted extreme events were reported to increase in the Eastern Mediterranean region, which is considered unlikely in the Hadley model. Respondents from the USA and Bolivia reported increases in observed extreme events. Observed changes in long term rainfall In Africa, all respondents had reported changes in long term rainfall. Increases were reported for Uganda, Liberia, Nigeria, and south and west Africa. Decreases were reported in Kenya, Tanzania, southern Africa, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Uganda and South Africa (2). Decreases in intensity of rainfall were only reported for Kenya, Sudan and South Africa. Most of Africa is predicted to have less intense rainfall except along Nigeria to Liberia coast. Respondents from Tanzania, southern Africa, Uganda, Liberia, south and west Africa, Nigeria and Zimbabwe all reported experiencing increases. One respondent for South Africa also said they had not


experienced any change in intensity, which means that there was a respondent from this region in each category. Rainfall in South Africa is expected to be less intense. The rainy season Q16 - Rainy season length (and no. from Q 10)

• 3 – uganda, getting shorter • 2 – Kenya, Tanzania, Sudan, all getting shorter; Uganda getting longer • 1 – Southern x 3 and Zimbabwe getting shorter; Liberia, S&W, Nigeria all getting longer

(these fit with what is forecast)

Section 4 Observations related to changes in weather patterns This section aimed to provide background of peoples awareness of changes to rainfall patterns. This data was to be used to compare awareness by region and climatic zone, and provide more information for literature review on climate publications. The majority of respondents reported that they were aware of changes in long term annual rainfall. Of those who responded no, 3 were from Asia (from Thailand, Pakistan and India; 27% of respondents from Asia) and 4 were from Europe (all from the UK; 36% of respondents from Europe).

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Total (N=44)

Developed(N=16)

Developing(N=27)

YesNo

Figure 10 Question 14 Are you aware of changes that have already occurred in the long-term annual rainfall patterns in the area defined in Section 3? (please select one only) Rainfall was reported to be unchanged by respondents in Asia and South/Central America. Intensity was reported to be unchanged by respondents in Africa, Asia and Australia. Decreases in rainfall intensity were reported by three from Africa (Kenya, Sudan and South Africa) and one from the Middle East.


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Tota

l(N

=35)

Dev

elop

ed(N

=11)

Dev

elop

ing

(N=2

4)

Tota

l(N

=33)

Dev

elop

ed(N

=10)

Dev

elop

ing

(N=2

3)

Average annual rainfall Rainfall intensity (mm perhour)

UnchangedDecreaseIncrease

Figure 11 Question 15 If yes, what are the changes to long-term annual rainfall that you are aware of? (please select one only per row) A small number of respondents, from Europe and Asia, indicated that there was no change in the length of the rainy season. The majority (8/12) in Africa responded that the wet season was shorter. Half of respondents (5/10) from Asia responded longer. Two of three respondents from South/Central America said shorter.

0

5

10

15

20

Total (N=40) Developed(N=14)

Developing(N=26)

LongerShorterNo changeRainfall is not seasonal

Figure 12 Question 16 For the area defined in Section 3, has the rainy or wet season been getting: (please select one only)

Total

26%

13%

46%

8%7%

Developed

17%

9%

53%

4%

17%

Developing

30%

15%

44%

9% 2%

Discussion with localcommunityMonitoring data

Own perception

Referenced report

Other

Figure 13 Question 17 Are your answers in this section based on: (select as many as are appropriate)


The responses for Question 18 suggest that drinking water supply is the bigger concern with regards to climate change, with 59% responding that they were changing thei strategy for the implementation of drinking water based on your awareness of changes in long-term annual rainfall, with only 41 % having the same response for sanitation. The three respondents from South/Central America responded no for both water and sanitation. Other developing regions responses were mostly yes for drinking water - Africa (8/12) and Asia (6/11), but differed for sanitation with Africa having more respondents saying yes (6/11) and Asia with more saying no (7/10).

05

1015202530

Yes No Yes No

Drinking-water supply Sanitation

DevelopingDeveloped

Figure 14 Question 18 Are you changing your strategy for the implementation of drinking-water supply and sanitation options based on your awareness of changes in long-term annual rainfall? Of those who answered that there was enough information relating to climate change predictions available for your area (n=14), two were from Africa (Tanzania and Sudan) and four were from Asia (Philippines, Pakistan, Malaysia and Sri Lanka).

20%

15%

15%

50%

Yes DevelopedYes DevelopingNo DevelopedNo Developing

Figure 15 Question 19 Do you feel that there is adequate information relating to climate change predictions available for your area? (please select one only) Responses included:

• Current climate data o Temperature and rainfall data for past 50 years. River hydrograph and

evapotranspiration data. River discharge data. Predicted dry season duration and it's effect on surface water catchment areas. Water availability in streams and rivers.

• Climate predictions o future weather trends/ changes in rainfall, intensity and frequency of extreme-

weather events. predicted dry season duration and it's effect on surface water catchment areas. Water availability in streams and rivers - scenarios in the next coming decades given the erratic rainfall. Availability, quality, distribution of groundwater. water in the snow and rain-fed fed rivers

• Impacts o possible consequences to public health and agricultural production o impact of the predicted scenarios on aquatic life

• Educational o Adaptive strategies by rural communities. o Information in english


o Posters - Brochures - Documentary films - Data and graphs of world wide and area specific changes

o Information models and how best to include these in lecturing/teaching materials for undergraduate and postgraduate students.

o general information suitable for non-academics o causes for climate change, the prevention and the way forward

• Regulatory o Statutory and design guidelines are outdated and not being updated to quickly

enough. Of 20 responses, 14 potentially related to climate predictions, although as indicated in the samples above, it was rarely the main concern.

Section 5 Year-to-year changes in drinking-water sources The question asked respondents for the drinking-water sources listed, to indicate any year-to-year change. The aim was to get information on whether the water resources are changing as a measure of current vulnerability. In general, respondents were concerned about the vulnerabilities of their water sources. Groundwater was reported to have fallen or be more variable in 56 % of cases; the minimum levels in rivers have fallen in 55% of cases in countries in developing regions; flooding (53%) and droughts (38%) have increased in frequency; lake level have fallen (41%); and the quality of groundwater (59%), rivers (79%) and lakes (73%) in developing countries have all deteriorated. While generally groundwater was reported to have fallen, it was reported to have risen in Nigeria, Pakistan and Australia.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Total Developed Developing

UnknownMore variableStableFallenRisen

Figure 16 Question 20 Average groundwater level (N=34) Evidence for responses to question 20 primarily included borehole logs and evidence of wells drying up. One also mentioned rising aquifers in coastal regions, with increasing salinity. Other evidence included project reports and own perception. There were notable differences between responses from developed and developing countries in Question 21, with responses from developing countries indicating more fallen and variable levels, with increased flooding and droughts. Responses from Kenya and Sudan suggested that flooding is decreasing. Frequency of droughts was suggested to be decreasing in Sudan and the UK.


0

2

4

6

8

10

12


Average levels

0

2

4

6

8

10

12


Maximum levels

02468

10121416


Minimum levels

02468

101214161820


Frequency of flooding

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14


Frequency of droughts

RisenFallenStableMore variableUnknown

Figure 17 Question 21 Rivers (text evidence n= 21) Text responses stated that the evidence was from own perception and local knowledge accounted for 8 of the 19 responses, with more listing changes without indicating whether these changes were monitored or observed. One respondent from Nicauragua said “there is no evidence”. Other sources of evidence included borehole logs, water commission data, crop failure and public documents.


02468

101214


Average lake levels

RisenFallenStableMore variableUnknown

Figure 18 Question 22 Average lake level

02468

1012


Rainwater availability

IncreasedDecreasedMore variableRemained stableUnknown

Figure 19 Question 23 Rainwater availability For rainwater, evidence included more observations from personal experience (6/12), as well as documented reports. Water quality was reported to have deteriorated generally. One respondent from Tanzania suggested that river water quality had improved. No responses for lakes indicated improved water quality. Groundwater quality was reported to be improved in Sudan, Liberia, Pakistan and the UK.

0

5

10

15

20

25

Tota

l

Dev

elop

ed

Dev

elop

ing

Tota

l

Dev

elop

ed

Dev

elop

ing

Groundwater Rivers

ImprovedDeterioratedMore variableNo changeUnknown


0

5

10

15

20

25

Tota

l

Dev

elop

ed

Dev

elop

ing

Tota

l

Dev

elop

ed

Dev

elop

ing

Lakes Rainwater

ImprovedDeterioratedMore variableNo changeUnknown

Figure 20 Question 24 Water quality The evidence provided for Question 24 included monitoring (5/17) and studies (6/17). From Kenya, “Rain water of recent has lots of particles and suspended matter”. Other evidence included that groundwater is more salty, surface water sources are generally are prone to pollution such as discharge of treated effluent; and increased incidences of water borne diseases. For Question 25, Please use this box to provide further details of evidence, there were 17 responses. Some key areas of concern, with some examples:

• Nutrient contamination o The quality of water in most of the surface waters has deteriorated and especially

Lake Victoria water. This has been mainly attributed to increase in nutrients from waste water effluents and industrial effluents.

o An increase in algae (cyanobacteria) blooms that are contaminating surface water sources due to proliferation in response to availability of nutrients (treated effluent). The algae produce toxins which are harmful to other organisms including humans. The deaths of crocodiles in the Oliphants Rivers, Kruger National Park were probably due to the presence of these toxins but further research is required. On human health, no studies have been done but the possibilities exists that the rural communities might be at risk due to consumption of low levels of toxins in surface water sources (rivers & dams).

• Arsenic and fluoride contamination of groundwater, and coliforms in shallow groundwater o Arsenic and fluoride have emerged as major threats in valley and hill areas,

respectively, restricting the use of groundwater. • Coliform contamination

o Studies conducted on surface and groundwater quality reveal widespread contamination of surface and shallow groundwater by coliform organisms.

o Coliform contamination of surface water sources is very high both in frequency and magnitude.

• Water treatment and other improvements were also discussed o Due to the recent Cholera out break, ground water sources has been chlorinated

while water from the rivers has not been given any treatment o UN, Ingos and ngos and the Governmant is promoting rainwater harvesting and re

using treated waste water for irrigation and flushing of toilets • A range of information sources were also raised


o catchment plan, own work, public record, water quality monitoring report, borholes for aggregate extraction

o Due to the extreme remoteness of our working area (16 days walk away from the next road head!) there are no official data available. Thus most of our data is based on personal experience gathered over the last 12 years of living and working in the area

o There are 4 public institutions in charge of the information, and between them they have contradictions in the data. There is no private investment in the issues. ENACAL is the water and sewerage company INAA is the water and sewerage national regulator INETER is the national institute of terrain studies MARENA is the ministry of environment and natural resources All have relevant studies.

Section 6 Climate predictions This section aimed to assess the vulnerability of water resources based on climate predictions and local knowledge. It asked the respondent, based on the area they defined in Section 3, to identify the impact that predicted changes in climate might have on components of water resources in the area. In general, the responses indicated increases in runoff, floods, storms and droughts, with decreased groundwater recharge. Decreases in run-off were expected in Sudan, Bolivia, the Middle East, Nepal, South Africa, Zimbabwe and Australia. Increases in groundwater recharge were only expected in Uganda, Pakistan, India and the UK. Floods were expected to decrease in Sudan and Sri Lanka, with storms expected to decrease in Sudan and Kenya. Drought were only expected to decrease in Australia, with sea level expected to decrease in Kenya. Extreme events were predicted to increase by respondents from Tanzania, Nepal and Pakistan.

02468

10121416

Increase Decrease Morevariable

Nochange

Unknow n

Run-off

02468

10121416


Nochange

Unknow n

Groundw ater recharge

05

1015202530


Nochange

Unknow n

Floods

05

10152025


No change Unknow n

Storms


0

5

10

15

20


Nochange

Unknow n

Droughts

02468

101214


Nochange

Unknow n

Sea level

02468

10


Nochange

Unknow n

Other extreme events (please specify)

Total

Developed

Developing

Figure 21 Question 26 Hydrology Other extreme events were listed as: insufficient infrastructure protection due to rising seasonal rivers; recent flooding from storms on south coast of kzn, recent sea surge of 11m along east coast; lake Babati got flooded in year 2007; increase in the incidences of Glacial lake Outburst floods; land slides (due to the steep mountain slopes); increase in hurricanes; and cyclones. There was generally a very negative outlook for water quality, with 69% expecting surface water quality to deteriorate, and none expecting it to improve, and 56% expecting groundwater quality to deteriorate. Two respondents, from Sudan and the UK expected groundwater quality to improve.

0

5

10

15

20

25

Total Developed Developing Total Developed Developing

Surface water quality Groundwater quality

ImproveDeteriorateMore variableNo changeUnknown

Figure 22 Question 27 Climate predictions - water quality There were 7 responses to Question 28, Please use this box to provide further details of evidence. In addition to information sources, responses included:


• Heavy rainfall events are likely to be more frequent based on recent experiences. • Frequency of extreme weather events are likely to increase. Floods are assuming more

devastating proportions due to deforestation in the hills, silt deposition in watercourses and due to more heavy rainfall events.

• The need for drinking water treatment has increased in recent years. For urban areas close to 90% comes from groundwater and its quality has decreased over the years, developing the necessity to build treatment plants

• The Central Environmental Authority is come down on the hard on the Industries etc, they need to have a Environmental Protection Licence to operate any industry as pollution they are pollute the above

Section 7 Drinking-water and sanitation options This section aimed to identify what drinking-water and sanitation options are currently in use in the regions the respondents were working. This information will then be compared to the JMP database. Piped water supply was the most common drinking-water source in urban areas. All respondents from developed regions ranked piped water supplies as most common. Eight respondents from developing regions did not rank piped water supplies as most common, including two respondents (from Kenya and Sudan) who ranked them as least common, one respondent from Nepal who ranked them 8th our of 10, and one respondent from Nigeria who ranked them 5th our of 10. Four respondents, from regions in India, the Middle East, Nigeria, and West Africa, ranked piped water supplies as the 2nd most common water source. The other responses for most common water source included boreholes (Kenya, Sudan, Tanzania) and public standpipes (India, West Africa). One respondent from Nigeria indicated that Other was the most common, but no details were provided. Table 1 Question 29 For URBAN areas, please rank the following drinking-water sources in use from 1-10 Total Developed Developing Weighted

Average Rank N Weighted


Average Rank N

Piped water supply 8.9 1 31 10.0 1 12 8.3 1 19 Public standpipes 4.8 7 23 1.3 9 5 5.4 4 18 Borehole 6.8 2 27 5.6 4 9 7.4 2 18 Protected dug well 5.2 6 16 4.5 7 2 5.3 6 14 Protected spring 5.2 5 18 5.5 5 4 5.1 7 14 Unprotected well 5.4 4 15 6.0 3 2 5.3 5 13 Unprotected spring 4.4 9 17 4.5 7 3 4.4 9 14 Untreated surface water 3.7 10 20 1.0 10 4 4.2 10 16 Rainwater 4.7 8 21 5.2 6 6 4.5 8 15 Other 6.0 3 6 7.0 2 2 5.7 3 4 Piped water supply was the most common drinking-water source in rural areas in developing regions, but was the least common in developing regions. In developed regions, public stand pipes (Albania), protected springs (UK) and rainwater (Australia) were also among the most common. In


developing regions, the most common sources were varied, including untreated surface water (Uganda, SW Africa), unprotected well (India, Tanzania), unprotected spring (Himalayas), public standpipes (South Africa), protected dug well (Nicaragua) and boreholes (Nicaragua, Sudan, Pakistan, Zimbabwe). One respondent from Nigeria indicated that Other was the most common, but no details were provided. Piped water supplies were ranked low in Kenya, southern Africa, India, Tanzania, Uganda, Nicaragua, Nepal, Vietnam, SW Africa and Nigeria. Table 2 Question 30 For RURAL areas, please rank the following drinking-water sources in use from 1-10 Total Developed Developing Weighted



Average Rank N

Piped water supply 5.3 7 27 8.5 1 10 3.5 10 17 Public standpipes 5.3 8 17 6.0 5 3 5.1 8 14 Borehole 7.1 2 24 7.3 3 7 7.0 2 17 Protected dug well 6.4 4 19 6.0 5 3 6.5 3 16 Protected spring 6.7 3 19 7.5 2 4 6.5 4 15 Unprotected well 5.6 6 17 4.0 8 3 6.0 5 14 Unprotected spring 5.8 5 18 5.8 7 4 5.8 7 14 Untreated surface water 5.0 10 21 2.2 9 5 5.9 6 16 Rainwater 5.3 9 20 6.5 4 6 4.7 9 14 Other 7.5 1 5 0.0 10 1 7.5 1 4 Connection to a public sewer was the most common sanitation option in use in urban areas in developing regions, but less common in developing regions. All respondents from developed regions ranked connection to a public sewer as most common. Connection to a public sewer was ranked lowest for Kenya and Nigeria, and with other ranks including 7 of 9 for Tanzania, SW Africa and the Himalayas, 5th for Nicaragua, 3rd for the Middle East, Pakistan, Vietnam and Malaysia, and 2nd for Pakistan and the Himalayas. Other sanitation options that were ranked most common included: Connection to a septic system (Malaysia, Tanzania, Vietnam and the Himalayas), pour-flush latrines (Pakistan, India, Thailand and the Middle East), VIPs (Sudan), public latrines (Nicaragua) and open latrines (Kenya). Once again, one respondent from Nigeria indicated that Other was the most common, but no details were provided. Table 3 Question 31 For URBAN areas, please rank the following sanitation options in use from 1-9. Total Developed Developing Weighted



Average Rank N

Connection to a public sewer 7.3 1 28 9.0 1 11 6.2 3 17 Pour-flush latrine 6.2 2 19 4.3 4 3 6.5 1 16 Connection to a septic 6.1 3 27 5.4 2 8 6.4 2 19


system Ventilated improved pit latrine 4.8 6 22 3.7 6 4 4.9 5 18 Service or bucket latrines 3.7 8 16 4.0 5 2 3.7 8 14 Public latrines 5.0 4 17 5.3 3 3 4.9 6 14 Open latrines 4.6 7 18 2.0 7 3 4.9 6 15 Open defaecation 3.1 9 17 1.3 8 4 3.6 9 13 Other 5.0 4 6 0.0 9 2 5.0 4 4 Connection to a public sewer was not the most common sanitation option in use in rural areas in developing regions, and was ranked very low in developing regions. Respondents from developed regions ranked connection to a septic tank (Australia, UK) and pour flush latrines (Albania) as most common. Respondents from developing regions ranked open latrines as most common. Connection to a public sewer was ranked lowest for the Himalayas, South Africa, Vietnam and Nigeria, and not applicable for Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, the Himalayas and Nicaragua. It was also ranked low in Malaysia, the UK and Pakistan (8th out of 9), the middle east (7th), and Pakistan and India (6th). Other sanitation options that were ranked most common included: Connection to a septic system (Australia, UK), pour-flush latrines (Vietnam, Albania, Malaysia), VIPs (Sudan, India, Nicaragua, South Africa), public latrines (Nicaragua) and open latrines (Tanzania, Pakistan, Zimbabwe). Open defecation was reported as most common in the Himalayas, Pakistan, SW Africa and Nigeria. Table 4 Question 32 For rural areas, please rank the following sanitation options in use from 1-9. Total Developed Developing Weighted



Average Rank N

Connection to a public sewer 5.1 6 24 7.8 3 10 2.1 9 14 Pour-flush latrine 4.1 9 16 8.0 1 2 3.6 8 14 Connection to a septic system 6.0 2 24 8.0 1 9 4.7 6 15 Ventilated improved pit latrine 5.4 4 18 6.0 4 2 5.4 3 16 Service or bucket latrines 4.7 8 14 6.0 4 2 4.4 7 12 Public latrines 4.8 7 14 5.0 6 2 4.8 5 12 Open latrines 6.4 1 19 1.7 7 3 7.4 1 16 Open defaecation 5.8 3 22 1.5 8 4 6.2 2 18 Other 5.3 5 5 0.0 9 1 5.3 4 4


Other included:

• In rural areas toilets are put over water, e.g. ponds or river. • Most of the drinking water systems for villages are gravity feed system in the high altitude

villages. Most of the villages have NO latrines and thus defaecate in the open. • Pour-flush latrine is a common practice • The bigger cities have sewerage systems, but still the coverage is small. Rural areas depend

mostly on latrines. • Traditional pit latrine consisting of hand dug pit, covered with logs & mud under grass roof

shelter with walls made of logs & mud

Section 8 Vulnerability and reliability (in terms of quality and quantity) of the options This section aimed to give a baseline for what drinking-water sources and sanitation options are presently vulnerable, if there are any regional or climatic trends to these vulnerabilities, and to get opinions on the likely impacts of rainfall changes on drinking-water sources and sanitation options. The most vulnerable drinking-water supply in developing regions at present, defined as having the highest failure rates, was piped water supplies, followed by public stand pipes and rainwater. For sanitation, the most vulnerable options were public sewers, open latrines, and public latrines. In developed regions, the vulnerabilities were considered to be lower for both drinking water supplies and sanitation. Rainwater and untreated surface water were the most vulnerable drinking water supplies. VIPs and public sewers were the most vulnerable forms of sanitation. For the three climate scenarios presented, increased rainfall, decreased rainfall, increased frequency and severity of storms, most respondents thought that there would be increased vulnerability in the water supplies, particularly in developing regions. Similarly, there was a general consensus for increased rainfall, the majority of water supply options were considered to have increased vulnerability, except for rainwater and boreholes. However, for developed regions, only public standpipes were considered to have increased vulnerability. In developing regions, unprotected and protected dug wells and springs were all considered to be subject to increased vulnerability, as were piped water supplies and public standpipes. For sanitation options, all were considered to have increased vulnerability. In this case, it was the developed regions, that had higher average than the developing regions, indicating a greater expectation of increased vulnerability. For decreased rainfall, all of the water supply options were generally considered to have increased vulnerability. For developed regions, boreholes, rainwater and piped water supplies were considered to have increased vulnerability. In developing regions, all water supply options were considered to have increased vulnerability, and quite a high level of increased vulnerability. For decreased rainfall, there was a clear split between the responses from developed and developing regions, with the responses from developed regions indicating that a decrease in vulnerability is expected with decreased rainfall. For developing regions the converse was true, except for service or bucket latrines, with open defecation and VIPs indicating no change expected. For increased storms, all of the water supply options were considered to have increased vulnerability. For developed regions, only unprotected wells and springs were not considered to have increased vulnerability. In developing regions, all water supply options were considered to have increased vulnerability, with unprotected wells and springs among the highest ranked.


For increased storms, there was a clear agreement between developed and developing regions that it would result in increased vulnerability for all forms of sanitation options, with public sewers ranking highly for both. For the different types of drinking-water supplies, piped water supplies had the highest number of responses indicating common failures, all of which were from developing regions.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Yes, commonly Yes,intermittently

Yes, rarely No

Piped water supply

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8


Yes, rarely No

Public standpipes

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9


Yes, rarely No

Borehole

0

1

2

3

4

5

6


Yes, rarely No

Protected dug well

0

1

2

3

4

5

6


Yes, rarely No

Protected spring

0

1

2

3

4

5

6


Yes, rarely No

Unprotected well


0

1

2

3

4

5

6


Yes, rarely No

Unprotected spring

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7


Yes, rarely No

Untreated surface water

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10


Yes, rarely No

Rainwater

Figure 23 Question 34 Have you experienced any failures in the drinking-water supply options over the past two years? The weighted averages in the tables below were calculated by the number of responses for a category times 5 for yes,commonly, 3 for yes, intermittently, and 1 for yes, rarely, which was then divided by the total number of responses (not including N/A responses). The most vulnerable supplies at present in developing regions were piped water supplies, public stand pipes and rainwater. For developed regions, the vulnerabilities were lower, as indicated by the lower weighted averages, with rainwater and untreated surface water the most vulnerable. Table 5 Question 34 Have you experienced any failures in the drinking-water supply options over the past two years? Total Developed Developing Weighted

Average Rank Weighted


Average Rank

Piped water supply 2.6 2 0.7 6 3.7 1 Public standpipes 2.8 1 1.0 3 3.2 2 Borehole 1.8 7 1.0 3 2.1 9 Protected dug well 2 5 0.3 7 2.5 4 Protected spring 1.8 8 0.3 7 2.2 7 Unprotected well 1.8 8 0.3 9 2.4 6 Unprotected spring 1.9 6 1.0 3 2.2 7 Untreated surface water 2.3 4 1.5 2 2.5 4 Rainwater 2.6 3 1.8 1 3.0 3


There were 22 responses to Question 35, If yes, what were the circumstances around the failure(s) of the drinking water supply options? (eg technology failure, pollution event, climatic event..etc). Responses included:

• Pipes brake, are damaged. Poor installation techniques Poor springs are tapped into thus they dry up during the dry seasons Poor spring protection. Pollution through people and animals

• As the area, in spite of heavy rainfall during monsoon, experiences a fairly long dry season, drinking water sources often dry up, leading to supply failures. Paradoxically, flooding also disrupts water supply, especially in low-lying, flood and waterlogging-prone areas.

• Broken pipes • Climate change Technology failure • Cryptosporidium outbreak • Falling levels of water tables, lake used for urban water supply, less rainfall. • In piped water supply, the most common problem is leaks. In general in urban areas the

unaccounted for water is over 50% and most of them are between 40% and 50%. Polution is a bigger problem in rural areas with the presence of arsenic and organic matter.

• increased urbanisation, technology failure, pollution events, managerial shortcomings, climatic events

• Insufficient infrastructural capacity, i.e., the municipality does not have capacity to provide purified water to a growing population. The municipality resorts to rationing the available purified water whilst embarking on upgrading the water treatment works.

• maintenance failures, power supply failures etc. • Mis-management of the DWS options. • Pipe breakages due to drought. Floods. • Piratage of pipeline inducing local pollution; increasing of turbidity after heavy rain or

anthropogenic consequences (people walking in a stream path, construction close to catchment...)

• switching over to new water treatment plants • Technology as well as water resource constraints • Technology failure • Technology failure and climate events • technology failure and lack of infastructure due to mispent funding • Technology failure such as power cuts resulting in pumping failure in urban areas, lowering

of water table in certain areas, especially hills, drying of streams and rivers in hill areas, etc. • technology failure, pollution event, climatic event, poor management system in Albania etc. • technology: bad concrete resulting in cracks; bad or missing maintenance no or

inappropriate treatment of raw water flooding of wells • treatment problems


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10


Yes, rarely No

Connection to a public sewer

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10


Yes, rarely No

Connection to a septic system

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5


Yes, rarely No

Pour- flush latrine

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7


Yes, rarely No

Ventilated improved pit latrine

0

1

2

3

4

5

6


Yes, rarely No

Public latrines

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5


Yes, rarely No

Open latrines

Figure 24 Question 36 Have you experienced any failures in the sanitation options over the past two years? The most vulnerable sanitation options at present in developing regions were public sewers, open latrines, and public latrines. For developed regions, the vulnerabilities were lower than for developing regions, VIPs and public sewers the most vulnerable. Table 6 Question 36 Have you experienced any failures in the sanitation options over the past two years? Total Developed Developing Weighted



Average Rank

Connection to a public sewer 2.0 3 0.7 2 2.8 1 Pour-flush latrine 1.4 6 0.6 3 1.8 5 Connection to a septic system 1.5 4 0.3 4 2.0 4


Ventilated improved pit latrine 1.5 5 1.0 1 1.6 6 Public latrines 2.0 2 0.3 4 2.4 3 Open latrines 2.2 1 0.0 6 2.7 2 There were 17 responses to Question 37, If yes, what were the circumstances around the failure(s) of the sanitation options? (eg technology failure, climatic event..etc). Responses included:

• Poor piping. Not able to flush as no water is available. poor latrine construction. poor maintenance

• Again, technology failure and mis management. • As explained in 35, flooding can lead to sanitation disruptions. In urban areas, technology

failure in the form of power cuts can disrupt water supply which in turn leads to sanitation failure.

• Block and dirty public latrine • Bore failure - led to the closure of unveristy's toilets • flooding from surface water • flooding of the systems; cracks in septic tanks; overflow of septic tanks; connection of septic

tanks to surface water; blocking of systems; using toilets above a pond which is used for raising fish toilets at rivers next to places where people bath, do their laundry and prepare food

• Flooding of urban and rural areas is a major factor contributing to sanitatioin failure. • Increasing of water table and infiltration in the pit, concluding on over-flow and bad smell • lack of infrastucture • Overflows. Pipe breakage. • Technology failure and climate events • technology failure, managerial shorcomings, political instability, climatic events (may be) • technology failure, pollution event, poor management system in Albania etc. • The problem in urban areas with public sewerage is socio-economic, the infrastructure is, in

many cases, built but many houses do not connect due to lack of money. In urban areas the introduction of latrines has been well received, but still some consider it a source of polution due to misplaced are poorly built infrastructure

• treatmet failures • When there is no water from the distribution pipes as a result of municipal rationing and the

therefore no water to flush the toilets. Now resort to keeping a container of water nearby.


02468

10121416

Increasedvulnerability

Decreasedvulnerability

No change

Piped water supply

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14



No change

Public standpipes

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14



No change

Borehole

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14



No change

Protected dug well

0

2

4

6

8

10

12



No change

Protected spring

024

68

1012

1416



No change

Unprotected well


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14



No change

Unprotected spring

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14



No change


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14



No change

Rainwater

Figure Question 38 In your opinion, if climate change is predicted to result in a significant increase in rainfall for the area defined in Section 3, how would that affect the vulnerability to failure of the drinking-water supply options? For each of the climate scenarios, weighted averages were calculated by multiplying the number of responses by 1 for increase vulnerability, -1 for decreased vulnerability, of 0 for no change, and then divided the sum of these by the total number of responses. For increased rainfall, the majority of water supply options were considered to have increased vulnerability, except for rainwater and boreholes. However, for developed regions, only public standpipes were considered to have increased vulnerability. In developing regions, unprotected and protected dug wells and springs were all considered to be subject to increased vulnerability, as were piped water supplies and public standpipes. Table 7 Question 38 Weighted average for water supply options for increased rainfall Total Developed Developing Weighted



Average Rank

Piped water supply 0.2 6 -0.1 4 0.4 4 Public standpipes 0.4 2 0.3 1 0.4 5 Borehole 0.0 8 -0.1 5 0.1 8 Protected dug well 0.4 2 0.0 2 0.4 2 Protected spring 0.3 4 0.0 2 0.4 6 Unprotected well 0.5 1 -0.5 9 0.7 1 Unprotected spring 0.3 4 -0.3 6 0.4 3 Untreated surface water 0.2 7 -0.3 6 0.3 7 Rainwater -0.3 9 -0.4 8 -0.3 9


No key problems provided.

0

5

10

15

20

25



No change

Piped water supply

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14



No change

Public standpipes

0

5

10

15

20

25



No change

Borehole

02468

1012141618



No change

Protected dug well

02468

10121416



No change

Protected spring

024

68

1012

1416



No change

Unprotected well


02468

10121416



No change

Unprotected spring

02468

101214161820



No change


02468

101214161820



No change

Rainw ater

Figure Question 39 In your opinion, if climate change is predicted to result in a significant decrease in rainfall for the area defined in Section 3, how would that affect the vulnerability to failure of the drinking-water supply options? For decreased rainfall, all of the water supply options were generally considered to have increased vulnerability. For developed regions, boreholes, rainwater and piped water supplies were considered to have increased vulnerability. In developing regions, all water supply options were considered to have increased vulnerability, and quite a high level of increased vulnerability. Table 8 Question 39 Weighted average for water supply options for decreased rainfall Total Developed Developing Weighted



Average Rank

Piped water supply 0.6 5 0.5 3 0.6 7 Public standpipes 0.4 8 -0.3 7 0.6 8 Borehole 0.7 2 0.7 1 0.7 4 Protected dug well 0.7 3 0.0 4 0.8 2 Protected spring 0.4 9 -0.3 7 0.5 9 Unprotected well 0.5 7 0.0 4 0.6 6 Unprotected spring 0.5 6 -0.7 9 0.7 5 Untreated surface water 0.7 4 0.0 4 0.8 3 Rainwater 0.9 1 0.6 2 0.9 1 Do the different responses for developing and developed represent the different concerns. For example, unprotected springs. Developed country respondents suggested there would be no change or decreased vulnerability, perhaps suggesting that their greatest concern is water quality, whereas


respondents from developing countries generally expected increased vulnerability, suggesting water quantity is their concern. Key problems or benefits included:

• access to clean drinking water of all forms will be the issue, which will decrease sharply • decline in water levels will increase scarcity dramatically • Decreased run-off is an advantage as far as surface water contamination is concerned.

Problem of decreased ground water recharge • In general less rain means less availability of water (potable or polluted) and MORE

vulnerability to have enough water for people, animal and agriculture • In the lean season, water scarcity is likely to increase vulnerability. • Key problem will be insufficient surface or groundwater recharge to meet the daily basic

needs of the human population • less rainfall will result in less drinking water in many areas. The groundwater and the

surface water are often not suitable for consumption. • Less water in resevours, deeper in well/boreholes • Scarcity of water, especially in the lean season, is likely to result in severe water scarcity. • Seawater desalination supplies being developed

The fact that there were more problems listed for a decrease in rainfall, rather than an increase, suggests that this is what they are worried about.

0

5

10

15

20

25



No change

Piped water supply

024

68

1012

1416



No change

Public standpipes

02468

10121416



No change

Borehole

02468

101214161820



No change

Protected dug well


02468

10121416



No change

Protected spring

02468

1012141618



No change

Unprotected well

02468

1012141618



No change

Unprotected spring

02468

101214161820



No change


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14



No change

Rainwater

Figure Question 40 In your opinion, if climate change is predicted to result in a significant increase in the frequency and severity of storms for the area defined in Section 3, how would that affect the vulnerability to failure of the drinking-water supply options? For increased storms, all of the water supply options were considered to have increased vulnerability. For developed regions, only unprotected wells and springs were not considered to have increased vulnerability. In developing regions, all water supply options were considered to have increased vulnerability, with unprotected wells and springs among the highest ranked. Table 9 Question 40 Weighted average for water supply options for increased storms Total Developed Developing Weighted



Average Rank

Piped water supply 0.6 6 0.5 4 0.7 4


Public standpipes 0.7 3 0.5 2 0.7 6 Borehole 0.4 9 0.3 6 0.5 9 Protected dug well 0.7 1 0.3 7 0.8 1 Protected spring 0.5 8 0.5 2 0.6 8 Unprotected well 0.7 4 0.0 8 0.8 2 Unprotected spring 0.6 5 0.0 8 0.8 3 Untreated surface water 0.7 1 0.8 1 0.7 4 Rainwater 0.6 7 0.4 5 0.6 7 Key problems and benefits included:

• Again any increase in the current severity of the tropical rain storms will increas flooding due to lack of good drainage infrastructure

• Being a flood-prone area, vulnerability is expected to increase for the categories indicated. • In general more storm will bring more damages to the established infrastructures thus

general increased vulnerabilities for all technologies. • Increased incidences of hydro-epidemilogical incidences. There is also the destruction of

hydrological structures • loss of physical infrastructures that supply water to the public will be adversely affected. • Power outages affecting infrstructure operation • Run off to rivers will increase & increased ground water level when there is an increase in

frequency of storm • Storms and flashfloods can result in entry of contaminated run off and resultant deterioration

of water quality. More frequent power disruptions will also hinder water supply, especially in urban areas.

• Storms will result in destruction of infrastructure and flooding


0

5

10

15

20

25



No change


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14



No change

Pour-flush latrine

02468

10121416



No change


024

68

1012

1416



No change


0

2

4

6

8

10

12



No change

Service or bucket latrines

024

68

1012

1416



No change

Public latrines

02468

10121416



No change

Open latrines

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14



No change

Open defaecation

Figure 25 Question 41 In your opinion, if climate change is predicted to result in a significant increase in rainfall for the area defined in Section 3, how would that affect the vulnerability to failure of the sanitation options?


For increased rainfall, all of the sanitation options were considered to have increased vulnerability. In this case, it was the developed regions, that had higher average than the developing regions, indicating a greater expectation of increased vulnerability. Table 10 Question 41 Weighted average for sanitation options for increased rainfall Total Developed Developing Weighted



Average Rank

Connection to a public sewer 0.6 2 0.8 1 0.6 3 Pour-flush latrine 0.5 5 0.7 3 0.4 5 Connection to a septic system 0.5 6 0.8 1 0.4 8 Ventilated improved pit latrine 0.5 4 0.7 3 0.5 4 Service or bucket latrines 0.4 8 0.7 3 0.4 7 Public latrines 0.5 6 0.7 3 0.4 6 Open latrines 0.6 3 0.7 3 0.6 2 Open defaecation 0.8 1 0.7 3 0.8 1 Key problems and benefits included:

• basically due to flooding all existing sanitary systems are likely to be affected, because they are not build with respect to heavy rainfall.

• Being a flood-prone area, vulnerability is expected to increase for the categories indicated. • Flooding will disrupt these facilities. • Increased rain fall will cause pit latrines to collapse • In general hygiene will be less and thus all latrine technologies in such poor areas will be

effected negaltive • Increase in volunme of run-off puts pressure on public sewer systems as there is

interconnection • increased incidences of water borne diseases • septic tank tail drains not working in wetter conditions • Sewer Inflow/Infiltration


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14



No change


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14



No change

Pour-flush latrine

0

2

4

6

8

10

12



No change


012

3456

78



No change


01234

5678



No change


0123456789

10



No change

Public latrines

01234

5678



No change

Open latrines

012

3456

78



No change

Open defaecation

Figure 26 Question 42 In your opinion, if climate change is predicted to result in a significant decrease in rainfall for the area defined in Section 3, how would that affect the vulnerability to failure of the sanitation options?


For decreased rainfall, there was a clear split between the responses from developed and developing regions, with the responses from developed regions indicating that a decrease in vulnerability is expected with decreased rainfall. For developing regions the converse was true, except for service or bucket latrines, with open defecation and VIPs indicating no change expected. Table 11 Question 42 Weighted average for sanitation options for decreased rainfall Total Developed Developing Weighted



Average Rank

Connection to a public sewer 0.1 4 -0.2 1 0.2 3 Pour-flush latrine 0.3 1 -0.3 3 0.4 1 Connection to a septic system 0.1 2 -0.2 1 0.2 2 Ventilated improved pit latrine -0.1 6 -0.3 3 0.0 6 Service or bucket latrines -0.1 8 -0.3 3 -0.1 8 Public latrines 0.1 3 -0.3 3 0.2 4 Open latrines 0.1 5 -0.3 3 0.1 5 Open defaecation -0.1 7 -0.3 3 0.0 6 Key problems and benefits included:

• In general decrease in rainfall would mean that again the hygiene of latrines is at stake as they can not be cleaned, flushed etc as they should be...

• opposite of the above. • Pits for latrines will remaind firm giving succesiful VIP & traditional pit latrine

constructions • Scarcity of water can become a major problem. • There will less water available for use in flush sort of toilets • Water scarcity may increase vulnerability. • water shortage will reduce the hygenic conditions. less rainfall will perhaps decrease the

probability of transmission of diseases because of reduced leaching and washing of excreta.


0

5

10

15

20

25

30



No change


024

68

1012

1416



No change

Pour-flush latrine

02468

1012141618



No change


02468

101214161820



No change


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14



No change


02468

1012141618



No change

Public latrines

02468

10121416



No change

Open latrines

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14



No change

Open defaecation


Figure 27 Question 43 In your opinion, if climate change is predicted to result in a significant increase in the frequency and severity of storms for the area defined in Section 3, how would that affect the vulnerability to failure of the sanitation options? For increased storms, there was a clear agreement between developed and developing regions that it would result in increased vulnerability for all forms of sanitation options, with public sewers ranking highly for both. Table 12 Question 43 Weighted average for sanitation options for increased storms Total Developed Developing Weighted



Average Rank

Connection to a public sewer 0.8 1 0.8 2 0.8 2 Pour-flush latrine 0.6 6 0.5 3 0.6 6 Connection to a septic system 0.6 7 0.8 1 0.5 8 Ventilated improved pit latrine 0.7 2 0.5 3 0.8 1 Service or bucket latrines 0.5 8 0.5 3 0.5 7 Public latrines 0.6 4 0.5 3 0.7 4 Open latrines 0.6 5 0.5 3 0.6 5 Open defaecation 0.7 3 0.5 3 0.7 3 Key problems and benefits included:

• Apart from destruction of sanitation facilities, severe storms will increase incidences of hydro-epidemilogical problems and health

• as 40 above • Being a flood-prone area, vulnerability is expected to increase for the categories indicated. • Disruption of power supply will affect these systems. • In general severe storms will destroy/damage installed infrastructures and thus the

availability, hygiene and useability of the sanitation technologies can not be guaranteed. • loss of infrastructure and transmisstion of diseases will rise. • Pit will collapse • Sewer Inflow/Infiltration

Summary tables of vulnerabilities Table 13 Vulnerabilities of water supply options at present, and under defined climate change conditions Technologies Current Wetter Drier Stormier Piped water supply 2.6 0.2 0.6 0.6. Public standpipes 2.8 0.4 0.4 0.7 Borehole 1.8 0.0 0.7 0.4 Protected dug well 2 0.4 0.7 0.7 Protected spring 1.8 0.3 0.4 0.5 Unprotected well 1.8 0.5 0.5 0.7 Unprotected spring 1.9 0.3 0.5 0.6 Untreated surface water 2.3 0.2 0.7 0.7 Rainwater 2.6 -0.3 0.9 0.6


For present, failure from common to rare 5 4 3 2 1 0

For future, defined climatic conditions 1.0 0.5 0 -0.5 -1.0

Table 14 Vulnerabilities of water supply options in developed regions at present, and under defined climate change conditions Technologies Current Wetter Drier Stormier Piped water supply 0.7 -0.1 0.5 0.5 Public standpipes 1.0 0.3 -0.3 0.5 Borehole 1.0 -0.1 0.7 0.3 Protected dug well 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 Protected spring 0.3 0.0 -0.3 0.5 Unprotected well 0.3 -0.5 0.0 0.0 Unprotected spring 1.0 -0.3 -0.7 0.0 Untreated surface water 1.5 -0.3 0.0 0.8 Rainwater 1.8 -0.4 0.6 0.4 Table 15 Vulnerabilities of water supply options in developing regions at present, and under defined climate change conditions Technologies Current Wetter Drier Stormier Piped water supply 3.7 0.4 0.6 0.7 Public standpipes 3.2 0.4 0.6 0.7 Borehole 2.1 0.1 0.7 0.5 Protected dug well 2.5 0.4 0.8 0.8 Protected spring 2.2 0.4 0.5 0.6 Unprotected well 2.4 0.7 0.6 0.8 Unprotected spring 2.2 0.4 0.7 0.8 Untreated surface water 2.5 0.3 0.8 0.7 Rainwater 3.0 -0.3 0.9 0.6 Table 16 Vulnerabilities of sanitation options at present, and under defined climate change conditions Technologies Current Wetter Drier Stormier Connection to a public sewer 2.0 0.6 0.1 0.8 Pour-flush latrine 1.4 0.5 0.3 0.6 Connection to a septic system 1.5

0.5 0.1 0.6

Ventilated improved pit latrine 1.5 0.5 -0.1 0.7 Service or bucket latrines 0.4 -0.1 0.5 Public latrines 2.0 0.5 0.1 0.6 Open latrines 2.2 0.6 0.1 0.6 Open defaecation 0.8 -0.1 0.7 For present, failure from common to rare 5 4 3 2 1 0

For future 1.0 0.5 0 -0.5 -1.0

Table 17 Vulnerabilities of sanitation options in developed regions at present, and under defined climate change conditions Technologies Current Wetter Drier Stormier


Connection to a public sewer 0.7 0.8 -0.2 0.8 Pour-flush latrine 0.6 0.7 -0.3 0.5 Connection to a septic system 0.3 0.8 -0.2 0.8 Ventilated improved pit latrine 1.0 0.7 -0.3 0.5 Service or bucket latrines 0.7 -0.3 0.5 Public latrines 0.3 0.7 -0.3 0.5 Open latrines 0 0.7 -0.3 0.5 Open defaecation 0.7 -0.3 0.5 Table 18 Vulnerabilities of sanitation options in developing regions at present, and under defined climate change conditions Technologies Current Wetter Drier Stormier Connection to a public sewer 2.8 0.6 0.2 0.8 Pour-flush latrine 1.8 0.4 0.4 0.6 Connection to a septic system 2.0 0.4 0.2 0.5 Ventilated improved pit latrine 1.6 0.5 0.0 0.8 Service or bucket latrines 0.4 -0.1 0.5 Public latrines 2.4 0.4 0.2 0.7 Open latrines 2.7 0.6 0.1 0.6 Open defaecation 0.8 0.0 0.7

Section 9 Changing drinking-water supply and sanitation options The aim of this section was to gain insight into how the JMP data might be changing in the future to compare to the predictions, and if climate change has a role in the decision making processes. Analysis: yes/no – how it relates to the JMP and out predictions of future populations Drivers for change of drinking water supplies or sanitation? Analysis: compare rankings between regions and organisations Generally, use of improved drinking water supplies and sanitation options were thought to be increasing, although there were cases where there were decreases in use of the improved options, particularly in south Asia and the Himalayan region and southern Africa. As a driver for changing the use of different water and sanitation options, climate change ranked higher for water supplies than for sanitation. For both, economy was ranked highest followed by community preferences and improved technology. Climate change ranked highest for drinking water supplies in developed regions, but only sixth for developing regions. For sanitation, the rankings were sixth and eighth. In general, the use of improved water supplies was reported to be increasing, but there were cases where unimproved supplies were increasing or improved supplies were decreasing. Piped water supplies were reported to be decreasing in Sudan, Kenya, Australia and the UK; public standpipes in the Middle East, Vietnam, Albania, India, Sri Lanka and the UK; boreholes in the Himalayas; protected dug wells in India and the UK; protected springs in India, the UK, Uganda and the Middle East; and rainwater in the UK and Nicaragua. Unprotected wells and springs were reported to be increasing by the same respondents in the Himalayas, Thailand, Pakistan, South Africa and Sri


Lanka; and the use of untreated surface water was reported to be increasing in the Middle East, the Himalayas, Pakistan, South Africa and Australia.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Increasing use Decreasing use No change

Piped water supply

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14


Public standpipes

02468

101214161820


Borehole

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16


Protected dug well

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16


Protected spring

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14


Unprotected well


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14


Unprotected spring

0

2

4

6

8

10

12



0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16


Rainwater

Figure 28 Question 44 How is the use of drinking water-supply options changing? To judge the drivers behind these changes in drinking water supplies, we asked respondents to rank the drivers in the Table. For respondents from countries in developed regions, climate change was the biggest driver for changes in drinking water supply use, followed by improvements in technology and economy. For countries in developing regions, climate change ranked sixth, behind economy, community preferences, improved technology, ease of use and government policy. Responses to these questions were based on own perception, followed by discussions with local community and monitoring. Responses to Other included “through own NGO projects implemented” and “widely reported”. Table 19 Question 45 What are the drivers behind the changes in use of drinking-water supplies? Total Developed Developing Weighted



Average Rank N

Economy 8.4 1 21 7.0 5 3 8.7 1 18 Ease of use 6.9 5 17 5.5 7 2 7.1 4 15 Climate change 4.9 7 21 9.2 1 6 5.9 6 15 Improved technology 7.6 3 20 8.8 2 4 7.3 3 16 Community preferences 8.0 2 23 6.5 6 4 8.3 2 19 Risk assessments 5.7 6 18 8.6 3 5 4.6 7 13 Government 7.1 4 22 8.4 4 5 6.8 5 17


policy/legislation NGO policy 4.3 8 19 3.0 8 3 4.5 8 16 Other (please specify) 2.0 9 2 2.0 9 1 2.0 9 1

Total

26%

17%49%

5% 3%

Developed

13%

20%

53%

7%7%

Developing

30%

16%

47%

5% 2%Discussion with localcommunityMonitoring data

Own perception

Referenced report

Other

Figure 29 Question 46 Is your answer for the previous two questions based on In general, the use of improved sanitation was reported to be increasing, but as with water supplies, there were cases where unimproved sanitation methods were increasing or improved methods were decreasing. Connection to a public sewer was reported to be decreasing in Kenya and the UK; septic system connection in Kenya, the UK and Australia; pour-flush latrines in Albania, Kenya, the UK and Malaysia; and ventilated improved pit latrines in Kenya, Sri Lanka and the UK. Bucket latrines were reported to be increasing in the Himalayas, India, Pakistan and Nigeria; public latrines in the Himalayas, India, Tanzania, South Africa, Albania, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Nigeria, Zimbabwe; open latrines in Kenya, southern Africa, South Africa, the Himalayas and Nicaragua; and open defecation in Kenya and southern Africa.


02468

101214161820



0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14


Pour-flush latrine

02468

101214161820



0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14



0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8



0

2

4

6

8

10

12


Public latrines

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14


Open latrines

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16


Open defaecation

Figure 30 Question 47 How is the use of sanitation options changing?


For respondents from countries in developed regions, risk assessments were the highest rank drivers, followed by improved technology and government policy/legislation. Climate change ranked sixth. For respondents from countries in developing regions, economy was the highest ranked driver, followed by community preferences and ease of use. Climate change ranked eighth. Responses to these questions were based on own perception, followed by discussions with local community and monitoring. Table 20 Question 48 What are the drivers behind the changes in use of sanitation? Total Developed Developing Weighted



Average Rank N

Economy 8.3 1 22 7.0 4 4 8.6 1 18 Ease of use 7.1 5 19 5.7 7 3 7.4 3 16 Climate change 4.9 7 16 5.8 6 4 4.6 8 12 Improved technology 7.7 3 21 8.8 2 5 7.3 4 16 Community preferences 7.9 2 22 6.7 5 3 8.1 2 19 Risk assessments 6.2 6 18 9.0 1 6 4.8 7 12 Government policy/legislation 7.4 4 22 8.2 3 5 7.2 5 17 NGO policy 4.8 8 18 3.3 9 3 5.1 6 15 Other (please specify) 3.7 9 3 4.5 8 2 2.0 9 1

Total

25%

12%

46%

5%

12%

Developed

15%

8%

69%

0%

8%

Developing

28%

13%

40%

6%

13% Discussion with localcommunityMonitoring data

Own perception

Referenced report

Other

Figure 31 Question 49 Is your answer for the previous two questions based on

Section 10 Policy issues The aim of this section was to establish regional vulnerabilities based on the policies that are in place, and asking if these policies are adequate for current and future climatic conditions, and if they are being implemented appropriately.


For present climatic conditions, government policies for water were generally adequate (71 %) in developed regions but inadequate (61 %) in developing regions. NGO policies were seen as inadequate by 75 % of respondents from developing regions. For future climatic conditions, a greater proportion thought that the policies were inadequate, including 81 % of government and 92 % of NGO policies. In total, there were only four respondents who thought that policies were suitable for predicted climatic conditions; they were from Australia, Tanzania, the UK and South Africa. No trend was evident for the answers in questions 50 and 51 in the organisation where the respondent worked.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14


Government

0

2

4

6

8

10

12


NGO

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7


Other

AdequateInadequate

Figure 32 Question 50 For drinking-water supply options, are the relevant policies adequate or inadequate for present conditions


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14


Government

0

2

4

6

8

10

12


NGO

0

1

2

3

4

5

6


Other

AdequateInadequate

Figure 33 Question 50 For drinking-water supply options, are the relevant policies adequate or inadequate for predicted conditions

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14


Government

0

2

4

6

8

10

12


NGO

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7


Other

AdequateInadequate

Figure 34 Question 51 For sanitation options, are the relevant policies adequate or inadequate for present conditions


For sanitation policies, it is a similar picture to that for drinking water policies. Respondents in developed regions generally thought the government policies were adequate for the present situation, but not for predicted climate conditions. Respondents from developing regions were more inclined to feel than government, NGO and other policies were all inadequate for current and predicted climatic conditions. Five respondents thought that the policies were adequate for predicted climatic conditions, including from Tanzania, South Africa, Australia, the UK and Sri Lanka (and the Maldives, which are of course threatened by rising sea levels).

02468

10121416


Government

0

2

4

6

8

10

12


NGO

0

1

2

3

4

5

6


Other

AdequateInadequate

Figure 35 Question 51 For sanitation options, are the relevant policies adequate or inadequate for predicted conditions Approximately half of the 29 respondents to question 52 were aware of policies that deal with issues surrounding potential climate changes and drinking-water and sanitation options, with a higher proportion of respondents from developing countries answering that they were aware of such policies.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Total

Developed

Developing

YesNo


Figure 36 Question 52 For the area defined in Section 3, are you aware of any policies (governmental, NGO or other) in place or in draft that deal with issues surrounding potential climate changes and drinking-water and sanitation options? The text responses included:

• Decree that bans composting toilets in areas affected from flooding • Environmental Protection Act, Water supply Act, Sustainable development policy of the

goverment developed in the mid 90s. Nepal is soon to form new direct and indirect policies for drinking water and sanitation

• Moreso working documents and memorandums. • New projects will start soon to draft the needed policies • Refer attached • Security by diversity of water supplies policy • The National water policy 2002 • There is a water law in the country, that speaks of climate change. Plus many donnor

institutions are bringing the issue at hand. Still there is little action taken. • TO PROVIDE SAFE DRINKING WATER TO ALL,. • Water Research Commission (WRC) of South Africa is calling for proposals on how best to

empower the municipalities to manage and mitigate the their delivery services (water & sanitation) in light of predicted climate changes. The Limpopo Provincial Government is co-hosting a conference on climate change in the near future and is inviting research papers.

The proportion of respondents who knew of changes to policy, including policies that have been reviewed, are under review or for which there is a planned review, was 39 % (36 % in developing regions and 45 % in developed regions) for water, and 30 % for sanitation (27 % in developing regions and 36 % in developed regions). The lower concern about the impact of climate change on sanitation is reflected throughout this survey.

02468

10121416

Has beenreviewed

Underreview

Plannedreview

No review Don'tknow

Drinking-water supply

TotalDevelopedDeveloping

02468

1012141618

Has beenreviewed

Underreview

Plannedreview

No review Don'tknow

Sanitation

Figure 37 Question 53 Are you aware of any planned changes to policy in the area of drinking-water supply and sanitation in response to climate change? In answer to Question 54, Give your view as to how policies are being implemented in the area defined in Section 3 with respect to drinking-water supply and sanitation to address climate change, there were 15 responses:

• Climate change is not adressed • goverment • Government policies have been formulated which have been under review. • Government policies.


• government, NGO or other policies. • I am not aware of any policies in effect that or in draft relating to water and sanitation in

relation to climate change in this region • implemented without public participation. • In my view, we are adopting short-term, crisis management oriented policies. These need to

be reviewed and modified in the backdrop of the data available on climate change and the possible impact on water resources in this area.

• It appears policies are drafted but never given out for implementation, either they are budgeted or it is corruption that make policies not implemented

• Mostly NGOS, INGOs, international AID from foreign countries has been most influential in linking these issues with climate change

• On the fly !! • Reuse of wastewater and third pipe schemes are being developed • The policies are being implemented through the on going water and sanitation programme

2006 - 2025. • There are government plans and policies, but there is little follow up over the years. New

investments have not taken into account the affection of climate change, • There are no policies being implemented at government and NGO level in the area we work.

We have based our technologies for drinking water and sanitation projects on the local culture and the communities ability to participate in the projects and to use and be able to maintain the new infrastructure.


Appendix 4 Full questionnaire results · Full questionnaire results RCPEH Report Appendices Page 28...

Documents

Transcript of Appendix 4 Full questionnaire results · Full questionnaire results RCPEH Report Appendices Page 28...