ASSESSING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF COMMUNITY

PARTICIPATION IN WATER FACILITY MANAGEMENT: A CASE

OF ABENSU AND POKUASE COMMUNITIES, GA WEST

MUNICIPAL ASSEMBLY

OCTOBER, 2014

i

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

ii

DEDICATION

To my beloved parents and siblings.

iii

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 Non-

Governmental 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.

iv

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.

v

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

vi

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

vii

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

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figures Page

Figure 1: Level of Education . . . . . . . 44

Figure 2: Water sources reported in study communities . . . 45

Figure 3: An interview with the District Water and Sanitation Officer (DWSO) 82

Figure 4: A Focus Group Discussion at Abensu . . . . 82

Figure 5: A well- maintained mechanised borehole at Abensu . . 83

Figure 6: A well- protected mechanised water pumping station at Abensu . 83

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

Table 4.1 Being a resident . . . . . . . 40

Table 4.2 Years of being a resident . . . . . . 40

Table 4.3 Sex of Respondents . . . . . . . 41

Table 4.4 Age Structure . . . . . . . 42

Table 4.5 Marital Status of Household Respondents . . . . 42

Table 4.6 Occupation: of Household Respondents . . . . 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

Table 4.10: Gender Composition in WATSAN . . . . 56

x

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

xi

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

1

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).

2

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

3

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.

4

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?

5

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

6

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

7

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.

8

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.

9

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

10

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

11

(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 village-

based 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 well-

developed, multi- faceted system of post-construction support. A central actor in the post-

construction 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.

12

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.

13

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

14

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

15

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,

16

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

17

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

18

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.

19

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

20

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.

21

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 self-

initiated, 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 context-

specific 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

22

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 community-

based 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

23

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

24

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

25

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 constraints-

internal 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:

26

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

27

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

28

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

29

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).

30

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

31

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.

32

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

33

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.

34

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.

35

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.

36

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. Data collected were transcribed,

categorised and discussed.

37

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

38

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.

39

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 socio-

economic 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

40

Table 4.1 Being a Resident

Resident Status Frequency Percentage

Yes 72 100

No 0 0

Total 72 100

Source: Authors Field Work, 2014

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 Frequency Percentage

10 years and below 6 8.3

11-20 years 21 29.2

21-30 years 18 25

31years and above 27 37.5

Total 72 100